JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The price of moral-vanity: A catalogue of Green economic disaster unfolds across Europe

The real cost of moral-vanity, of name-calling, poor reasoning, selecting one’s evidence, and the triumph of doing things because they “feel-good” rather than because of the cold hard numbers, is measured in the trillions. This disaster was entirely foreseeable, totally predictable, and completely unnecessary.

Thanks to Benny Peiser and The Australian, the utter folly is laid bare.

AS country after country abandons, curtails or reneges on once-generous support for renewable energy, Europe is beginning to realise that its green energy strategy is dying on the vine. Green dreams are giving way to hard economic realities.

Slowly but gradually, Europe is awakening to a green energy crisis, an economic and political debacle that is entirely self-inflicted.

The media is finally starting to do what it should have done ten years ago:

A study by British public relations consultancy CCGroup analysed 138 articles about renewables published during July last year in the five most widely circulated British national newspapers: The Sun, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and Daily Mirror, which enjoy a combined daily circulation of about 6.5 million.

“The analysis revealed a number of trends in the reporting of renewable energy news,” the study found. “First and foremost, the temperature of the media’s sentiment toward the renewables industry is cold. More than 51 per cent of the 138 articles analysed were either negative or very negative toward the industry.”

The flagrantly wasted resources are simply obscene:

EU members states have spent about €600 billion ($882bn) on renewable energy projects since 2005, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Germany’s green energy transition alone may cost consumers up to €1 trillion by 2030, the German government recently warned.

That this kind of waste and mismanagement should have occurred under Western Governments when the financial nonsense of it was obvious long before the money was spent, stands as an argument against Big-Government and a warning of where gullible Green economics leads. Real people have toiled fruitlessly across Europe to pay for these ridiculous schemes. Their quality of life reduced by the failure of big-government, of mentally weak, ethically bankrupt academics, of poorly trained overconfident poseur journalists.

Germany is a Green basketcase:

  • German’s electricity bills have doubled since 2000. (Germans pay about 40c a KWH.)
  • Up to 800,000 Germans have had their power cut off because they couldn’t pay their bills.
  • Germany’s renewable energy levy rose from €14bn to €20bn in one year as wind and solar expanded. German households will pay a renewables surcharge of €7.2bn this year alone.
  • Germany has more than half the worlds solar panels. They generated 40% of Germany’s peak electricity demand on June 6, but practically 0% during the darkest weeks of winter.
  • Seimens closed it’s entire solar division, losing about €1bn. Bosch is getting out too, it has lost about €2.4bn.
  • Solar investors have lost almost about €25bn in the past year. More than 5,000 companies associated with solar have closed since 2010.
  • Germany has phased out nuclear, but is adding 20 coal fired stations. Gas power can’t compete with cheap coal or subsidized renewables and 20% of gas power plants are facing shutdown.
  • Despite the river of money paid to renewables, emissions have risen in Germany for the last two years.

It’s a case of lose-lose all around, everyone — taxpayers, investors, renewables companies, gas companies — all lost. Waste and stupidity on a colossal scale.

The pattern is similar in the rest of the EU:

  • Two weeks ago the Czech Government has decided to end all subsidies.
  • Spain owes €126bn to renewable energy investors.
  • In Spain more than 5,000 solar entrepreneurs face bankruptcy without the subsidies.
  • EU leaders now officially list affordable energy as being more important than greenhouse emissions.

None of this even counts the flow-on effects of expensive energy — how much was lost from European manufacturing which could not compete? Investors are “pouring money into the US, where energy prices have fallen to one-third of those in the EU, thanks to the shale gas revolution.”

This is burning money on a scale that only Big-Government can manage, misdirected malinvestment so “successful” that we can only guess how many people have lost jobs, lost years of work, and in the case of homes without electricity, lost lives.

The article is paywalled at The Australian but available at the GWPF, home to Benny Peiser.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (127 votes cast)
The price of moral-vanity: A catalogue of Green economic disaster unfolds across Europe, 9.3 out of 10 based on 127 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/m99o5cn

310 comments to The price of moral-vanity: A catalogue of Green economic disaster unfolds across Europe

  • #
    AndyG55

    Email sent to several Liberal candidates

    ———————————-

    Only the Liberals even have a chance of doing the correct thing.

    You MUST get rid of the RET and ALL renewable subsidies,.

    DROP the direct action plan.. It will do NOTHING, it is a pointless waste of money that would be better spent elsewhere. !!

    Many countries in Europe are now basket cases with massive increases in electricity prices, because of renewable subsidies.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/benny-peiser-europe-pulls-plug-green-future/

    We have the BEST COAL in the world, and we should be using it to give us the CHEAPEST electricity.

    So PLEASE Liberals, fix Australia and get it back to work!!

    Yours..

    ——————————————-


    Report this

    361

    • #
      AndyG55

      ahggg… I didn’t have “making stuff” in the emails I sent. I deleted it after I copied the email, before sending it.
      —-[Fixed the comment above I think? - Jo]


      Report this

      50

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      German industry (think GE, Siemens, Mercedes, Volkswagen, BMW) are quietly moving out of Germany due to both the price and increasing unreliability of their electricity supply. They are currently moving some operations to China, as it is now a large, and growing market.

      Trouble is, their highly skilled workforce don’t particularly want to relocate to China (not “western” enough), and the Chinese, while welcoming them as temporary workers, is not keen on major resettlement of foreigners in their country.

      Australia, on the other hand, has abundant supplies of coking coal and iron ore, and with German expertise and technology, could quickly be making some of the finest steel in the world. We have plenty of room for heavy industry, and all the coal needed to power it. We are desperately short of skilled labour. We are ideally placed to service the emerging markets, not only of China, but the whole of SE Asia.

      The Chinese are awash with cash, and looking for diversified investment opportunities. They like Australia for investment because, comparatively speaking, we are a stable country. The Chinese and the Germans have enjoyed a close working relationship for decades. Australia already has a sizable, integrated population of German descent. Many Germans have reasonable English skills.

      One could speculate that there just might be an opportunity or two buried in there.

      .
      On the other hand, I suppose it’s easier to simply go on shipping dirt to China for pennies, slinging GM a couple of hundred million every year or two, so we can continue pretending we have a manufacturing industry, and bringing in boatloads of welfare recipients warring religious fanatics asylum seekers, and kid ourselves that they will all be skilled tradespeople and engineers in five years time.


      Report this

      440

      • #

        Mercedes Benz are already there and have been for many years now

        I found it at long last. I hate talking about something and then no being able to refer to it.

        In the lead up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, our own ABC ran a program titled The Cars That Ate China.

        It was hidden away late one night and watched the whole thing, as, while starting out slowly, got more and more interesting.

        Covered by copyright or whatever, it was assiduously culled from every site I could find. I have however located a recently posted version at You Tube and I sort of expect that to vanish soon enough as well.

        The video goes for 63 minutes, but the part I want you to look at starts at the 17.16 mark and ends around 6 minutes later. It shows the Daimler Benz Chrysler Mistsubishi factory, and just look at the size of this monster factory where they produce C Class Benzes, Chryslers, and Mitsubishis.

        They concentrate on the Benz side of the plant.

        The cars are produced for a fraction of the price they are in the West. They show one worker, stunningly overjoyed and proud to be working on the Benz line ….. for $8 a day, a fortune as she says.

        The Cars That Ate China

        Nice word play on a fine old Aussie movie with John Meillon, The Cars That Ate Paris. Trust the ABC to be, umm, that original!

        The whole program was just amazing really, just to see what is happening there in China.

        Tony.


        Report this

        270

        • #
          janama

          I understand there are 10 levels of counterfeit in China. My friend bought his wife a top level counterfeit Rolex watch. He was naturally surprised to hear her say later that she had sent in into Rolex for repair! Apparently no one said anything. Even Rolex couldn’t tell the difference.


          Report this

          90

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Tony

          I have two whole families of Chinese in-laws. They span three generations, from grandparents who are still living subsistence on the family farm (albeit these days with a lot of helpful monetary input from the rest of the family), through to the grand-kids who are all university graduate engineers and electronics designers.

          I think I can say with relative confidence that there would be nobody working in a factory producing Mercs, for $8.00 a day. $8.00 an hour, just maybe, for the the lowest of the low guy who sweeps the floor, but remember they pay no tax.

          Being on Bribie Island, and having a large house, we have become something of a transit point for Chinese rellies coming to OZ for a holiday, so we get a fairly regular input of life in China.

          Yes there are people in China working for $8.00 a day, and happy for it. In fact, there are still people earning $2.00 a day and grateful for it.

          But they are not building Mercedes cars.


          Report this

          80

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            The documentary end credits give a copyright date of 2007.
            One of the workers in the video says at 17:49 she works for 60RMB per day which is translated as US$8. At 21:59 the documentary states the workers are paid 20 times less than their USA counterparts. Her $8/day is consistent with that ratio ($160/day seems in the ballpark).
            She also said her “salary” is calculated daily, so perhaps daily wages went up a tad since 2007, or maybe the car companies could screw their workers as part of the deal for moving to china, anyhow the $8 is what the doco said.

            Hang on, how did we get onto this topic again?
            What’s global warming got to do with the price of Mercs in china?
            Funny how everything is connected.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              MemoryVault

              .
              2007 is ancient history in Chinese terms. In 2007 one still needed travel documents to move from one province to another, and the bulk of the population were still making the transition from bicycles to motor bikes.

              The mother of one of my Chinese sisters-in-law still lives on the family farm, growing vegetables and raising pigs for the local market. In 2007 (the year I first met her, incidentally), she lived in a hut with neither running water nor electricity. She walked everywhere.

              Today she still lives in the hut raising vegetables and pigs, but now she has a fridge, freezer, flat screen TV, mobile phone, laptop, internet connection and Skype, plus hot and cold water. She zaps around on a sort of three-wheeled Vespa-type scooter with a carry-tray on the back, which is quite comical, as she is over 80 years old and nearly blind, for anything other than reading big print.


              Report this

              40

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Astonishing. It’s like someone gave them Industrial Civilisation In A Box™.

                Seems the chief difference between China’s industry today and the Star Trek industrial replicators is that in the future China has been miniaturised to 1/12th of a Vulcan Freighter.

                (No I’m not a trekker, I had to look it up.)


                Report this

                10

        • #

          It is nice to know the Chinese are as crazy as we are.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        German industry is also moving some of it’s hi-tech, hi-energy production to the US. Common work-ethic, American-German ethnic roots, a common international language (English), cheap, reliable energy into the foreseeable future and a business-friendly tax regime. What’s not to like?


        Report this

        101

      • #
        Yonniestone

        MV, We used to make the finest steel in the world and took great pride in doing so, myself being in part of the steel industry can tell you that imported steel is sub standard compared to the old BHP product and is consistently undersize by my measurements, lucky that engineers here usually factor 3 times the strength for structures but I still don’t agree with the acceptance of this product.
        Oh and let’s not forget the worker hardship, injury and death factor associated with manufacturing this product and the acceptance of using it by Australia and the trade unions who proudly state how pro worker and pro immigration they are, for me imported steel is akin to a Blood Diamond.


        Report this

        160

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          I know it Yonnie, and I also know that Australians recently developed a technology capable of producing steel by electrolytic winnowing, that would produce the finest steel ever, in the history of steel-making.

          Unfortunately it is a process requiring vast amounts of electrical input, so yet again Australian governments will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and the technology will undoubtedly go overseas to a country not adverse to producing cheap, abundant electricity – like China.


          Report this

          110

          • #
            farmerbraun

            We in Godzone will shortly have a huge amount of hydro electricity, almost free for the taking, when Comalco finally ditches its uneconomic aluminium smelter at Bluff. It’s not that far away from the West Island.


            Report this

            30

      • #
        Ace

        Folks…Cheap as dirt exploitation of labour and no trade unions or workers rights in a country that laughably calls itself “socialist”…THAT is the ONLY reason all these asshole corpoprations shift to China. Whereas Africa once exported its people as slaves, China imports the slave-owners to use its citizens likewise.

        Now you might have noticed before I am pro-China. But my reasons are complex. It aint somewhere Id want to live. The biggest shit-hole on the planet so Im told. And I dont think any of you would want to live there either.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Mark D.

          Can’t argue with your observations and analysis Ace. If we weren’t so busy fighting warmists we could perhaps spend some time fighting slaveism.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        MV,
        The information I have, is that German industry is not moving out of Germany, but rather expanding their current production base in Asia.

        This transition has been in the pipeline for many years.

        Changing direction in companies this large is harder than turning an Aircraft Carrier around in Sydney Harbour, without using tugs.

        They are diversifying.

        They are also sending a clear message to the politicians that the current game is close to the full-time whistle, and the next game may be played at a different venue, if the facilities do not improve.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          Yes, Rereke, that is my take on it too. For the time being they are “diversifying”, not “moving”.

          For the moment.

          However, I have a Canadian friend who is a grand poobah at Siemens. He reliably informs me that the reason the German government suddenly started running around like chooks with their heads cut off last year, announcing plans for coal-fired power stations everywhere, was because Angela Merkel got a visit from a group representing the heavy hitters of German industry.

          Their message was simple: cheap, RELIABLE power in three years or we’re outa here.


          Report this

          50

          • #

            @MV That’s what I suspected had happened. After all, you can’t build high end motor cars and run superlative engineering companies using solar panels and wind turbines. Duh!


            Report this

            20

      • #
        RoHa

        “Many Germans have reasonable English skills.”

        At least half of them speak better English than half the Australians do. (And I don’t mean recent immigrants.)


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          And ASEAN have now decreed that English will be the common language of business within Asia.

          So all you ockers had better get a fizz on, and learn the mother tongue. ;-)


          Report this

          10

      • #

        Read both of these linked articles closely. Admitted, they are both almost a year old, but any information out of China is difficult to source.

        Note they still tend to use Installed Capacity as a guide when actual delivery of power should be the more relevant guide, and as an example of that, in the first article linked to, they say that Coal fired power makes up 65% of Capacity, and yet supplies nearly 75% of consumed power.

        Be aware that the second link has four pages.

        One part I would highlight is the following couple of points, and I have bolded the most telling points from each quote:

        As the world strives to eliminate energy poverty while simultaneously meeting rising demand, China’s unprecedented progress has set an example. Consider projections of future generation sources made by the International Energy Agency’s (IEA’s) World Energy Model and the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) National Energy Modeling System (Figure 1). The bulk of new demand will occur in the developing world, where massive amounts of affordable and reliable power are required to lift hundreds of millions into the modern age. In short, the world will continue to use coal, and consumption will significantly expand for decades to come.

        and then this:

        This model is being repeated in the other emerging giant, India, where power generation needs are staggering: 280 million Indians lack electricity, 600 million cook with wood or dung, and 900 million have no refrigeration.

        and this:

        Some 1,300 million people today lack access to electricity, the sine qua non of modern civilization. Unfortunately, the IEA projects that this number will only be reduced by a “shameful and unacceptable” 20%, to 1,036 million, by 2030. The effects of electricity deprivation are devastating. The UN reports that 25,000 children die each day—many from preventable causes that electricity helped eliminate in the West almost a century ago.

        (Michael, where are you?) I wonder what we will tell our children when they point to this shameful fact.

        Both articles are worth reading slowly, and probably more than just once, because there is so much good information.

        The Development Strategy for Coal-Fired Power Generation in China

        China Leads the Global Race to Cleaner Coal

        To think that here in Australia, we are aiming for a pitiful CO2 reduction target, whilst in China, they are achieving a 20 to 40% reduction by replacing old small coal fired plants with huge new ones, and replacing them they are, as shown in the articles. They cannot open a new large plant without older plants being shut down.

        Meanwhile, our old clunkers will be driven into the ground.

        Tony.


        Report this

        60

        • #

          Sometimes, I repeat myself when I mention how I detest that per capita emissions crock that the warmist religion keeps using, and I’m often told how what I use for a reference for that is fake and does not apply, but it is an exact example of just how fake the use of that bogus piece of crap really is.

          From that second link above is this:

          …..while annual per capita (electrical power) consumption has soared from 500 kWh to 2,900 kWh.

          This is just for those people who do have access to electrical power.

          In the U.S. 38% of all power goes to the Residential sector.

          In Australia, 20% of all electrical power goes to the Residential sector. Now, why that is different to the U.S. is that here in Australia, the use of Natural Gas at the residential level is far greater than it is in the U.S. When overall Energy consumption at the Residential level is compared, then the U.S. and Australia are fairly similar.

          However, in China, barely 10 to 12% of electrical power goes to the Residential Sector. That percentage level rises with each year, and this is a direct by product of the huge scale of Industrialisation in China, because almost 70% of every watt being generated goes to that Industrial sector, and as power goes in, then it also becomes available to the people in their homes. That penetration into the Residential sector was only 8% barely 2 years ago.

          Now note, how in the quote, it says residential consumption has soared from 500KWH to 2900KWH. That’s a per yearly consumption. It’s not that the Chinese are more considerate consumers of electricity, it’s because all they have at the moment is just the basics. Lighting, some refrigeration and power for cooking. Now, compare that to the average Australian consumption around 7300KWH per year. (Source NSW Government data) So, as recently as two years back the average Chinese power consumption at the Residential level over a full year is what we would use here in Australia every 25 days.

          So, even now, those who do have access to power in China consume way less than we do here, in fact only 39% of Australian consumption. (And could you halve your household electrical power consumption)

          So that effectively shows why the per capita CO2 emission crock that warmists use is just that, an absolute crock, even without having to mention the huge population difference.

          Also, note from that same green inspired NSW Government website that it takes half a kilo of coal to provide one KWH of power. Now, go back to the first Chinese website I linked to and read how those new tech USC coal fired power plants only consume 276 grams of coal per KWH of power being generated, just a tad over half the coal, hence just over half the emissions.

          China, while constructing large scale coal fired power plants on such a huge scale have found a way to have lower emissions from those large scale plants.

          They’re actually DOING something.

          Here in Australia, well all they are doing is finding a way to make money from it.

          Tony.


          Report this

          60

      • #
        Pete of Perth

        Hi MV,

        I went to china last year on one of those cheap tour packages where you had to split your time between site-seeing and going to factories. We went from Beijing to Nanjing the bused it to Shanghai. I was blown away with the massive scale of construction – I now appreciate why part of WA’s north is slowly being transported to China.

        This year the missus went to JiangJiaJie and again was amazed by the Three Gorges dam.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Hi Pete,

          Lucky bastard. My wife (Thumper) goes up fairly regularly, but alas I’ve never been able to.
          First it was work commitments, and now it is medical constraints.

          Thumper’s brother starting working up there on a joint venture project in 1990, and continued through until 2004. He married a lovely Chinese girl, and now they are settled back in Perth, and work as consultants – they both speak fluent Mandarin.

          They have a flat up there which us OZ rellies can use.

          Thumper first went up and stayed with her brother for a few weeks in 1996. Back in those days they were in a fenced, guarded compound, the locals all rode bikes, and you needed a briefcase full of documents to go more then 50 klm (that was EVERYBODY – not just foreigners).

          Australians have no concept or idea of the scale and scope of what has been happening up there.
          When Thumper first went up there, there was a place up the river where they used to go for picnics. It was largely uninhabited bushland and marsh on the river.

          Today it is a city of three million people connected to the rest of China with highways and a super-fast railway.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      Jon

      The Frankfurt school “idea”, to pave the way for international marxism, was to break the Western World economical and cultural. In this case it’s also about selling the UNFCCC CAGW idea to the public?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    janama

    Meanwhile here in Oz Beyond Zero Emissions peddle their deceitful, flawed science to all and sundry who lap it up and still believe we can power Australia with solar and wind. It’s the government’s fault because they aren’t building new solar power plants everywhere so we can close down our Coal power stations.

    What really shocked me was that there are University Science sustainable environment professors supporting their crazy schemes!


    Report this

    270

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Of course they’re at University. It is an Ivory Towers concept.

      Question 1: What happens on a still night when you are dependent on “renewable” energy?

      Question 2: What happens next day when the sun shines and the wind blows?

      Question 3: What was the most important line in that (excellent) article?
      ————————
      Answer 1: No electricity so the grid stops.

      Answer 2: Nothing. Neither wind turbines or solar can deliver electricity if the grid isn’t working. (turbines need power for the yaw motor and both need a reference voltage/cycle/phase etc. to synchronise energy)

      Answer 3: Two weeks ago, the Czech government decided to end all subsidies for new renewable energy projects at the end of this year.
      So these scams can end very abruptly. DO NOT INVEST IN THEM.


      Report this

      260

  • #
    Debbie

    Amazing!
    As Jo & many others has been saying for ages. . . There has been an attempt to create a market and a trade for a ‘product’ that has no real value and as Peter Lang’s work shows. . . it has almost no chance of achieving a practical or measureable climate/weather outcome. . . WHAT DID THEY EXPECT????????
    Where has all that money gone?
    Did it produce any sensible or worthwhile or practical or long term benificial outcomes??????


    Report this

    210

    • #
      AndyG55

      China makes most of the wind turbines.

      Its nice to know that Europe has aided the development of China and contributed massively to China’s responsible level of CO2 output.

      I just hope Europe is also prepared to help pay for the clean-up of the massive land degradation that has come with China’s extraction and processing of rare earth magnetic materials. (yeah, like that’s going to happen)

      Wind Turbines are environmental vandalism at EVERY stage from production to end-use..

      and this, the poster child for the Green agenda.


      Report this

      141

      • #
        • #
          Ace

          I bet many Chinese would compare the Euro wind-power mania to Mao’s mass-foundry driv that put smelting at the heart of every community and churned out a mountain of useless pig iron. Out of a billion Chinese there must be some who see the comparison…and have a good chuckle.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I just hope Europe is also prepared to help pay for the clean-up of the massive land degradation that has come with China’s extraction and processing of rare earth magnetic materials.

        It is their country, Andy. If they want to despoil it, it is up to them.

        We need to remember that nothing significant happens in China without The Party being involved.

        My guess is that they are following the cheapest and fastest options in producing the rare earths needed to service the Western breakdown in rationality, and will then wait for the Western hand wringers to offer large amounts of “Aid” to “assist” in the clean up.

        The western knowledge of this “environmental catastrophe”, and the photos of the polluted lake in Northern China that now circulate on the web, come from a single news article. The “journalist” will have needed special permission and official papers to go there to take photos across the lake, visit “factories”, and “interview local farmers”.

        Considering the global interest in this story, it is odd that there has been no follow-up stories, or any expansion on the “human interest” or “medical implications” aspects.

        Propaganda exists for one purpose, and one purpose only; and that is, to change the perceived range of options available to your opponent so that exercising their own logic will lead them to the conclusion that you want.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      “Where has all that money gone?” A fair amount has gone into the pockets of government cronies, bad science and organised crime. The rest has been wasted.


      Report this

      180

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Of benefit only if you are one of the elite who intend to carry out the UN’s Agenda 21 program Debbie. When that is your aim, this is all of tremendous benefit. By usurping assets from the middle class and accumulating it, by ridding the planet of the cheap energy that has gradually pulled mankind out of the mire of subsistence living, the population can easily be reduced to a mere two billion; a number which can feasibly be controlled by a combination of psychology and force. Therefore interrupting the process of continuous improvement in producing inexpensive energy, your NWO goals are achievable. Of course it is of no benefit whatsoever to the useful idiots along the way that join this bizarre green cult.


      Report this

      30

  • #

    The sad part about all this is that existing coal fired plants supply the vast bulk of all power being consumed. Those plants, because of Green (and this is the only word for it) vandalism have been allowed to age without being replaced, because Green votes were the priority, leading to appeasement, and construction of renewable plants, which, right about now, are proved to fail utterly to even come close to replace coal fired power.

    Now, they have arived almost to the point that it is too late to replace them, and in some Countries that is already happening. Luckily, Germany has started on a huge construction phase of new technology USC coal fired plants. Germany bit down on the bullet and has started. Others will still appease the Green lobby for the votes they give, and will probably end up leaving it until too late, and they are almost there now, as the Northern Winter approaches.

    Oddly, there may just be a small flicker of light at the end of the tunnel for Australia.

    In 2009, the NSW State Government gave approval for Bayswater to Upgrade, and the proposal is called Bayswater B.

    I t will be constructed on the existing site, and will use the existing coal supplied in the same way that the coal is already supplied to the existing plant.

    In 2009 ….. and right up until now, nothing has been proceeded with, which is probably puzzling in a way, but I sort of suspect that if the election sees a change in Government, then watch for something here.

    Now, I’m linking into that Bayswater proposal, but it’s a pretty big pdf document of 53 pages. I don’t expect any of you to read it all. The proposal is for a new 2000MW plant, using one of 2 technologies, the latest technology USC coal fired power, or CCGT (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine) which seems a little incongruous on the site of an existing already supplying coal mine which has abundant fuel for the coal fired process. For that CCGT, they will then have to secure the gas to run the plant, problematic to say the least, and then construct the pipeline for that gas supply.

    My guess is that the USC coal fired version is the preferred option, and that Bayswater may be waiting for a more umm, convenient political atmosphere before proceeding.

    Now, here’s the rub, and I want you to look at this seriously.

    The new proposal is for a 2000MW Plant.

    The existing Bayswater is 2640MW, so the new plant will be 25% smaller ….. when you look at the NAMEPLATE CAPACITY only.

    However, the plant is expected to run at a Capacity Factor of between 90 and 93%(as these types of plant already do where they are in place).

    Now what this effectively means is that this new plant, while 25% smaller in Capacity will be supplying more power to the grids for consumption than the existing plant already is supplying.

    Current supply is slowly diminishing as the plant ages, quite naturally.

    Now, and here comes the killer point.

    The existing Bayswater burns 7.5 million tons of coal annually.

    The Bayswater B proposal, the new USC coal fired plant will only be burning 6.1 million tons of coal a year.

    That’s a reduction in CO2 Emissions of, and wait for this ….. 19%

    19 Percent.

    A greater percentage reduction than this 19% could also be achieved if the ancient Hazelwood was replaced with the Lignite (brown coal) burning new USC plant already operating in Germany. This German plant also has dryers that dry the coal prior to crushing to a fine powder for feeding into the furnace/boiler.

    Germany has already done the bullet biting bit, and now it’s the turn of hopefully a new Government here to persuade Bayswater to finally go ahead.

    Listen for the green screams if that happens.

    Waiting, waiting, waiting. I can hear the drumming of fingers now, waiting for the weeks following Monday September 9th.

    It’ll either be build build build, or run the damn thing into the ground for as long as we can.

    Let’s hope it’s the former.

    Link to pdf proposal for Bayswater B

    Tony.


    Report this

    240

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Tony:
      They would go gas if it was cheap enough and if CO2 taxed enough to make gas cheaper than coal.

      Without a carbon tax they will go for coal.

      Odd situation isn’t it? If the Coalition were to abandon the carbon tax and give permission for new coal powered stations, they would cause more reductions in emissions than all the ‘green’ ideas. (And give cheaper electricity).


      Report this

      220

      • #

        Graeme,

        here’s another stunningly failed green energy way of the future from Europe.

        Those much vaunted Concentrating Solar Plants in Spain, which, as I have now found out are virtually useless also have their own dirty little secret, I’ll bet no one knows about.

        They have to wait until the solar part of the process makes the compound become molten enough to make enough steam to actually drive the turbine which then drives the generator. That could be as late as past Midday, even in Summer.

        So, they utilise two processes.

        One – They use a gas fired turbine to run up the plant and keep it in operation until that compound is molten enough to make the steam.

        Two – To, umm, assist with making the compound molten they use, err, a grid connected HTF heater (Heat Transfer Fluid) in the start up process, and when the solar process takes over, then power being generated by the plant itself kicks in to take over this HTF heater which sucks up part of the power being generated by the plant. This HTF heater provides 12.5% of the heating of that compound.

        Then on top of that, the vast arrays of mirrors are all on , umm electrical driven motors so that they can align along the path of the Sun, again sucking up power the plant generates.

        Oh dear! 23 of these huge plants all across Spain, with less Nameplate Capacity than 3 of Bayswater’s 4 units, and supplying between a third and a half of the same power provided to grids by those three units, not at full operation, but at normal operation with maintenance down time etc.

        A green wet dream nightmare.

        Tony.


        Report this

        230

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Tony;
          the molten salts have to be around 550℃ to have the boiler operate efficiently. The molten salt mixture melts at around 230℃, so would be very viscous below 300℃. Until the molten salt is thin enough to pump through the collector then the plant cannot capture heat from the sun.

          The higher the holding temperature, the more heat is lost. Having said that, the solar plants don’t lose much heat (2-3% for the tower designs). But low temperatures overnight can cause problems with less well protected equipment, and as many of these plants are in desert areas and/or higher elevations that could be a major problem, especially in those using tubular collectors (even the tower design has pipes to and from the top of the tower). Thus the need for supplementary heating as you note.

          I think that the grid connected HTF heater is actually heating an ‘oil’ which is circulated to heat up the collector and the circulating tubes, so when the start pumping the molten salt it doesn’t freeze in the pipes. It may also circulate as a heater for the bulk holding tank.

          You will have noted that the temperature gap between the hot molten salts and the ‘cold’ molten salts (after boiling the water) is much less than that in a conventional power station. So the Carnot efficiency must be much lower.

          I feel the gas turbine is merely used to extend the time of electricity generation, much like those entrepreneurs who shone floodlights onto the solar PV panels (when the subsidies were much higher).


          Report this

          110

        • #
          Richard111

          The only reason the green wet dream nightmare failed was that way back in the planning stages, 30 plus years ago, the forecast for solar cycle 24 was more of the same as cycles 21, 22 and 23. That really was an extended period of global warming due entirely to the sun. Remember the 1970s? That’s when the dream gelled I think.
          Just imagine what would be happening right now if SC24 had been up to expectations. The current quiet sun has stalled the global temperature rise and is encouraging people to think.
          But think! The university wallahs know an ice age is coming some time fairly soon. Just imagine how well solar panels perform under deep snow. How long will wind turbines last with ice on the blades. How much food would be delivered by electric trucks and so on.
          Think population and total control. They haven’t given up just because the sun has gone quiet.


          Report this

          90

          • #
            MemoryVault

            .
            On the contrary Richard III, as I posted in the previous thread, the motivating idea has succeeded beyond the original planners wildest dreams.

            The whole idea was to bring us to this point. Western countries largely bankrupt, without reserves of reliable power, people untrustworthy of both science and government, minimum global food reserves, ethnic and racial strife promoted or imported everywhere, just as we go into an extended cooling period.

            Even the idea of a “cooling” (or, for that matter “warming”) period, is a deliberate misdirection. A degree “warmer” or “cooler” is neither here nor there, despite the rantings of the “climate scientists”, politicians and our trolls.

            Unlike Australia, where our broadacre crops are largely water-dependent, most of the breadbaskets in the NH are growing season dependent. Water is not a problem, but the length of time between the last frosts or snow melt of the previous winter, and the first snow or frosts of the next autumn, are critical.

            The next few years will see major crop failures in Western Europe (eg The Ukraine – the breadbasket of Europe), Canada, and the northern grain-belt states of America. China will get a double-whammy – shortened growing season PLUS drought.

            Hundreds of millions will try to relocate in the search for food, history will be ever so slightly amended, and in the IPCC’s AR6 Report, these people will become the “climate change refugees spoken of in AR3 and 4.

            .
            All is coming to pass, pretty much on time, and exactly as intended. Billions will die.

            Which is precisely what was planned.


            Report this

            151

            • #
              Michael

              A degree “warmer” or “cooler” is neither here nor there, despite the rantings of the “climate scientists”, politicians and our trolls.

              This demonstrates how little about the science you actually know. The difference between an ice age with Montreal under several km of ice and now is only about 6 deg c. Movements in temps globally can mean vast changes at the regional and climactic level.


              Report this

              328

              • #
                AndyG55

                Yes.. warmer is better..

                thank you for pointing this FACT out.

                Or would you prefer to be under kms of ice ????

                The warmest parts of the Earth’s long history, have been the most abundant.

                The colder time…not so good.

                WAKE UP TO REALITY… FOOL !!


                Report this

                152

              • #
                AndyG55

                And you, commenting on someone else’s scientific knowledge… seriously ! roflmao.

                The height of irony… like KRudd accusing ANYONE of lying.


                Report this

                131

              • #
                Mark D.

                The difference between an ice age with Montreal under several km of ice and now is only about 6 deg c.

                Good thing we’re making it warmer then.


                Report this

                91

              • #
                michael hart

                …And the difference between a skating-rink and a lake is less than one degree. So what? Using a phase change of water is the worst possible way to measure gradual temperature changes, and I suspect you know that very well.

                Now. Do you have any useful factoids you wish to tell us, Michael (and please, no units of “Sydney Harbors” or radiative-forcing due to CO2 in “hydrogen bombs” per second)?


                Report this

                100

              • #
                Michael

                Yes.. warmer is better..

                thank you for pointing this FACT out.

                Going the same amount in the other direction is equally catastrophic. Do you think before you write?

                “Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.”
                http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/


                Report this

                017

              • #

                Let’s get the cause and effect right. We know a warmer world causes cO2 levels to rise.

                When it was 3 – 4 degrees warmer — the heat probably caused CO2 to rise to 415ppm. When the oceans warm, they release CO2.

                If it was 4 degrees warmer and CO2 was still at ice-age levels, that would be a surprize.


                Report this

                190

              • #
                AndyG55

                CO2 does NOT drive atmospheric temperature.

                We will NOT be getting warmer, although a couple of degrees would be highly beneficial to many parts of the world. It wasn’t called the Holocene OPTIMUM for nothing !

                We have reached the current high point and its cooler from here on in. Mores the pity.


                Report this

                81

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Why confine yourself to the Pliocene? The Eocene-Oligocene transition was marked by the Antarctic ice sheet either forming or expanding rapidly. CO2 level was around 750-800 ppm. The expanding qualifier was because some experts consider the Antarctic ice sheet formed much earlier when the CO2 level was 1000-1050 ppm.
                The growth of this ice sheet caused average Oligocene global sea level to be about 180 feet lower than mean Eocene values. The ice sheet reduced in size (and sea levels rose, just in case you don’t see the connection) but didn’t disappear during a warm period in the late Oligocene when the CO2 level was around 550 ppm (but reducing slowly to the Miocene transition). Another glacial period marked the transition from the Oligocene to the Miocene. CO2 levels declined towards today’s level (or lower) in the Miocene despite the fact that the Miocene was significantly warmer than the Oligocene.

                So there you are: high CO2 and warmth, high CO2 and ice age, low CO2 and warmth, low CO2 and ice age. Take your pick and “prove” that CO2 causes the climate to change.


                Report this

                60

              • #

                You say temperature changes globally for that 6C change to occur?

                When it is more likely that it is INSOLATION changes in the North that matters much more because that is where summer temperatures are effected most.When the north gets a little less insolation over time there is a corresponding long range temperature downward change which is well documented in the ice cores.

                http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Chap_8-Illustration_64-550×393.png

                http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Chap_8-Illustration_65-550×450.png

                CO2 levels in the atmosphere during the current holocene has changed very little despite significant temperature swings in decadal and century level demonstrating how little effect CO2 has on the air temperature itself.

                http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/are-modern-temperatures-unprecedented-us-govt-greenland-ice-core-research-finds-theyre-not-even-clos.html


                Report this

                00

              • #

                In response to 4.1.1.2.5 by Michael:

                http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01901ead3a7a970b-pi

                The present ice core research say CO2 does not visibly influence temperature changes.Here is the main link to more about this and based on published science paper.

                http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/08/arctic-extreme-climate-temperature-change-naturally-happen-co2-trivial-force.html


                Report this

                00

            • #
              Ace

              MV…if Lew sees your recent posts hell be rubbing his hands in a bucket of glee. Oh such conspiracy “ideation” on display.

              I would have to agree with him.

              Yes those are the outcomes Greens would like…but do you really think a myriad Moonbats could organise such a scheme…worthy as it is of the very Illuminati themselves?

              Its potty mate. Drop it for the health of your reputation.


              Report this

              20

        • #

          Tony,

          Any idea how they keep the mirrors clean? It has always been a source of amusement to me that the greens say we have all this abundant solar energy in our desert areas – but no water to clean the mirrors.


          Report this

          90

          • #

            Mike,

            you just have to laugh.

            The Moree Solar Plant, announced in a flash of camera bulbs, had a wonderful proposal that is now, umm, disappeared, for some reason or other.

            150MW Nameplate for a snip at only $953 Million, half chucked in by the Federal and State governments.

            It’s Solar PV, in other words similar to rooftop panels, the Sun generates power in the cells.

            There are 645,000 panels, and ten panels are mounted on each electrically driven table, so there are 64,500 individual tables, each with ten panels.

            The proposal said that there would in fact be very minimal water usage, as the panels would only be washed …… twice a year.

            Yeah! Right!

            Tony.


            Report this

            170

            • #
              AndyG55

              Sand blasting glass always helps with the clarity.

              And of course, there is no dust at all in Moree.

              Lived near Dubbo for a while.. car window needed cleaning EVERY MORNING !!!

              And the ice in winter… warm water required.


              Report this

              100

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Washed daily. If you try http://www.thegwpf.org/benny-peiser-europe-pulls-plug-green-future/
            (or the Australian behind pay wall) you will see the picture of man squeegeeing PV panels.

            One (at least) of the american trough systems used a system whereby the troughs turn face downwards at night and were automatically sprayed with water. I think the wash water was collected and recycled after filtering.


            Report this

            30

      • #
      • #
        Mark

        Industry has already stated the carbon price MUST be north of $40.00/t to justify changing from coal to gas here in Oz. Technology alone can deliver the reductions in carbon dioxide emissions without resorting to a debilitating tax.

        Most of our power generation now lays in the hands of private monopoly entities. This is the single biggest threat to enticing industry to come back to Oz. Monopoly policy is charging till it hurts!


        Report this

        30

    • #
      ianl8888

      There is a very large undeveloped coal deposit to the north-west of Bayswater with sufficient suitable fuel for about 50 years at 6-7mtpa

      The NSW Govt owns this. Let us see if Sep 7 can alter its’ current orphaned status


      Report this

      100

      • #
        AndyG55

        A couple of new coal-fired turbines.

        Dump all the renewable tariffs..

        BIG price drop !


        Report this

        60

        • #
          Michael

          Dump all the renewable tariffs..

          Sure, as long as you dump all the support and subsidies for fossil fuels as well. Let them stand on their own feet.


          Report this

          114

          • #
            Mark D.

            Sure, as long as you dump all the support and subsidies for fossil fuels as well. Let them stand on their own feet.

            Oooh tough guy huh? Fine, throw out farm subsidies for biofuel. Throw out ALL lobbyists in government. Establish term limits for all elected officials. Abolish and disband the United Nations.


            Report this

            110

          • #
            Perth Trader

            Michael…Can you list the support and subsidies given to fossil fuels?


            Report this

            90

            • #
              AndyG55

              A kind of hush……. followed by crickets chirping. :-)


              Report this

              40

            • #
              Bob Cormack

              Re: “Subsidies for fossil fuel”

              I tracked down several websites claiming to list all these evil subsidies. The main one was — the right to deduct your expenses from your gross income before calculating the taxes on the resulting net income.

              In other words, exactly the same “subsidy” that everyone gets. Perhaps the intellectually limited writers of the site were confused by the fact that oil companies often operate at a loss for several years in a row, before getting a taxable profit. This is called holding over your losses and is also what everyone gets to do, assuming they lose money for several years.

              (And, one site, apparently trying to maximize the claimable “subsidy” value, even claimed that not making petroleum companies pay “the cost of global warming” was a subsidy.)


              Report this

              00

          • #

            That’s really brave of you Michael. coming from from your philosophical crony capitalist standpoint. The petroleum industry (fossil fuel industry to green freaks like you) never needed subsidies, it just worked without political favour or patronage. It built economies, generated wealth and generally advanced the wellbeing of the human race. Then along came the terminally stupid, the politically frustrated and the unforgivably arrogant. Now, hundreds of billlions of dollars later and countless lives destroyed or demeaned you come here and make what has to be one of the dumbest comments I have ever read. Please go to hell.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Michael P

            Michael. Kindly stop spouting garbage. That has as other commenters have said one of the stupidest things you have posted. Do you ever think before typing these things?


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            Michael, funding for your thesis
            “A process for elevating excreta on an inclined plane with a sharpened wooden rod” has been approved.


            Report this

            10

  • #
    Bob Massey

    I have noticed how the alarmists seem only apply the “Precautionary Principle” on their side of the argument and all this stupidity stems from this kind of thinking and you can’t say they weren’t warned.

    Whatever happened to “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction” It seems we have forgotten this simple scientific rule although it seems to apply in all facets of life.

    I do hope these people who have thrust us into this modern era Dark Age can redeem themselves but I doubt it !


    Report this

    110

    • #
      Michael

      Whatever happened to “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction”

      Well it is still a part of one of newtons laws of motion, but as to anything else? Well I think you don’t understand the principle.

      Well their are 2 things at play here. The GFC hit Europe hardest, and so a lot of the pulling back is due to a financial crisis that had nothing to do with environmental policies.

      Secondly, you need to realise that the science is telling us that the future habitability of the planet is at risk, and observations are telling us that this is not theoretical, climatic changes are already occurring. The question is how bad will it get. I hope you are prepared to tell you children and grandchildren why they are suffering when you could have done something easily to prevent it. Problem is the longer you delay, the more expensive and harder it is to do anything about it. If we put our skates on in the 80′s when the science was already pointing us in this direction, the fixes could have been fairly painless. Now the consequences are already kicking in, people are already suffering and the ability to prevent the problem is gone, we can only mitigate and adapt at much greater cost. We leave it to long and we will only have the resources to lurch from one disaster to another without even having enough time to adapt or mitigate.

      So what will you tell them?


      Report this

      138

      • #
        Michael

        Oh and as to Germany, a lot of the cost is due to a knee jerk reaction to the Fukushima disaster. They decided to close everything rather than do an orderly and timely turn off of their nuclear power plants as their usable life came to an end, if that is what they wanted to do. Because of this reaction it has cost them a lot of money and set them back on their renewable goals.


        Report this

        124

        • #
          Bob Massey

          I dispute your opinion that Newton’s first law of motion doesn’t reflect other aspects of life. I understand the law quite well thankyou :)


          Report this

          140

          • #
            Michael

            I dispute your opinion that Newton’s first law of motion doesn’t reflect other aspects of life. I understand the law quite well thankyou :)

            and so far all you have given is an opinion that it does. Feel free to elaborate, or where you just trying to sound cleverer than you are.


            Report this

            223

            • #
              NicG.

              I haven’t contributed much to this site recently, but I feel moved to do so here. DO NOT Feed This Troll.
              Cheers all.
              NicG.


              Report this

              93

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                I for one have now drawn a line in the sand with that character. If he can’t (or won’t) define what evidence would change his mind if it were to appear then it is safe to say he’s not even trying to seek the truth, he’s just sermonising and trolling in holier-than-thou mode. I’ve tried harder than most to take his unfounded comments seriously and give referenced facts and logic in response, but no more.

                Very timely advice, NicG.


                Report this

                81

            • #
              AndyG55

              “or where you just trying to sound cleverer…….”

              Little chance of you ever sounding clever.

              Please, at least finish junior high before you start criticising.


              Report this

              70

        • #

          Oh Michael, not again.

          At the World Cup, Nuclear beat Solar 100-0, Coal fired beat Solar 100-0, Nuclear beat Wind 100-0, and Coal Fired beat Wind 100-0.

          So then, as you can see from these results, Nuclear and Coal Fired were eliminated at the end of the Round stage, and that left Wind played Solar to play off in the Grand Final. After 90 minutes of time it was still Nil All, so they had 10 minutes each way extra and it was still Nil All, so it went to a penalty shootout. After six weeks at ten hours a day, they called the game off because neither side had scored. On day three they actually stopped the goalies from standing in front of goal, so it was an open target, and still neither side scored.

          When it comes to Wind and Solar the only goals they score are when zeroing in on a pile of money.

          Solar and Wind do not work and can never be made to work on the scale required, in fact on any scale required.

          Tony.


          Report this

          290

          • #
            Michael

            “The comparison with business as usual is the crucial element, because between 2030 and 2050, all current generation will need to be replaced. If the likes of Bloomberg New Energy Finance are right, then solar and wind are already cheaper than new coal and gas, and could account for 46 per cent of generation by 2030. As the ANU’s Andrew Blakers pointed, a simple cost substitution could see fossil fuels replaced by renewables by 2040.”
            http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/energy-costs-business-as-usual-no-cheaper-than-100-renewables-39933


            Report this

            029

            • #
              MemoryVault

              then solar and wind are already cheaper than new coal and gas,

              Which of course explains why they don’t need government subsidies to exist, and why they all immediately go bust the moment those subsidies are reduced or removed – as in Spain and elsewhere.

              .
              For God’s sake Michael, grow a brain.


              Report this

              221

            • #

              Wonderful. A link to the well known renewable carpetbagger, Giles Parkinson.
              “AEMO says between 2,400 to 5,000 square kilometres of land will be needed, although some of that will be dual-use, as wind farms operate happily with existing farming activities.”
              So you can put windmills in a paddock but not gas wells?


              Report this

              40

        • #
          Bob Massey

          Ooops my bad :) correction Newtons Third law of motion.


          Report this

          50

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        The science is not telling us anything. Some people of a certain political persuasion are deducing a doomsday scenario not backed by empirical measurement or observation to attain their political objectives. The climate has always changed, and always will. The wheels are coming off the alarmist wagon my friend, and when the Earth enters another LIA in about 15 years time you and your co-religionists will have nowhere to go.


        Report this

        170

        • #
          Michael

          Some people of a certain political persuasion are deducing a doomsday scenario

          Absolutely. Some people for reasons of ideology, politics or profit think that transitioning to a renewable future will mean doom and gloom. A fact most aptly evidenced in Australia with the opposition telling us daily how the carbon tax will destroy that business into the ground and that one and that prices would go through the roof. The reality was that the impact was less than expected and the majority of people were better off than before due to compensation.

          Those of us that read and accept the science realise that the greenhouse effect is accepted physics and that AGW is already occurring and that if we transition soon enough it can be done easier than if left until later.

          “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for meaningful assessments of climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “WMO’s report shows that global warming was significant from 1971 to 2010 and that the decadal rate of increase between 1991-2000 and 2001-2010 was unprecedented. Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat.”
          “Natural climate variability, caused in part by interactions between our atmosphere and oceans – as evidenced by El Niño and La Niña events – means that some years are cooler than others. On an annual basis, the global temperature curve is not a smooth one. On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction, more so in recent times” said Mr Jarraud.
          http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/clip_image002_006.gif
          http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html


          Report this

          032

          • #
            AndyG55

            “On a long-term basis the underlying trend is clearly in an upward direction”

            NO, you lying piece of ……

            The long term temperature trend is DOWNWARDS, and has been since the Holocene optimum.

            We are in a brief, slightly warmer period, and its about to go down again.

            And the damage those who have destroyed the RELIABLE energy supplied by fossil fuels will have A LOT to answer for.


            Report this

            191

            • #
              AndyG55

              damage by those


              Report this

              20

            • #
              Michael

              The long term temperature trend is DOWNWARDS, and has been since the Holocene optimum.

              You are talking about geological time frames, not appropriate for the current discussion. In fact we WERE in a downward trend UNTIL CO2 warming from fossil fuels kicked in. The long term instrumental trend is up, off which there are no valid explanations except for warming from CO2.

              We are in a brief, slightly warmer period, and its about to go down again.

              There is zero science in this statement. It is not even opinion but more a hail mary. The 2001-2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record globally, on every continent, on each hemisphere and over the ocean and land. There are no signs of a downward trend.

              and those that have promoted delay in the transition to renewables and is altering the climate that future generations will need to cope with (even the current generation already) have a lot to answer for.


              Report this

              025

              • #
                AndyG55

                OMG, you truly do have a short brain don’t you.

                The uncorrupted instrumental record is from about 1979. Were you even born then?

                I doubt there has actually been ANY temperature rise in your life time !

                Even if you include the corrupted land record, its only a couple of centuries old.

                We are at the top of a slight hill, of course the ground EITHER side is lower.

                The warmer times of the Medieval and Roman periods were a blessing for the lucky people who lived then. Prosperous society, food easy to grow. The cooler periods between were a time of pestilence and hunger.

                The real science says that the trend from now is back downwards, and I DON’T mean the stupid climate models.

                Future generations will look back on the utter waste of the green agenda and wonder what the heck those MORONS were thinking of.


                Report this

                131

              • #
                Other_Andy

                “….The long term instrumental trend is up, off which there are no valid explanations except for warming from CO2.”

                To paraphrase you:

                “There is zero science in this statement. It is not even opinion but more a hail mary.”


                Report this

                60

      • #
        Debbie

        Geeeeeze Michael,
        I think I will have to apolgise to them that we allowed a pretentious mob of wankers to trash our future prosperity.
        This pretentious mob think they can control the global weather/climate by wasting $$$$ trillions on a free market (that isn’t free) on a product that has no value for an outcome that they have no hope of achieving.
        That’s what I will probably have to tell them.
        I would suggest that you need to yank your head out of the handbook you’re quoting and get out into the real world and the real environment amongst real people for a while.
        For a start. . . Try reading Tony’s posts with an open mind.


        Report this

        270

      • #
        MemoryVault

        Michael,

        Read my post above at 4.1.1.2.1, and the link in it back to a post in the previous thread.

        You and your brainless, witless ilk have ensured that my grandchildren, who are not some vague and distant thought, but exist NOW, will grow up in a world dominated by poverty, hunger, war, suffering and death.

        .
        As a mass-murderer who has so witlessly played your part in ensuring this future for them,
        DON’T YOU EVER DARE TO LECTURE ME AGAIN ON “MY” RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FUTURE YOU HAVE CREATED FOR THEM.


        Report this

        382

        • #
          Bob Massey

          I agree with your sentiments here MV well said :)


          Report this

          161

        • #
          Yonniestone

          MV, an eloquent and veracious dressing down delivered with much deserved unbridled conviction, thank you Sir. :)


          Report this

          141

        • #
          Michael

          As a mass-murderer who has so witlessly played your part in ensuring this future for them,

          Wow, do you work for the Heartland Institute? This kind of slandering and nastiness is right up their playbook. As I showed above your comments display your inaccurate understanding of global temp changes. Your other comments and those above show you as an extremist. As to your characterisation, I would look around the world at which countries are suffering the worst for extreme climate events and problems with crops etc.

          ‘Economic impact of global warming is costing the world more than $1.2 trillion a year, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP’
          ‘Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study.’
          ‘Air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels is also separately contributing to the deaths of at least 4.5m people a year, the report found.
          The 331-page study, entitled Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of A Hot Planet and published on Wednesday, was carried out by the DARA group, a non-governmental organisation based in Europe, and the Climate Vulnerable Forum. It was written by more than 50 scientists, economists and policy experts, and commissioned by 20 governments.’
          http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy?cat=environment&type=article
          http://daraint.org/about-us/what-we-do/

          “A new Oxfam report released today hopes to close this understanding gap between climate change and global food prices, arguing previous research grossly underestimates future food prices by ignoring the impact of severe weather shocks to the global food system.

          The report, “Extreme Weather, Extreme Prices,” argues current research paints only some of the picture by relying on steady increase in temperatures and precipitation. To get a more accurate picture, researchers threw down wild cards — the crazy weather events like droughts, hurricanes, and floods we’ve come to increasingly expect — to “stress-test” the system.” http://grist.org/food/how-extreme-weather-supersizes-global-food-price-tags/
          http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/extreme-weather-extreme-prices


          Report this

          129

          • #
            AndyG55

            Are you one of Al Gore’s insignificant little minions.?

            Attended ONE day of being brainwashed.?


            Report this

            111

          • #
            AndyG55

            It is wasteful, stupid, meaningless action against the NON-EXISTENT climate change problem that is destroying the world’s economy.

            And moronic actions like biofool mandates that are pushing up food prices.


            Report this

            111

            • #
              Michael

              NON-EXISTENT climate change problem

              Do you ever take in anything that is happening in the rest of the world? Even just this year there have been some huge floods that have been way outside the ordinary. India, Canada and a large swath of Europe come to mind. These are starting to happen every year now.


              Report this

              023

              • #
                Mark D.

                Do you ever take in anything that is happening in the rest of the world?

                Funny, this blog is populated with people from “the rest of the world”. Why is it that AGW caused weather events always happen somewhere else?

                Then there is the reality that the heat is missing (buried deep in the oceans) but is still able to cause “extreme weather”?


                Report this

                90

              • #
                Other_Andy

                “Even just this year there have been some huge floods that have been way outside the ordinary.”

                Way outside the ordinary?
                And you base that on what?
                Empirical data, historical data?


                Report this

                60

              • #
                Grant (NZ)

                NON-EXISTENT anthropogenic climate change.

                I think Andy was slightly imprecise in not specifying “anthropogenic”. Some of the events alluded to may represent some degree of climate change. However, I cannot recall in my life any stable, predictable, climate at all – ever. One winter may be colder than the preceding one. There might be a huge storm one year (say April 1967) across the whole country that disrupts all manner of things and then nothing like it for another 50 years. Then there have been localised events that might not recur for another 30 years. But there has never been anything remotely UNCHANGING about climate.

                There is no evidence that CO2 or “greenhouse” gases or Windows 3.1 and/or any of its successor has had any effect to make the climate more or less stable.

                Unless you have some measurements you want to produce.


                Report this

                10

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Climate Vulnerable Forum”

            read.. countries trying to use the Climate Change meme to GET MONEY!!!

            Countries like Bangladesh, that built itself on a delta ! and wonders why it floods occasionally !!

            Seriously !!!!!!!!


            Report this

            111

          • #
            Dave

            Michael

            Your message last week was,

            “Do as I say, not as I do”

            Double posts, duplicate cut and pastes.
            You’re on the way to a nervous breakdown with this obsession.
            Is your job in danger, I’m Kevin, Peter, Michael Dave and I’m here to help.
            Are you Kevin Rudd?


            Report this

            60

          • #
            AndyG55

            And it is well know that Oxfam are one of the leaders of Agenda 21, and the con to extort money into its coffers.


            Report this

            81

          • #
            AndyG55

            And if DAR really cared ONE HOOT about poverty, they would be pushing for decent cheap reliable electricity supply in third world countries..

            BUT THEY AREN’T, are they..

            I wonder what percentage goes into their own pockets. !


            Report this

            111

            • #
              Michael

              And if DAR really cared ONE HOOT about poverty, they would be pushing for decent cheap reliable electricity supply in third world countries..

              Did you even read the quotes? How will not cheap fossil fuel energy in third world countries without the infrastructure for distribution, help the stated problems of pollution, extreme weather and food prices. Seriously you guys idolise fossil fuel as solving all the worlds problems when it is mostly the cause of them. Much much better solution is to distribute renewable technology so that they can make the electricity were they need it, without needing the infrastructure and have energy independence.


              Report this

              024

              • #
                AndyG55

                You can’t run a fridge using renewable power, unless you have 24/7/365 backup.

                You need the “WHEN you need it as well”

                Are you connected to the coal fired electricity grid.? I bet you are. Hypocrite.


                Report this

                81

              • #
                Bob Massey

                You betcha! Fossil fuel has made this country and now you green loonies are trying to tear it down.


                Report this

                50

          • #
            MemoryVault

            Wow, do you work for the Heartland Institute?

            Ad-hom, guilt by association.

            This kind of slandering and nastiness is right up their playbook.

            Ad-hom, guilt by association.

            As I showed above your comments display your inaccurate understanding of global temp changes.

            No, as comments by others showed, all you displayed is your own ignorance. Par for the course.

            Your other comments and those above show you as an extremist.

            Translation: Youdisagree with me, therefore you are an extremist.

            As to your characterisation, I would look around the world at which countries are suffering the worst for extreme climate events and problems with crops etc.
            ‘Economic impact of global warming is costing the world more than $1.2 trillion a year, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP’

            Computer model with no supporting evidence from the real world.

            ‘Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study.’

            Computer model with no supporting evidence from the real world. No mention or modelling of the number of people who have or will starve to death because of biofuels. No mention or modelling of the number of people displaced, starving or dead as a result of having been driven off their land for various “carbon sequestration” and reforestation programs.

            ‘Air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels is also separately contributing to the deaths of at least 4.5m people a year, the report found.

            Computer model with no supporting evidence from the real world. No mention of the tens of millions of people who die every year as a result of lung disease caused by cooking over dung and oil fires, because we deny them cheap, fossil-fuel powered electricity.

            The 331-page study, entitled Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of A Hot Planet and published on Wednesday, was carried out by the DARA group, a non-governmental organisation based in Europe, and the Climate Vulnerable Forum. It was written by more than 50 scientists, economists and policy experts, and commissioned by 20 governments.’
            http://m.guardiannews.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy?cat=environment&type=article
            http://daraint.org/about-us/what-we-do/

            Study produced by government funded agencies, employing government funded “scientists”, to produce a Report conducive to current government policies and objectives.

            “A new Oxfam report released today hopes to close this understanding gap between climate change and global food prices, arguing previous research grossly underestimates future food prices by ignoring the impact of severe weather shocks to the global food system.

            Study produced by government funded agencies, employing government funded “scientists”, to produce a Report conducive to current government policies and objectives.

            The report, “Extreme Weather, Extreme Prices,” argues current research paints only some of the picture by relying on steady increase in temperatures and precipitation. To get a more accurate picture, researchers threw down wild cards — the crazy weather events like droughts, hurricanes, and floods we’ve come to increasingly expect — to “stress-test” the system.” http://grist.org/food/how-extreme-weather-supersizes-global-food-price-tags/
            http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/extreme-weather-extreme-prices

            Since nothing much is actually happening, in order to obtain the results requested by government (who funded the project and paid their wages), researchers threw in a whole heap of “what if” scenarios. “What if” temperatures increase in a linear progression, despite the fact that they have always behaved in a cyclical fashion? “What if” droughts, hurricanes and floods suddenly increased exponentially, rather continue to decrease as they have done for quite some time now?

            .
            Michael, if you REALLY believe this tripe, then I seriously suggest you need professional help.


            Report this

            240

            • #
              Michael

              Ad-hom, guilt by association.

              Wow, did you read your own post? your an extremist because of your massively nasty personal attack on me.

              So basically anything that does not fit your confirmation bias is either not based in the real world or a government conspiracy. I guess that says it all really.


              Report this

              121

              • #
                AndyG55

                For you, anything that is based on reality is untrue unless it fits your brainwashed bias.

                The world is REAL, you fool, and it is telling you that THE MODELS ARE WRONG, and YOU ARE WRONG !!


                Report this

                81

              • #

                “Wow, did you read your own post? your an extremist because of your massively nasty personal attack on me”. Perhaps Michael that’s because of your massively personal attacks on rigorous scientific principles and the people here who are trying very hard to defend them. You’re a “Kruddite.”


                Report this

                20

          • #
            Debbie

            Michael,
            I meant it. . . .PLEEEAAAASE yank your head out of that trashy alarmist handbook you are quoting and get out into the real world and the real environment. You are behaving like and quoting those pretentious wankers I will have to apologise to my grandchildren about.


            Report this

            110

            • #
              Michael

              and get out into the real world and the real environment.

              I have spent a lot of time in the real world and chatted to many real people, and the global climate is changing and people are already suffering.

              You need to understand that the world is bigger than your backyard and read more internationally on what record breaking extreme weather events are occurring with increasing regularity. The pretentious … that you refer to are those that are under the mistaken belief that actions do not have consequences, that you can do whatever you like and some diety will come down to save you or that the planet has some natural rebalancing system to keep itself just right, just for you. You will be apologising to your grandchildren for putting your own petty needs and wants ahead of their futures.


              Report this

              018

              • #
                Mark D.

                Michael’s script:

                Use propaganda,
                Subtly drop “conspiracy” to cast doubt and suggest skeptics are irrational.
                Subtly drop “deity” to mix in the incorrect notion that skeptics are all Creationists.
                Subtly drop guilt as justification of Precaution Principle
                Hang it all on the “backs of children and grandchildren”.

                Too bad for Michael, he’s just not very convincing and worse for him, he believes in conspiracies, is a bigot and has his own faith in Gaia, doesn’t realize that the Precautionary Principle can be applied many ways, and even though Deep Green thinks massive extreme population control is the only answer to all Gaia’s troubles, continues to procreate.

                One seriously twisted mind there.


                Report this

                110

              • #
                Backslider

                I have spent a lot of time in the real world and chatted to many real people, and the global climate is changing

                “Chatted to many real people.” Well, that is most certainly the way to be sure that we have “record breaking extreme weather events are occurring with increasing regularity”, isn’t it Michael. Very, very scientific of you.

                I would suggest instead that you take the time to research weather events and find out for yourself where the real records are.


                Report this

                80

              • #
                Mark

                I have spent a lot of time in the real world and chatted to many real people,

                Methinks Michael is chatting to his local “houso” community. For the benefit of our international friends, the term refers to the inhabitants of state housing.

                When Michael refers to the science, he obviously means the last seance that he and his fellow crackheads attended after their attendance at the local methadone clinic.

                Fair dinkum! Is there a climate cliche that this most unfunny clown hasn’t dragged out of his nether regions?


                Report this

                70

              • #
                Backslider

                Is there a climate cliche that this most unfunny clown hasn’t dragged out of his nether regions?

                Nope….


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Debbie

                Michael,
                As well as ‘pretentious wankers’ . . . People like you are also known as ‘bitumen greens’ or ‘pinot greens’.
                I find your ignorance and your moral presumptions highly, highly, highly amusing.
                I would suggest to you that the world is not only bigger than my backyard (which is nowhere near a city or any bitumen BTW) . . . but also far bigger than those alarmist handbooks and blogs that you are so very fond of quoting.
                Do yourself a favour and try broadening your focus just a little every day


                Report this

                40

      • #
        AndyG55

        “future habitability of the planet is at risk”

        Too bl**dy right it is..

        The future prosperity of the whole planet has been put at risk by the MASSIVE waste of funds on INEFFICIENT, UNRELIABLE, so-called alternative energy source… that DON’T WORK !!!!

        Also the moronic demonization of the GAS OF LIFE, ie CO2, is a despicable and anti-life agenda, only supported by those, like you, who have zero idea or conscience.

        You obviously WANT the world economy and biosphere to collapse.

        Well.. YOU FIRST !!

        I DARE you to turn off ALL items that use coal powered electricity.. and survive … if you can.

        You and your ilk are the SCOURGE of the planet. !!!


        Report this

        182

        • #
          Michael

          Also the moronic demonization of the GAS OF LIFE, ie CO2, is a despicable and anti-life agenda, only supported by those, like you, who have zero idea or conscience.

          Wow you guys are really extreme today. You have already lost all credibility with your ‘gas of life’ comment. You do realise it is a molecule of carbon and oxygen elements, one of many in the universe. Your religious adulation for it is a bit sad.

          You obviously WANT the world economy and biosphere to collapse.

          Again, extreme, over the top and lacking reality. As to the biosphere, I am not the one encouraging the continuous spewing of fossilised CO2 that has been sequestered in the ground for millions of years. At the very least this is putting the atmosphere out of balance by increasing CO2 by 40%. So in what way am I causing the biosphere to collapse? The world economy? Well I think it was the greed of the fossil fuel and banking industries that have already caused it to collapse. If anything energy independence for all nations will make the whole world a better and safer place.

          I DARE you to turn off ALL items that use coal powered electricity.. and survive … if you can.

          You and your ilk are the SCOURGE of the planet. !!!

          Again, I am not interested in turning off electricity, just want to make that electricity from renewable sources because I care about future generations and populations already suffering. Your extreme rhetoric is showing how fragile your argument is.


          Report this

          121

      • #
        AndyG55

        I agree completely. the longer we delay stopping all this renewable nonsense, the harder it will be for all our descendants.

        We must turn back to cheap, reliable energy sources now, before it is too late.

        We must also get rid of all the CO2 nazi-ism, and help the CO2 level climb to a reasonable level if we want to SUSTAIN the future.

        700ppm would be a good start.


        Report this

        121

        • #
          Michael

          We must also get rid of all the CO2 nazi-ism, and help the CO2 level climb to a reasonable level if we want to SUSTAIN the future.

          So let me see, we already have CO2 at levels higher than in over a million years and YOU want to increase it by another 300? Is there ANY commonsense here? This religious adulation over atomic elements is getting ridiculous. Why don’t you go and start a church of CO2 where you can all go and get preached to by your fossil fuel masters. CO2 is a compound of oxygen and carbon, I neither love nor hate it, both elements have many uses both good and bad. Just like iron in the body the right amount gives us a nice stable atmosphere with a largely comfortable climate, to little will send us into an ice age, and to much will increase sea levels, damage corals, acidify our oceans and increase extreme weather. Lets try and get it back to its natural concentrations.


          Report this

          021

          • #
            AndyG55

            There is already a church vilifying CO2, you seem to be one of its members.

            We just need to counteract the moronic teachings of that church.

            All that fossil fuel used to be in the atmosphere, that’s where it BELONGS, sustaining LIFE !!!


            Report this

            51

          • #
            Backslider

            Lets try and get it back to its natural concentrations.

            What, pray tell Michael are it’s “natural concentrations”.

            SO no you say “let’s try to get it back”. The question has been posed to you, which you dodged like a jackrabbit: The measure planned and currently under discussion in this thread will reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by how much Michael and temperatures by how much Michael?

            Most importantly, what are YOU doing? C’mon, what are YOU doing, right here, right now?


            Report this

            30

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Have you costed reverse causation, the principle being that the green future plans CAUSED a large part of the German GFC? In a way, I’m comforted that our politicians here got so inept that we now lag German ‘progress’ by several years.
        Let’s not go to paralysis by analysis. Try to comment with innovative ideas for better use of Australian natural advantage, as some above have done, commendably. I’ll be contributing shortly, as soon as I can afford the elecrticity to work the PC at night.

        Btw & OT, related to Jo’s earlier article about precision in large number calculations, does anyone have access to a supercomputer and 5 minutes of its use? There is a lot in that article, but more can be written starting with Callender 1938 and more as Steve Mac has written up at CA. My email is sherro1 at optusnet dot com dot au Tks.


        Report this

        80

      • #

        Michael…”the science is telling us”.

        Who is The Science, and when did you meet him?


        Report this

        140

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Michael you continually refer to something called “the science” without actually knowing what that is.
        You apparently think “the science” is output from computer software fed garbage to begin with, and reams and reams of bullshit produced by grant-guzzling geezers with huge egos only slightly smaller than the egos of their colleagues they call their “peers”.
        Science in fact is a discipline which is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural…
        When the natural order of things has precisely controlled the very parameters that make this planet habitable for life as we know it for 4 billion years, and during that period the amount of CO2 has varied widely, the only conclusion the rational scientist can reach is that the null hypothesis is valid.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          When the natural order of things has precisely controlled the very parameters that make this planet habitable for life as we know it for 4 billion years

          Wow Rod, you realllllyyy need to go read a book on the evolution of Planet Earth. The planet has barely been habitable for life as we know it for less than 1% of those 4 billion years. It has been a haphazard, uncontrolled wild ride, encompassing times without an atmosphere, an atmosphere without oxygen, a snowball earth, meteor hits, many many mass extinction events and much more.

          So the only conclusion a rational scientist (and human being) can reach is that the planet has no natural state, that it will react to forcings upon it in a manner that is normally detrimental to the current life forms on the planet. It has taken billions of years to get to a state good for us and we are blithely performing an uncontrolled geo engineering experiment that has taken our atmosphere back to a time when the planet was barely habitable for 7 billion human beings in their current state of habitation and still going backwards.


          Report this

          02

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        “science is telling us that the future habitability of the planet is at risk”

        Thanks Michael I needed a good laugh. Which brand of tinfoil do you prefer for your hats?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Take yours off safety guy and take a fresh look at reality. Habitability of this planet for 7 billion humans in their current state of habitation is a fragile moment in time for planet earth. The history of planet earth tell us that it is very easy to push it into states not favorable for us, and recent measurements show us that it is probably easier to shift us into those states than we once thought.

          “Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.”
          http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/


          Report this

          03

          • #
            Heywood

            So AAD, found that figure yet??

            How much warming, in degrees celsius, will Australia’s mitigation efforts (via the ETS etc.) offset by 2100?

            $60,000 per head of population over the next 37 years buys us how much ‘reduction’ in warming?


            Report this

            10

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              So sad that you are unable to grasp such a simple concept. We do not control the climate, we can only control our co2 emissions. If we could work out exactly the consequences of every molecule of co2 we put up there then we could decide on the exact amount of emissions we could emit and share that out appropriately.

              Mitigation efforts are just that, we know that co2 causes warming and have a range of effects that are all already occurring. We know that past climates have been much more extreme than now, and that the last time co2 levels were this high the whole world was completely different and most areas currently populated would be uninhabitable. So the idea is to try to reduce our emissions to reduce the side effects of our large uncontrolled geo engineering experiment. If you have the secret formula that works out with certainty what our emissions will do then please provide us. Real scientists based on reality don’t live in a world with such certainty.

              So your strawman attempts are pathetic. Please answer the question of what you think will happen if we continue with our uncontrolled emissions of co2?


              Report this

              03

              • #
                Heywood

                Still no figure then? Not even a ball park number with assumptions?

                “So sad that you are unable to grasp such a simple concept.”

                If it is such a simple concept AAD, why hasn’t anyone calculated the figure??

                “So the idea is to try to reduce our emissions to reduce the side effects of our large uncontrolled geo engineering experiment”

                We use an ETS and RETs to reduce emissions. We reduce emissions to mitigate further warming. Yes??

                We have emissions targets into the future…

                “Australia has also committed to reducing its emissions by between 5 and 15 or 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. The five per cent target is unconditional. The up to 15 per cent and 25 per cent targets are conditional on the extent of international action.
                The Australian Government has also committed to a long-term target to cut pollution by 80 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050″

                However you want to spin it, the whole goal of reducing emissions is to reduce potential temperature rise in the future.

                I find it extremely interesting that you can’t quantify the potential “bang for buck” of the ETS in a temperature rise prevented sense. You advocate the expenditure of Trillions of dollars to reduce warming, but have absolutely no idea how much benefit these trillions will have. That is pathetic.

                “So your strawman attempts are pathetic.”

                Much like your attempts to evade the whole point of my question.

                “Please answer the question of what you think will happen if we continue with our uncontrolled emissions of co2?”

                Now THAT is a strawman, I am referring to quantifying the temperature benefit of mitigation strategies, besides you haven’t even come close to answering my question.


                Report this

                20

          • #
            Backslider

            And by how much will atmospheric CO2 be reduced?……


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Backslider

            And when are YOU going to start leading by example rather than spending all your time whining?


            Report this

            20

  • #
    handjive

    It is a mathematically provable fact that you cannot replace oil, coal, and natural gas with windmills, solar panels, and biofuels.

    The United States Government subsidizes wind power at a rate of $23.34 per MWh compared to just $.25 for natural gas, $.44 for coal, $.67 for hydroelectric power, and $1.59 for nuclear power (2008 EIA statistics)

    To satisfy 100% of New York City’s electricity needs with wind power would require impossible around-the-clock winds within a limited speed range, and a wind farm the size of the entire state of Connecticut.

    Solar photovoltaic cells are so inefficient that it would take about 60 square miles of expensive solar panels to generate just one gigawatt of electricity. [Statistical source - Scientist Jesse H. Ausubel, author of "Renewable and nuclear heresies."]

    Forbes – Germany’s Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders

    Text & Links From: The Renewable Energy Disaster


    Report this

    140

    • #
      Michael

      It is a mathematically provable fact that you cannot replace oil, coal, and natural gas with windmills, solar panels, and biofuels.

      What a ridiculous statement. This is like saying in 1890 that it is a mathematically provable that you cannot replace a horse and cart with an automobile.

      There have been many studies already about how it can be done and how much it will cost, but in the end it is only a matter of time and technology. How fast we do it will depend on how we prioritise our kids and future generations over short term profit and greed.

      “The comparison with business as usual is the crucial element, because between 2030 and 2050, all current generation will need to be replaced. If the likes of Bloomberg New Energy Finance are right, then solar and wind are already cheaper than new coal and gas, and could account for 46 per cent of generation by 2030. As the ANU’s Andrew Blakers pointed, a simple cost substitution could see fossil fuels replaced by renewables by 2040.”
      http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/energy-costs-business-as-usual-no-cheaper-than-100-renewables-39933


      Report this

      224

      • #
        AndyG55

        “over short term profit and greed”

        ALL the short term profit and greed is from the slimy gits pushing the unreliable renewable energy industry.

        If you don’t believe that, think what would happen if the massive subsidies were removed.

        Its all about the MONEY that flows into the coffers of the renewable bankers.

        Are you linked to one of them ? Which trough do YOU swill from ?


        Report this

        121

        • #

          Short term profit and greed.

          The changes mean that these families will have their feed-in tariff slashed from 40c to 20c per unit over the next year. This is an arbitrary and deeply unfair decision, targeting ordinary families – a blatant grab for cash by the WA government. The Barnett Government is betraying solar owners and turning its back on people who are taking the right steps for our energy future.

          Families? Who’s been taking the risk? Who’s been subsidising the installation, paying up front for electricity to be produced over the next 15 years? Where’s the Families’ guarantee of delivering on that promise?

          It’s not arbitrary. The feed-in tarrif is 19c/kWh for other co-generators; people who can generate on demand. Big generators sell electricity at less the 4c/kWh.

          It’s not unfair to the people who don’t have PV to try to keep their electricity price increases to a minimum. No room at the trough is not a reason to force others to pay extortionate prices for PV-generated electricity and to pay to upgrade the distribution grid to a co-generation grid.

          It’s not a blatant grab for cash by the government because they don’t want to pay the price at which the PV owners are selling. It’s a reduction in expenditure.

          There is no betrayal. caveat emptor There is no excuse for not reading the contract.

          The people actually taking the right steps into the future are the ones not mal-investing in dead-end inappropriate technolgies just because they were promised rivers of gold.


          Report this

          150

        • #
          Michael

          ALL the short term profit and greed is from the slimy gits pushing the unreliable renewable energy industry.

          I am pretty sure the richest people are in the fossil fuel and mining industries. Gina Reinhardt I believe is the richest woman in australia (the world?). Seriously what rubbish, on the one hand you point out how many renewable companies are falling over, due to the new and developing nature of the industry (what subsidies are normally used for) and then on the other hand saying that it is making them all rich. You say what ever makes you right in the circumstances. Then you ignore the 1.9 trillion in subsidies the old and mature fossil fuel industry receives.


          Report this

          017

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            (what subsidies are normally used for)

            Just so you know — no energy source that I know of ever had a government subsidy until solar came along. Oil, coal, natural gas and anything else I can think of were economically viable without subsidy. Even wind power was viable when it was used in a way that made it practical. It was not until you and your ilk started disapproving of the economically viable energy sources that subsidies came along.

            Think about that, Michael, think long and hard. It really does mean something. Can you figure it out?


            Report this

            100

          • #
            AndyG55

            Mining build the economy, builds the human world around you.

            You can go back and live in you cave any time you want.

            The renewable entrepreneurs will take the money and run, leaving the UNSUSTAINABLE renewable industry to collapse when subsidies are removed.

            Who is going to clean up the MESS of millions of useless wind turbines as they shut down in the next 5 years or so. It certainly won’t be the people who made all the money, they will have disappeared back into their grubby little holes.

            I suspect that you are one of those grubby little shysters. In it for the money.. Who is paying you ?


            Report this

            61

          • #
            Bob Massey

            Yep this rings true ?? Bill Gates is rich, worth billions I believe and he’s a miner too /sarc off


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Backslider

            Seriously what rubbish, on the one hand you point out how many renewable companies are falling over, due to the new and developing nature of the industry (what subsidies are normally used for) and then on the other hand saying that it is making them all rich.

            No Michael, you are seriously naive. You have no idea whatsoever how these things work.

            Please allow me to show you the insignificance of your ignorance:

            The big guy investors invested in renewables because there were huge government subsidies and a nice profit to be made. The cost of setting these things up and running them is where the subsidies come in. These guys make money, big money, from the electricity that is sold, or selling the equipment or services to the company generating, not the subsidies. When things fall over, they simply take their money and move onto the next thing.

            Why don’t you take a look at your hero Al Gore and follow his investments. I’m sure your eyes will be opened.


            Report this

            30

            • #
              AndyG55

              Big Al doesn’t have anything left in the renewable industry.

              He has made his bickies, and now jumped ship.

              He knows renewables are NOT sustainable.

              I would like to see the mandatory purchase of renewable energy SCRAPPED. See how many electricity companies still decide to purchase it at green extortionist prices. Just one company saying, “no thanks”, and thus being able to purchase all their electricity at coal fired prices would give then an enormous economic advantage. The other companies would soon have to follow suit.


              Report this

              30

              • #
                Backslider

                Big Al doesn’t have anything left in the renewable industry.

                He has made his bickies, and now jumped ship.

                He knows renewables are NOT sustainable.

                Exactly. That was the whole point of the lesson :)


                Report this

                40

          • #
            Heywood

            ” Then you ignore the 1.9 trillion in subsidies the old and mature fossil fuel industry receives.”

            Yes, especially with respect to power generation where renewables are subsidised at more than 5 times the amount of fossil fuel generation.

            http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/power_gen_subsidies.pdf

            Nuclear Power Generation (estimated subsidy = 1.7 US cents/kWh):
            Non-hydroelectric Renewable Power Generation (estimated subsidy = 5.0 US cents/kWh):
            Fossil-fuel Based Power Generation (estimated subsidy = 0.8 US cents/kWh).

            But I have already shown you this…. Conveniently ignored.


            Report this

            20

        • #
          Michael

          There is no betrayal. caveat emptor There is no excuse for not reading the contract.

          Yes there is. I did read the contract, it promised 10 years, no out clause. There is talk of a class action suite, I would be in that. People put in a lot of their own money that they are trying to recoup and lots of people brought more panels than they need on the 10 year promise. They are breaking a contract, and it shows just what happens mere months after voting in a liberal government. Caveat emptor indeed, think again before letting these overspending federal libs get in with a mandate to change the gst to pay for their overblown promises.


          Report this

          019

          • #
            Mark D.

            Leftist governments always spend spend spend, then someone else has to fix it. Too bad you’ll be caught in the middle. Pretty smart buying that solar system wasn’t it.


            Report this

            70

          • #

            If it’s written in the contract, call Department of Commerce. Consumer Protection.

            BTW: it’s dead easy for the grid to be configured so that there won’t be a lot of in-feed from grid-connected PV.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            Eddie Sharpe

            In Europe most goods have to carry a CE Mark, just so you know it’s at your own risk.


            Report this

            70

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Yes there is. I did read the contract, it promised 10 years, no out clause. There is talk of a class action suite, I would be in that.

            Barnum didn’t really say, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” But nonetheless he was right when he didn’t say it.

            Hey Michael! I have some stock in an old (more than 100 years old) historic bridge in New York City, very picturesque and very profitable. I might let some of it go at a reasonable price if you’re interested.


            Report this

            50

          • #

            Michael,

            Did you ever do physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology etc. Or are you an arts graduate? You sound like one.


            Report this

            70

            • #
              AndyG55

              More likely didn’t finish first year arts.

              Certainly has zero understanding of any of the nonsense he likes to quote.

              Just copy and paste the notes, Michael.. that’s all you are paid to do..

              DO NOT, under any circumstances… try to think !!!!!


              Report this

              50

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            NOW the truth comes out.
            This joker is just angry at himself that he was so stupid that he swallowed the scam and laid out some dough for solar panels.
            Buddy, you were conned. The bloody thing don’t last for ten years. You were conned along with everyone else. Direct your anger where it belongs, and the FASCISTS in the green movement!


            Report this

            80

          • #
            Backslider

            There is talk of a class action suite

            The “class action suite”… was that by Bach or Handel?

            Again you show a decided lack of education Michael. What was the “university” which you attended? What degree was bestowed upon you?


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Heywood

            “lots of people brought more panels than they need on the 10 year promise.”

            So they are solar farmers then, and only in it for the cash, cash that is stolen from fellow electricity users.

            “I would be in that.”

            Of course you would. Like most Australians getting a government facilitated handout, you squeal like a pig when your ‘entitlement’ is taken away.

            ” with a mandate to change the gst to pay for their overblown promises.”

            Do you get payed by the slogan?? Show us the evidence of Liberal policy where it discusses changing the GST? An ALP or GetUp! press release doesn’t count.

            The funny thing about your little tanty about your solar RETs is that it proves it really IS about the money for you isn’t it Michael?


            Report this

            20

      • #
        handjive

        What a ridiculous statement” says Michael, August 10, 2013 at 7:49 pm, ignoring the example given, only to offer up a lame analogy in response.

        It appears you didn’t read that link at all, or can’t comprehend it.

        To meet 100% of United States electricity demand with wind power would require impossible weather conditions and a wind farm covering an area larger than Texas and Louisiana combined.

        As a considered response in rebuttal, you post a link to a report (that) is, as it admits, very hypothetical.
        Quoting it: “the technology might be ready between 2030 & 2050.” Might be?
        Then again, we are talking “settled climate science,” where 97% consensus is acceptable.

        To offer an analogy for Michael:
        It is as if a mathematician had said the physics problem involves 5 terms, 2 of which he had no clue about, but it was okay to work out the answer with just the 3 we knew about.

        Would never happen. Except in “settled” climate science.


        Report this

        90

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Michael,
        back in the 1890′s they were worried by the problem of horse shit building up in New York streets.
        The automobile came along and was a workable solution (to that problem).

        Now you come along sprouting that same horse shit (american for B.S.) and proposing an UNworkable solution.

        Despite being informed of the facts you continue, almost hysterically, to say the same thing over and over. The only person you have convinced is yourself.

        Michael, I strongly recommend you seek psychiatric help. You need it.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Mark D.

          Graeme #3
          I’m in the US and here B.S. either stands for bachelor of science or bull shit. I can also let you know that this American can readily tell the difference between horse shit and a bachelor degree, also between horse shit and bull shit (assuming healthy animals). Just keeping you up to date.


          Report this

          30

      • #
        Bob Massey

        No Michael, that’s not what he was saying or meant.

        It is a mathematically provable fact that you cannot replace oil, coal, and natural gas with windmills, solar panels, and biofuels.

        because this would cause us to replace the automobile with the horse and cart


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        ” kids and future generations ”

        Yup another lovely little shiny chestnut of nonsense.

        What about people dying in the 3rd world RIGHT NOW because of lack of access to energy? Do they count or is it “racially adjusted death toll zero” for you like most greens?


        Report this

        20

  • #
    pat

    AndyG55 -

    good email…but maybe send it to all the politicians!

    coal-fired power stations are the only way to go in australia, and i say this as a former greens voter & someone who cares about the environment. everyone i know (labor/liberal/national/green) feels this way about coal, especially as we have it in abundance & china’s building so many coal-fired power stations.

    however, it angers me just as much when nuclear & fracking are being touted as CAGW remedies & being subsidised either through tax breaks or guaranteed high prices, as it does when its for solar/wind. how about we abandon CAGW altogether & move from crony capitalism to a real free market.

    Peiser says: ” Instead of putting money into the energy-expensive EU, investors are pouring money into the US, where energy prices have fallen to one-third of those in the EU, thanks to the shale gas revolution.”:

    GWPF (& murdoch’s times)show no concern that fracking is getting a huge tax break:

    21 July: GWPF: from The Times: Frack, Baby, Frack
    Yes, under Mr Osborne’s proposals companies engaged in fracking will pay 30 per cent tax on their income, as opposed to the 62 per cent paid on new offshore oil operations. But, as any honest environmentalist could tell you, burning gas produces vastly less CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions than burning oil or coal — with CO2 of course being regarded as the key contributor to climate change…
    http://www.thegwpf.org/times-frack-baby-frack/

    part of the brit govt bureacracy set up for fracking etc:

    The Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil (OUGO)
    The Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil covers not only the development of shale gas and oil but also other forms of unconventional production such as coal bed methane…
    OUGO sits within the Department of Energy and Climate Change, part of the Energy Development Unit
    https://www.gov.uk/government/policy-teams/office-of-unconventional-gas-and-oil-ougo


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Bebben

    Error in the post:

    In Spain more than 5,000 solar entrepreneurs face bankruptcy without the subsidies.

    Benny Peiser writes:

    Now that the Spanish government has dramatically curtailed these subsidies, even retrospectively, more than 50,000 solar entrepreneurs face financial disaster and bankruptcy.

    So it’s worse than we thought. :)


    Report this

    130

    • #

      “Now that the Spanish government has dramatically curtailed these subsidies, even retrospectively, more than 50,000 solar entrepreneurs face financial disaster and bankruptcy.” Serves the stupid feckers right innit?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    warren raymond

    Billions, hundreds of billions wasted on junk science and fraud. But ‘climate change’ was always about ‘climate justice’, which means the greatest transfer of wealth from developed countries to third world despots.

    Meanwhile, the massive invasion of all western countries by Mohammedan cultural enrichers continues unhindered; and nothing, nothing is left for defence.

    A bizarre, suicidal state of affairs.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Michael

      Wow, what planet are you from? Basically there is the science as supported by 97% of the scientists, 98% of the science and virtually all of the internationally recognised scientific organisations, and then there are crazy conspiracy theories.


      Report this

      121

      • #

        Michael,

        you’re big on consensus, and you’re also a dyed in the wool rusted on Communist, Socialist, Labor Party supporter who has his CAGW religion to follow.

        If you agree with the consensus so vehemently, then how about this then.

        If the consensus here at Joanne’s blog is that you no longer be heard, would that be a consensus you would then abide by, in much the same manner as you agree with the so called consensus of your fable of 97% of blah blah blah!

        I move that you be no longer heard.

        Tony.


        Report this

        120

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I move that you be no longer heard.

          I second the motion.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          ianl8888


          I move that you be no longer heard

          No Tony, that’s not the way. Michael has the same right as you and I or anyone else to post here

          Just ignore his posts. Do not feed the troll – very apt

          BTW, the old Greenie furphy about “trillions in fossil fuel subsidies”: 1) diesel fuel rebate is given because mines actually build and maintain their own roads (so no cost to taxpayer); 2) appreciated devaluation of expensive equipment is given to ALL primary producers (including farmers) because that’s where actual common wealth is produced … end of story


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Heywood

            “Michael has the same right as you and I or anyone else to post here”

            Ian, in general I agree with that principle, but AAD has already been warned by Jo, and continues to cut and paste the same posts and links between threads.

            I am no fan of banning anyone, that is something that the cartoonist and big oil employee at SkS would do, and I don’t agree that he should be banned, but his repetitive crap can be reigned in a little.


            Report this

            30

        • #
          Heywood

          “If the consensus here at Joanne’s blog is that you no longer be heard,”

          Well, we already proved a consensus that he was an Arrogant Annoying Di%#head….


          Report this

          40

      • #
        Mark D.

        and then there are crazy conspiracy theories.

        That is at least twice you have made an incorrect claim of “conspiracy theory”. Does it make you feel superior by making false claims of conspiracy or do you feel better in a revenge sort of way given that you warmists believe there is a conspiracy by big oil and big coal to stop you?

        What about Heartland? Don’t you think they’re in on it too?


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        …and then there are crazy conspiracy theories.

        And then there’s you, Michael, hung way out on a limb and frantically sawing it off behind you.

        They say it’s not the fall that hurts but the…well you can figure out the rest.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        AndyG55

        97%.. as in 75 out of 77..

        That you even try to pull that little piece of fraud propaganda shows just how brain-dead you are.

        As soon as I see anyone say that, I KNOW they are a mindless, ignorant little twerp.


        Report this

        90

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        AND what you just said is 100% BULLSHIT!


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Bob Massey

        Total nonsense.. There is no such thing as a 97% consensus.. We told to stop reading from that version of the bible Michael but you haven’t listened !


        Report this

        40

      • #

        “97% of scientists!!” thats funny Michael. What did the Fairy Godmother do then…


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        No, I think your just taking the pi$$. No one seriously believes any of that. The media spews it out, the welded on believers like yourself didn’t need selling and the public isn’t listening. Mainly because your so called scientists cried wolf on global disaster so many times in the last 2 decades, people have stopped being frightened by it.

        According to Morgan research the number of Australians listing concern for climate change as a “front of mind” issue peaked in 2008 at 37%. At the last poll of the same question in late 2012 the result was 7%, they plan to ask the question again closer to the election, the pollsters expect the number to be lower than that.

        Now think about Kevin Rudd and the labour party generally on this topic. In 2008 Rudd described it as the “greatest moral challenge of our time” now he wont take questions on the topic, have you heard him mention it, or try to bring it into the debate? Back then his handlers told him “Kev its worth at least 35%, you gotta run with it”, now they are telling him “its gay marriage and the deficit where you can make a difference in the polls” so off he goes on those topics.

        Michael, this is going to hurt, but mate, you’ve been had. You have swallowed the worm, hook, line, sinker and the rod and reel.

        You either have to believe that the people in power around the world have figured the best days of milking people on the AGW myth have passed and have moved on, or you believe they know the planet is in grave danger and are choosing to ignore the problem. Which is more believable? But keep in mind, its going to be you being guilty of bizarre conspiracy theories if you think its the latter and not the former my friend.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    After the Georgian anti-Putin entries at Eurovision, after Pussy Riot’s performance in the cathedral, now it’s Obamarama ‘s turn to have a go at Putin after not getting his way with his Bored Kid jibe


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Eliza Doodle

      Beware those preaching progressives who cannt live with their past.
      The appeal to novelty may not be one of Aristotles celebrated refutations, but it still betrays a lack of grounding, while others might prefer to build on their past.

      Putin sends greetings to Bush after meeting with Obama


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I’ve heard some really strange and yes, offensive names of various groups and their “product”. But “Pussy Riot” ties with “Enema of the State” for the blue ribbon. Must we put up with an ever more crude and offensive world in order to straighten out our problems? We’re committing one offense in the name of stopping another as though two wrongs can somehow cancel each other and make things right. Where does it end? Words mean something and words that once would have gotten a radio or TV station heavily fined are now daily fare.

      We should be ashamed of it all but instead it’s just accepted as normal. Nothing good can come of it. :-(


      Report this

      71

      • #
        Eliza Doodle

        They deserved to go to jail for the name alone. Technically it took a performance.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Ace

        Roy they know how to get attention. Theyve got your attention. What do sceptics do to get attention to their issues?

        Like I said before. By and large, nothing. Conversing with people who share the same views does not equate to a “fighting” for truth.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          What do sceptics do to get attention to their issues?

          Ace,

          Martin Luther King changed this whole country by marching through the streets where segregation was not just a prejudice it was the law. But he didn’t distract from his purpose by calling himself some insulting or offensive name, neither did he try to obstruct sidewalks, eating establishments or otherwise make himself and those who marched with him a problem that others could not deal with like these “occupy” nut cases. I’ve always believed that if skeptics got well enough organized to get out and do the same thing and keep it up it could do a lot of good. But you have to be credible when you talk to people, specially to the press (and they would come out to see what’s going on). And you can’t be credible with offensive names or by creating constant problems for the very people you want to reach with your message.

          That’s my answer to your question. What’s yours?


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Roy they know how to get attention. Theyve got your attention.

          They did get my attention but it’s not the kind of attention I’d bet they want. I never looked at their cause closely enough to know whether I’d agree or disagree with them. And that’s the wrong kind of attention. They lost me by believing I would think them worthwhile if they used a name from life’s gutter. And of course I’m not Russian either so I have even less incentive to let them grab more of my attention than it takes to realize they’re a bunch I don’t want to be associated with.

          Take your cue from Martin Luther King, not from a bunch of fools.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        MemoryVault

        .
        They work the language both ways, Roy.

        My grandfather was a schoolteacher. He was at the same inner Perth primary school for several decades. Many times he waived promotion in order to stay at that school. He was considered a pillar of the community, an “elder” everyone trusted.

        Neighbourly disputes would be brought to him for a hearing and a judgement. He gave away dozens of young women in marriage, women whose fathers had killed in the war, women he had taught as children. He counseled many of those married couples, in everything from finance to relationships. He ended up teaching the children of those children.

        His large gravestone in Karakatta cemetery was paid for by the local community as a monument to him, from all of them. On it he is described as “a most discriminating man“.

        .
        Today they have twisted that into an insult.


        Report this

        100

        • #
          Eddie Sharpe

          Thank you for that uplifting tale MV. Don’t worry about the language. Words mean what they are used for at the time. It is good to be reminded of the value of being discriminating and how it is something to be appreciated.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          Mark D.

          Yes MV, thank you for this. If I’m ever visiting Karakatta cemetery, I’ll pay my respects to your grandfather.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Today they have twisted that into an insult.

          Here they have made it into injury as well. No one in the federal government is even allowed to call terrorism what it is. It’s now “man caused disasters” lest some group (guess which) be offended. It effectively stops any real prospect of getting them before they get us.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    pat

    CAGW gatekeeper Revkin has been going nuclear as well, & the Hansen post could just as easily be from GWPF!

    23 Aug: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: Jim Hansen Presses the Climate Case for Nuclear Energy
    I encourage you to watch this short video interview with climate scientist and campaigner James E. Hansen, posted by the folks who brought you “Pandora’s Promise,” the flawed but valuable film arguing for a substantial role for nuclear energy in sustaining human progress without disrupting the climate.
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/jim-hansen-presses-the-climate-case-for-nuclear-energy/?_r=0

    Revkin always suggests he has some reservations, but not really, & never do his posts explain who is going to finance nuclear, tho i do know – the public, in the name of CAGW:

    13 June: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: A Film Presses the Climate, Health and Security Case for Nuclear Energy
    “Pandora’s Promise” is a provocative and important new documentary making the case for nuclear power as a safe and large-scale substitute for fossil fuels…
    [|Insert | The Times has published a feature about the film and the director, including the fun detail that Robert Stone, now 54, made his first movie, on the dawn of environmental consciousness, using his mother's Super 8 camera on the first Earth Day.]…
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/a-film-presses-the-climate-and-security-case-for-nuclear-energy/

    13 June: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: Seeking Constructive Debate on Nuclear Energy
    Concerns about climate change driven by heat-trapping emissions from fossil fuel combustion and the substantial death toll from sooty pollution from the same sources have led to new support for nuclear power. That shift is shown convincingly in “Pandora’s Promise,” the new documentary by Robert Stone that I discussed in my previous post…
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/welcoming-a-real-debate-about-nuclear-power/


    Report this

    50

    • #
      AndyG55

      In Australia, there is ZERO NEED for nuclear sourced electricity.

      We have among the best quality coal in the world.

      We should be using it to provide cheap reliable power to the benefit of the whole economy.

      A couple of new process coal powered turbines to phase out older ones would also allow Australia to easily reach the nonsense of the 5% CO2 reduction as well.


      Report this

      51

      • #

        In Australia, there is ZERO NEED for nuclear sourced electricity.

        In the next 10 or perhaps 20 years.

        It’s hard to see how quickly the next generation of nuclear power plants will develop; especially small, modular reactors in the 300 MW to 600 MW range. If the promises are only substatntially filled, then it’ll be cheaper to deploy small nuclear than diesel or gas to regional centres. Mining sites and towns are also candidates, where “sealed”, “portable” reactors producing down to 100 MW can displace diesel generators; at a higher capital cost but with essentially no refuelling required for 5 to 10 years.

        Coal fired plants are big because the thermodynamics are more efficient with big heat exchangers; allowing “the last Joule” to be harvested from the fuel’s combustion. With nuclear, fuel costs can be stupidly small, especially molten salt reactors employing the Thorium fuel cycle so efficiency of thermal energy recovery for electricity generation is less of a priority. Capital cost is a higher priority and the smaller the (nuclear) plant, the easier it is to control the quality of the work; keeping a lid on costs.

        The other advantage of small, distributed power stations is the ability to provide process heat to industrial processes in its proximity. Very high quality (thermodynamically; high energy density and flow capacity) processes can be supported on-site with molten-salt reactors, tapping into the heat from the secondary “cooling” salts that are at at least 400⁰C and can exceed 700⁰C with known materials.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Popeye

    It’s about b….y time!!

    It’s taken FAR TOO LONG and cost FAR TOO MUCH money to let the promoters of this SCAM get away scot free.

    There needs to be a Royal Commission in Australia to bring these charlatans & cheats to justice. ALL those who have knowingly perpetrated the fraud should pay – both in monetary and time (in jail) penalties.

    Anything less would be a failure of justice.

    Cheers,


    Report this

    90

    • #
      AndyG55

      Take Flannery’s waterfront home of him and post him to Oodnadatta !


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Michael

      ALL those who have knowingly perpetrated the fraud should pay – both in monetary and time (in jail) penalties.

      Definately, and I am sure that as more and more people suffer due to the actions of those promoting delay in favor of fossil fuel profits, will be brought to account. Damage of this scale to the planets habitability will demand justice in the future.


      Report this

      016

      • #
        Mark D.

        in favor of fossil fuel profits,

        There it is: CONSPIRACY!!!!!!

        Michael is a conspiracy nutcase.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        AndyG55

        Yes, the alternative energy shysters and those pushing the CO2 vilification MUST be held to account for the economic destruction and utter waste that they have perpetrated.


        Report this

        51

      • #
        AndyG55

        Raised CO2 levels ENHANCE the world’s habitability, you idiot !

        The real damage is being wrought by the spread of useless alternative energy sources.

        Devastation during their manufacture.

        Devastation of avian life, (without a word from the wannabe environmentalists in the WWF and Greenpieces)

        Disruption of natural atmospheric air movement.

        Widespread destruction of hinterlands, and natural environments.

        And who will tidy up when their 5-10 year lifespan is up.. NOT the people who put them there, you can bet on that.

        That’s the difference.. NO ACCOUNTABILITY for the alternative energy fringe.
        No Accountability for environmental damage. No requirement to tidy up after themselves.

        They don’t have to meet supply regularity quota, they even get paid for non-supply.. how ridiculous is that.

        If they want to feed to the grid, they should have to meet all the restrictions on consistency, reliability etc that the MAJOR suppliers have to meet.
        Contracts that fine them for non-supply, and a pay-in price the same as the major power stations.

        They could never exist under a normal supply arrangement.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        RoHa

        Finte. Infinite. Definite. Why do people (e.g. Michael) write “definately”?


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Angry

        Michael,

        DEFINITELY not “Definately”.

        Clearly you failed English as well as Science !


        Report this

        11

  • #
    Sunray

    I would laugh, except for the fact that these Global Warming Fraudsters are maliciously serious and dangerous.


    Report this

    110

  • #

    Every time I look at the end results of environmental policies, all I see is poverty and inhumanity, and every time it’s always visited on the most vulnerable people, in both the developed and developing world. The hysterical reaction to Fukushima, convinced the German government to be first movers, and this winter, it’s the ordinary people who will yet again pay the price for others making bad decisions.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/examples-will-have-to-be-made-germany/

    Pointman


    Report this

    130

    • #
      MemoryVault

      It’s the same the whole world over,
      It’s the poor wot gets the blame;
      It’s the rich wot gets the pleasure,
      Ain’t it all a blooming shame.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Michael

      all I see is poverty and inhumanity,

      We already have that in a world dominated by fossil fuel. Over 3 billion people live on $2.50 per day or less. Developing cheap renewable energy that can create power at the source pollution free and with energy independence is the best thing we can do for the developing world. They are already the ones suffering the most for our obsession with fossil fuels.


      Report this

      020

      • #
        Mark D.

        Over 3 billion people live on $2.50 per day or less.

        Due to government taxation, regulation and restrictions, I can’t live nearly that cheaply. I wish I could undo overbearing government meddling in my life.

        And you Michael want more government meddling. DAMN YOU!


        Report this

        60

      • #

        Michael, why do you suppose people in Singapore became wealthy? Hint: It was not their large oil fields.


        Report this

        110

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        So, Michael, why don’t you show us how to do it instead of complaining that no one else has done it yet.

        That would solve two problems and I think everyone knows what they are without my explaining them. Even you will know what those problems are if you think about it a bit instead of complaining. And there’s a clue for you.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        AndyG55

        “create power at the source pollution free ”

        Intermittent, unreliable power is not very useful. Fridges turn off, food spoils. Cooking, but only when there is a breeze.. seriously ?

        You wouldn’t put up with that, would you.
        But you expect the poorer countries to make do with a third rate energy supply system.

        Consistent, reliable power required solid infrastructure.

        There is ZERO point in WASTING money doubling up energy systems.

        Anyway, wind turbines are actually a form of pollution. They take energy from the atmosphere, reducing air movement, leading to static air cells. Static air cells cause high temperature cells because the air cannot adequately cool itself. That’s what causes heat waves.

        They also pollute the natural environment more than any other form of energy. They are like fleas or cockroaches.

        Let me guess, you don’t live anywhere near one, do you.
        Inner city luvly, is my bet, with zero understanding of how nature and life really works.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        “Cheap renewable energy” is an oxymoron.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Backslider

        the best thing we can do for the developing world

        C’mon then Michael, why don’t you lead by example and show the whole World how it’s done. Please show the whole World how YOU can live on “cheap renewable energy that can create power at the source pollution free and with energy independence”.

        C’mon maaaaan….. do it!!!


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Manfred

        Michael, I take it you unequivocally and wholeheartedly support ITER?

        It’s fascinating to observe the BBC article not once explain the acronym ITER that it uses in the title. ITER : International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.

        Unsurprising really, isn’t it? It is afterall a combination of words likely to reflexively trigger your typical Greenista into spontaneous combustion. Now if we could only harness that energy!


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Winston

        In the gospel according to the apostle Michael, Chapter 14 Verse 2 (Or 14.2 in the above thread if you prefer), we have the final admission that serves to show that Michael’s twisted view of the world is entirely delusional.

        What he believes is that cheap readily available fossil fuels are the reason 3 billion people subsist on less than $2.50 per day- when more accurately were it not for fossil fuels that number would be closer to 5 billion, and we would be all serfs to the “elite” barons, dukes and monarchs who control all the land, the resources and the vast majority of the wealth. Praise be to Gore. Amen. Having not the slightest understanding of history, he is unaware that it was the industrial revolution that freed the common man/proletariat in the western world from enslavement to the “1%”. In his mind making expensive ineffective power generation available to poor nations who can’t afford it makes them wealthier and frees them from poverty!

        Oh my, which planet are you on. It is actually debt enslavement from the IMF and malfeasance from most western governments, as well as poor governance by African despots themselves, that has caused the level of poverty and hunger we see in the world. It is deliberate policy of their own governments (in order to keep them controlled, and therefore to entrench their own power), and ours, and the UN that has prevented them from furthering themselves, NOT fossil fuels. In fact by denying them access to cheap energy you are ensuring they will remain impoverished in perpetuity, which is in fact the idea, just that you are too blind to see it. Obama has even been quoted as saying that we, in the noble west, can’t allow them to develop because it might adversely affect the weather! Extraordinary that you would then believe that fossil fuels are the reason why people remain in poverty.

        What a tangled twisted rat’s maze of cognitive dissonance you reside in.


        Report this

        20

      • #

        Most of the people in the world don’t have to pay $2.50 for a cup of coffee. Obviously, a lot of people think that $2.50 is a great deal of money.

        The $2.50 is an example of a Trojan Number.

        Developing cheap renewable energy that can create power at the source pollution free and with energy independence is the best thing we can do for the developing world.

        No it isn’t. Basically because there is no such thing in practice as “renewable energy”. It’s an entirely political construct because “renewability” is arbitrary; not a natural phenomenon.

        Further, one finds that all the actual sources of energy being promoted to be harvested (not “created”) are diffuse, thinly spread out, intermittent, not available on demand, unreliable, unpredictable and technologies to harvest them are inherently inefficient, by the laws of nature as they are known.

        The result is that a lot of energy, materials and land have to be put into harvesting very little energy that is essentially useless for making the things that would harvest more energy from such sources.

        Did you knit your PV panels from hemp?


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Backslider

          Did you knit your PV panels from hemp?

          That is a very good question and perfectly illustrates something that Michael does not understand. The things that he advocates would make all mining and manufacturing essentially impossible.

          This is why I urge him to start NOW himself and to disconnect himself from the grid and cut off his reliance on ANYTHING to do with fossil fuels. No solar panels or wind generators allowed either!

          Then let’s see what a wonderful world it is for him.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Backslider

        Developing cheap renewable energy that can create power at the source pollution free and with energy independence is the best thing we can do for the developing world.

        Here you go Michael. This is a nice picture of “developing cheap renewable energy“.

        This is where they process the rare earth metals in Baotou, China that are used in the magnets required by wind generators. Would you like to take your kids swimming there? That “lake” is the dumping ground for 7 million tonnes of toxic radioactive waste per year from the processing.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Nice article, Pointman. It is going to take a national disaster somewhere to wake people up. I’m all in favour of smartmeters. When it gets installed you sign up if you are a green or not. The greens pay more for the renewables provided to the grid so that the other consumers don’t and get cut off first in the event the renewables fall short. It would be interesting to see how the signup numbers change with time.
      I’m also in favour of taking names of those who complain about aircraft noise who choose to live near the flightpaths of major airports. Just put them on the “will never be flown” list.


      Report this

      11

    • #
      Bob Massey

      Great article Pointman ! We have been stating the energy will be in crisis for a few years now if the renewables were given priority over the long established coal driven power stations.

      TonyfromOz has commented many times on the subject and lo and behold, we can do it and also reduce our CO2 emissions. If we only had the leadership to push through the politically correct attitudes and do the right thing for the community.

      I feel for the many thousands who will die during the next cold in Europe because they can’t afford the cost of energy that was once a basic of life.

      As I say again what happened to the “Precautionary Principle”? It doesn’t seem to be applied under the current situation.

      This Planet is getting crazier every minute !!!


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    Norman

    Australia, You have to get rid of Rudd and if Abbot doesn’t get rid of ALL carbon controls you are basically ####d


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Because of Western foolishness China will soon own the world. I’m not sure which dialect of Chinese will be the best to learn. But if you have any desire to stay in business, learning Chinese looks more and more desirable.

    Oops, maybe they already own the world. It’s become very difficult to buy anything that doesn’t say, “Made in China.”

    And to top it all off, we did it to ourselves. :-(


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Ace

      I think Americans are a bit hung up on China. I think Americans should start to worry about things like CAIR band the example of Dearborn. I think China (and India) represents the worlds bulwark against all forms of Green tyrrany.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I think Americans are a bit hung up on China.

        Ace,

        There’s only one problem with that. For every product made in china there are a lot of Americans who don’t have the jobs associated with making those things. We are ever more rapidly losing our ability to create the things we depend on every day. Even if I could believe China is really a friend of the U.S. I would not think that’s a good idea.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      If you are going to bother, stick with High Mandarin, and forget all the Cantonese dialects.

      Personally I wouldn’t bother. English is rapidly becoming a major second language and will get you by in all but remote places.

      Unless, of course, you are going to work on a major engineering project. Then you’ll probably need a reasonable grasp of German.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Ace

        I hear this “everyon speaks English” crap all the time. I also meet loads of people who pretend to speak English. Its bollocks.


        Report this

        01

        • #
          Ace

          The typical scenario:
          Me: “Do you speak English?”
          Them: “Yes, a liddle”.
          M: “Can you tell m how to get to so and so because that way in is closd”"
          Them:….blank look, shrug, “Sorry I cant help you”.

          These people learn two phrases, “A liddle” and “sorry I cant help you” and then get counted among millions of others as people who allegedly all speak English. They dont. They pretend to because they are embarrassed not to b able to.

          I dont blame them. The armies of [snip] from Britain and America (and Australia I expect) who invade certain European cities and EXPECT everyone to speak English offends even me. If you expect others to learn your language if they live in your country (which I do) then you should extend the sanme consideration in return. What most of these ex-pats dont seem to realise is that in many European countries this is actually a legal requirement. But as they keep saying of foreigners in their own country, they dont think local laws apply to them. Anglophone ex-pats seem to be hypocrites.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    Walter Plinge

    A few years back I did the public tour of Hazelwood power station. Hazelwood is, despite the green propaganda, a clean and efficient power producer. One of the interesting facts from the tour is that Victoria has enough coal to last 700 years at current rates of use. If that valuable resource was effectively exploited we’d be back to 12c k/Wh electricity and the state economy would boom.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    One cannot avoid curiosity with respect to this gravatar “Michael”.
    What is its gender? What is its origin? What is its purpose?
    Perhaps it is an emissary of the Sky Dragon cult. Perhaps Komrad Krudd has visited this plague upon us.
    How could such a creature be so illogical? Is it a product of brainwashing within the cult? Perhaps in such socialist hotbeds as UWA, ANU, or Monash?
    Is the poor thing Sadistic, in that it insists on brandishing its nonsense only to be beaten down? Is it manic? It seems to be, in its propensity to repeat garbage that it has picked up somewhere. It is certainly cementing our arguments. Practise makes perfect.
    Any theories?


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Other_Andy

      He seems to be a neo Malthusian.
      A product of the ‘modern’ post-normal scientific ‘education’ and follower of Ehrlich.
      No null hypothesis.
      Correlation is causation.
      Computer models trump reality.
      And…
      the precautionary principle trumps everything.


      Report this

      51

      • #
        Ace

        Other_andy…the so-called “precautionary principle” is the above-all-else criterion of EVERYTHING in Wstern societies now. It is the very antithsis of the outlook that created those societies. For anyone versed in the topic, it is soon recognisable as a societal embodimnt of Obsssive Compulsive …ideation. Yes that word does have its uses.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      Understanding Michael is easy enough.
      Go spend a Sunday morning in a Church of Latter Day Saints.

      Michael is proselytising, spreading the True Word to us heathens.
      Just like the Mormons who knock on your door from time time with their magazines, Michael is trying to save us from the damnation of our own ignorance regarding the coming Thermageddon and the evils of fossil fuels.

      In Pentecostal churches it is called “bearing witness”.

      .
      Put less politely, Michael is just another brainwashed religious fruitcake peddling his version of the Gospel of the Goracle.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Ace

        MV…hes only the same as many who believe the opposite, except that hes wrong.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Ace

          I am not a member of any of those churches and I found religious belief later in life, on a foundation of decades of scientific outlook, but I too bear witness. Its pretty much all I do now. Its the evacuation of true religious belief from our culture that has permitted these secular cults to fill the void and take an almost total grip. and that grip is tightening. Never mind wind and solar power. Thats a skirmish. The war has been lost.

          And before you start calling people fruit-cakes I think you should consider how your twice asserted belief that the entire course of Western politics for thirty years has been a gigantic plot by secretive Green commissars to wip out “billions of people” looks to a dispassionate observer. Yes they would welcome it, but to believe EVERYTHING is running according to some deeply worked out plan a forehand…well …

          It dosnt help a sceptical thesis.


          Report this

          01

          • #
            MemoryVault

            Ahhh, Ace.

            The old “it CAN’T be a conspiracy because it would involve too many people” argument.
            Well, let us put it to the test, and see just how few KNOWING participants are required.

            Some background information first. Prior to WWII, Malthusian Eugenics was just as popular in the USA (and elsewhere), as it was in Germany, particularly amongst the rich and powerful. These beliefs did not just melt away after the war. Over time they morphed into the Environment Movement, which the same rich and powerful financed into existence, and continue to finance today.

            Let us start in the late Sixties with a group of say, only 50 rich, powerful oligarch types, with control over several strategic industries, and active and powerful interests in the media. Through Endowments, Trusts, Tenured Chairs, and such financial incentives, they also have a firm and growing grip on academia, particularly at university level.

            First thing our conspirators do, is get one of their own lodged in the United Nations, where he spends the next several years creating, first an “awareness” of “environmental” issues, culminating in a series of conferences, which, ultimately, becomes the IPCC. The IPCC is an immensely clever bureaucratic structure, which hides behind an impenetrable appearance of being a “scientific” body, when, in fact, it is purely political.

            That man’s name is Maurice Strong, and since he was one of the original conspirators, we still only have 50, even though there are now a few hundred actively, but unwittingly, involved.

            Our players need to put the Fear of God, so to speak, into people, so they cast around for something to make people afraid, and come across an obscure, and largely ignored (at the time) book written in 1968, called “The Population Bomb”, by a couple of unknown academics, Paul and Anna Ehrlich.

            Suddenly Very Important People – you know – like Captains of Industry, and Media Moguls, are quoting directly from ‘The Population Bomb’ at important functions and conferences. Universities pick up on it (perhaps with a nudge from some their financial benefactors), and Voila! we have our fear campaign.

            There are now several hundred involved in our conspiracy, but STILL only our original 50 KNOWING conspirators.

            .
            Meanwhile, back in Merry Olde Englande, Maggie Thatcher has had a gutful of the coal miners, and desperately wants Britain to go nuclear. Almost as desperately, she wants to “cut it” on the international stage. Someone whispers the magic words “Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming” in her ear and suggests a case could be made to blame the burning of fossils fuels, particularly coal.

            Now we are off and running. Maggie gives birth to the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Financed, incidentally, by companies controlled by the very same oligarchs who started all this in the first place.

            An obscure, lab-coated academic is “encouraged” to write a paper canning the Urban Heat Island Effect”, as it might be beneficial to his future. He does, and a few years later Phil Jones is Head of the CRU.

            Now we have thousands involved in our “conspiracy”, but STILL only our original 50 conspirators.

            .
            Moving back across the Atlantic we have an earnest young man at NASA who has done some tremendous work on the atmosphere of Venus, but has got his credibility bogged down in his pet theory that atmospheric CO2 will cause the planet to cool, leading to another ice age. Since the planet is unmistakably warming by now, all that is necessary is to convince him his theories are right, only the effect is wrong, and we now have James Hansen onside.

            Just up the corridor and around the corner at NASA is a brilliant scientist who has designed much of the instrumentation for our satellites. However, he is generally ostracised by his peers because of his strange views that earth is a living organism which he calls Gaia.

            We have people take him aside, fete him for his views, arrange for him to speak in all the right places (especially in academic and environmental circles, where, remember, we are very influential), and Lo! we have created James Lovelock.

            Meanwhile, up in Canada, David Suzuki is created out of thin air, in much the same manner.

            The number of people engaged in our little enterprise grows exponentially. But STILL we only have our original 50 conspirators.

            .
            Things move forward. Suzuki and Ehrlich’s endless predictions of doom are repeated ad nauseum, and gradually and subtly interwoven into the environmental meme. The IPCC puts out its regular Reviews, Hansen has addressed his Congressional Committee in a deliberately overheated conference room. Lovelock continues to travel about lecturing about Gaia. Academia is abuzz with the “environmental threat”.

            By this stage, if one wanted funding for just about any research the application had to include the magic words “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming”.

            Unfortunately, the general public aren’t listening. It is time for a new layer to our onion.

            In OZ we have an unhappy and dejected bloke by the name of Flim Fammery. Flim wrote an obscure textbook on dead kangaroos, which brought him fifteen minutes of fame, and got him invited to all the “right” (or should that be “left”) off-campus cocktail parties.

            Flim decided to have another bash at it. He wrote another book in which he dared to suggest the original inhabitants weren’t quite the Noble Savages and Mindful Custodians of the Environment that the politically correct all subscribe to.

            Flim suddenly found himself off the cocktail circuit. Flim was already an ardent environmentalist who subscribed to the Hansen view of “evil CO2″, and somebody suggested to him to write a book about it. ‘The Weather Makers’ was published in 2005.

            Back in Yankeeland an equally obscure academic named Elizabeth Kolbert was encouraged to write a similar book, and ‘Field Notes From a Catastrophe’ was published in 2006. Around the same time a failed Presidential Candidate published ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.

            These three books were lumped together, reviewed and promoted in the “New York Review of Books”, which our conspirators, incidentally, also control. The Review was called “The Threat to the Planet”, and was written by James Hansen.

            These three books immediately became the “source reference” on all things environmental, both in academia and the media. All three heavily promoted the IPCC. Al Gore’s folm was released soon after 2007, the IPCC AR4 papers came out soon after that.

            James Lovelock’s ‘The Revenge of Gaia’ was also published in 2006.

            .
            Now millions are involved one way or another. Even our esteemed host’s other half, Dr David Evans, was a willing participant for some years. Did he believe in it? Yes, most certainly. Did he make money out of it? Again, yes, definitely.

            Was he a knowing part of a “conspiracy”? Of course not.

            .
            So, how many active conspirators do we have now? Our original 50, plus maybe Al Gore.

            51.


            Report this

            70

            • #
              farmerbraun

              For all that (and FB wouldn’t dispute a word) “The Future Eaters” was quite a good read , from a geographical perspective.


              Report this

              10

            • #
              Ace

              MV…I come on here for light banter, I put up one longer comment only recently and dont expect more. Im online doing other things and visit here in the pause. Do not expect me to squander the tim it would take to read that fcking monstrous rationalisaton exercise youve just posted. Suffic to say, before you start calling people “fruit-cakes” you should look in the mirror. Your Protocols of th lders of Zion momnt looks like the inspiration of a …well, a cake with raisins and some nut in it.

              If its OK for you to say that of others then its Ok for others to say it of you. You have actually succeeded in making our lamb Michael look better than his critics. Great, what a swell team player you are.


              Report this

              04

              • #
                Michael P

                Actually Ace I am somewhat fed up with the troll that goes by the name of “Michael” as until this idiot turned up I prided myself on posting the facts,as I saw them,and if I was wrong, I swiftly admitted it. I know Jo has posted on this matter of the 2 michaels,but I don’t like idiots that try to run my name into the ground,by posting garbage. I usually reserve that honor for myself and only on rare occasions.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Ace,

                You presented a criticism of an immensely complex subject – namely conspiracy in our modern society, and you expected what?

                A thirty second sound-bite answer?

                The NSW ICAC has just ruled that they believe Eddie Obeid, one of his sons, and Ian McDonald, plus maybe two or three shifty lawyers and shady accountants, diddled the NSW taxpayer out of $300 million plus.

                Now this con involved the active participation four NSW government departments, employing a few thousand NSW public servants, and also included the active (unknowing) participation of the NSW branch of the ALP, another several thousand more people.

                As far as the ICAC is concerned, there is no question that a conspiracy was involved. But was it a “conspiracy” of less than a dozen men, or was it a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of public servants and ALP members?

                The answer is simple, and obvious. And it’s what I presented to you above in relation to CAGW. I even named names and gave you facts you could check at the major player’s Wikepedia entries.

                .
                But since for you, the truth is too complex to handle, I won’t bother in the future.

                .
                Oh, and by the way, your original reference to an “Illuminati Conspiracy” and your more recent reference to the “Protocols of th lders of Zion momnt“, were cheap, meaningless shots. You know it, and I know it, and to be frank, I’m embarrassed (for you) that you stooped to it.

                I had come to expect more.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Ace

                MichaelP…must be especially irritating for you. Yes hes clueless. But you know these sites are read by far more people than the few who comment on them. And who looks more like a “fruit-cake”, the lamb lead into belief in the Warmist ideology or the guy who maintains everything that’s happenned in the Western world for thirty years has been orchestrated by a grand cabal of crypto-Thanatic genocide cultists?

                [snip off topic] ED


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Ace

                MV…no I didnt waste my time reading more of your crap, any more than I would waste my time reading Michaels crap.

                Prof Lewandowsky claimed that sceptics were fraught with conspiracist ideation…now youve proven him right. Great going mate.


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Mark D.

                Do not expect me to squander the tim it would take to read that fcking monstrous rationalisaton exercise youve just posted.

                And

                MV…no I didnt waste my time reading more of your crap,

                Ace, don’t read it then. But also don’t pretend you know ANYTHING about it either.


                Report this

                20

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Obligatory image link.

        [If we had permission I'd publish the image in your post.] ED


        Report this

        10

    • #
      farmerbraun

      I am I the only one to observe that the said idiot exhibits a number of characteristics in common with that well-known expert-Steven Dobbs.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    RoHa

    “It’s a case of lose-lose all around, everyone”

    I’m pretty sure there are some players who have stashed away huge sums.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] Green is fading in Europe in the face of unaffordable cost and the indefensible failure rate of green enterprises, otherwise known as reality. We’re told that this about-face is also accompanied by a return to the actual reporting of facts and asking of questions by the German media, resulting in an increasingly honest public picture. Apparently, the Europeans have simply run out of money to burn at Gaia’s altar. Since in the United States, running out of money is taken only as a means of energizing the Fed’s Ben Bernanke, we shouldn’t count on a similar U.S. effect anytime soon, but just in case, we offer a climate fact in case it helps: Antarctic ice (it;s winter down there) has expanded by 900,000 square kilometers above its historic average, leading to giggles in the global warming deniers’ camp. Climate alarmists, we know, do not feel the cold… [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks, JoNova, for keeping the public informed.

    Climategate is but the visible “tip” of a huge iceberg of deception that grew out-of-sight on public research funds, despite President Eisenhower’s clear warning on this subject on 17 January 1961:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOLld5PR4ts

    When those promoting the AGW scam realize they are losing the debate, they may do anything to stay in power and avoid punishment. I pray that we will find a way to end fraudulent climate science without inflicting more damage on society.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Graham Richards

    Disaster upon financial disaster on this scale can only be contrived by SOCIALIST regimes.
    what I cannot understand is that people cannot see thru the socialist “wet dreams “…. or can we.
    I hope the Gonski reforms are thoroughly scrutinised by the Libs. I have a nasty feeling that curricula under the proposed Labor / Socialist regime will be heavily bent towards socialist dogma. This we do not need. All students should be encouraged question everything dished up by government in a balanced & informed way or we’ll be headed down the slippery slope that Europe currently sliding down.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      “Socialist regime will be heavily bent towards socialist dogma.”. Bet your bottom dollar that it will be Graham. They lost the battle and will now resort to more nefarious means to win the war. We all need to keep a very, very close eye on our childrens’ education. IMHO the last great bastions of old style socialist thought can be found in the education systems of the west. This is not to say that all teachers go along with this because I believe many don’t but are powerless to affect real change.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Al Gore and the United Nations have more Nobel Prizes and endorsements from government research agencies and scientific organizations than Voodoo Doctors, but no more control over Earth’s constantly changing climate:

    http://theinternetpost.net/2013/08/10/the-secret-history-of-the-atomic-bomb-why-hiroshima-was-destroyed/


    Report this

    21

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      With regard to the atomic bombs: ain’t hindsight wonderful?

      It is particularly egregious to call the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, mass murder.

      It’s much too easy for those of us who weren’t there to second guess those who were and it’s even easier for the folks who got cut out of the loop to complain that the bombs weren’t necessary.

      There are many opinions, most of them different in some major way. So as I always do in that situation, I suspect all of them are wrong in some way or another.

      The bombs were dropped and will never, ever be undone so we must live with that fact. The war ended immediately after the Nagasaki bombing with the unconditional surrender of Japan. Whether that was in spite of the terrible devastation or because of it hardly matters by comparison.

      Just one of the funny things here: the city of Dresden, Germany was systematically set up for a series of close together bombings that were calculated to kill the maximum possible number of civilians. Yet it’s always the atomic bombs that get the complaining. Now stop me if I’m wrong but there hasn’t been a single solitary nuclear weapon used in anger since Nagasaki but the conventional explosives and incendiary devices used on Dresden continue to be part of warfare to this day. Am I the only one bothered by that incongruity? So just who is kidding who?

      And for the record, I think nuclear bombs a every bit as hellish as did Milton Eisenhower. But so is a roadside IED if you get caught in it.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        MemoryVault

        .
        You are not alone, Roy.

        While I tend towards the view that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary and more of an expression of might than anything else, the fact remains that they were both major industrial centres and therefore legitimate targets in war.

        Dresden, on the other hand, was the cultural centre of Germany and had nothing of value to contribute to the war effort.
        What happened there was mass-murder for revenge, pure and simple.

        The planners should have been on trial in Nuremburg, along with the other war criminals.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          There has always been a question of why Dresden?

          ‘Bomber” Harris was out of control but the head of the RAF Portal couldn’t sack him. He certainly wanted him out of the position, as he had been consistently uncooperative towards any diversion of bombers to any other activity. e.g. Harris, on entering the Air Ministry and meeting the deputy head, “Hello Nigel, and what have you done to hinder the war effort this morning?”

          Harris certainly wanted to show the might of Bomber Command, whether to impress the Russians, as has been suggested, or perhaps the numerous critics on his own side. Whether Churchill or any of the senior Commanders were involved seems obscure. Certainly Churchill behaved “poorly” to Bomber Command afterwards and wouldn’t award them a medal, nor did Harris become a Lord (at that time) like so many others, although possibly at his own request. Nor was there any place for him in the RAF even before the war ended.

          My view is that the primary mover/planner was Harris, who was a monomaniac on the ‘value’ of bombing, and it would have taken strong action to have stopped him, which was not forthcoming from those busy on their own areas.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Ace

            “Why Dresdn”
            Why the flaming wafflke?
            IT WAS A WAR!


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Ace

              “mass murder for revenge pure and simple”

              It was part of a campaign to inflict as much damage as possible on the opponent.

              You might just as well ask, “why D-Day”, “why invade France”, “why invade Germany on\ce the Germans had been forced to retreat back to its borders” ……or even, “why didnt Churchill accept peace with Hitler when it was offered and thereby put an end to the war in 1940 sparing the killing”

              Indeed, the “logic” of asking “why Dresden” implies the more basic question “why fight WW2 at all”.


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Ace,

                There was no strategic or tactical advantage to the war effort in the destruction of Dresden. So yes, it was a war and in a war you do whatever is necessary to win it. The only really unforgivable thing in any fight is to lose it. But Dresden simply was not even slightly necessary in order to win.


                Report this

                00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Why Dresden?

        It sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb and cries out for a good answer. But the only reason for it that I’ve ever seen is that it was an attempt to turn the German people against the war and their leadership; probably also to give Hitler a good reason to rethink his belligerence. In any case it didn’t do anything useful to bring the war closer to an end. And it was in every sense a shameful chapter in WWII.

        As for the two atomic bombs, I think that had I been in Truman’s shoes I would have dropped them. He knew he must utterly defeat Japan. Whether that attitude was the best one or not we might debate with the benefit of hindsight. But such was the attitude in the U.S. that I think he couldn’t avoid the need for total and complete defeat. He was getting projections of as much as 600,000 casualties from an invasion and the bombs were suddenly delivered to the Oval Office for him to use. From there I think the reasoning goes something like this: if there are going to be large numbers of casualties then it’s better that they be your enemy’s people than your own. And Truman, along with his advisers certainly hoped that the Japanese would believe we could keep dropping them, which, of course, we could not.

        At the time Truman had no way of knowing about any shift in attitude going on in Japan as far as I can tell.

        I expected some quite different responses but I’ve gotten some very thoughtful ones instead. So thank you all for that.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova has a catalogue of green disasters across Europe [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] The price of moral-vanity: A catalogue of Green economic disaster unfolds across Europe « JoNova [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeremy C

    I read this and thought, “hmmmm” so contacted the source, the CCgroup in London, to ask if their report said what Benny Peiser said it did. I got a very quick reply that shows Benny was being extremely economical with the truth as this bit from the email reply clearly sets out:

    “Many thanks for flagging this. As you can see our research has been used out of context, without our knowledge.
    People are entitled to write and quote what they like after all, but our work has been used in a way that we are unsupportive of. As such, we will most likely write a letter to the editor of The Australian with our view.”

    Given the Australian’s form on these things I doubt such a letter will get published. Meanwhile its the naughty seat, yet again, for Benny and his boss Nigel for misrepresenting things.

    ——————-
    REPLY: Why not explain what the context is then? Anyone can say “out of context”. But not everyone can justify that – Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wez Hind

    I just did a quick check on some of the ‘facts’ given above in this ‘article’ and I have to say I’m disappointed to find that many of them (50% + of one’s I checked) are actually incorrect or purposefully misconstrued. i.e. ‘Germany’s emmissions rose even though…’ – it would be fair to mention that they rose LESS than they had in previous years, for both of those years in succession etc.. Most other country’s emmissions rose by a larger percentage than the previous years. (Took me 45 mins of research to find and verify that via independent sources)

    Now, I haven’t yet decided exactly what is and isn’t true about climate change, but you do yourself nor anbody else favours by not supplying actual (non cherry-picked – you complain about it and then do it yourself!?) facts for people like me to use as evidence for a move to one side of the fence or the other.

    If you can’t see your own bias, then perhaps it’s time to stop trying to influence people with shoddy data. The bias in this article puts some of the climate change ‘believers’ cries of injustice to shame!

    Facts, not cherry-picked fantasies are what we need.
    —————————-
    REPLY: Wez, we always appreciate fact-checking. Thanks. If 50% are “misconstrued” as you say, perhaps you could find a better example? Germany has spent billions of dollars yet even if what you say is correct (and other countries emissions rose faster) then what Peiser wrote is still true, and still relevant and the context hardly changes. It hardly makes the German experience “successful” — and it’s not clear if emissions didn’t rise as fast as they could have purely because German manufacturers fled to countries with more sensible policies. In which case, Germans possibly just shifted their emissions overseas, global emissions didn’t change, and Germans still paid billions for nothing. – Jo


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Wez Hind

    p.s. I was talking about the article proper. There are some really interesting links from other commentators that (on brief glance) look to hold relevant and presumably verifiable data.

    ** the most evil on this planet is done by those whom are absolutely sure they are right **

    —–
    REPLY: ** Exactly – Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Germany is a Green energy basketcase: [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] » The price of moral-vanity: A catalogue of Green economic disaster unfolds across Europe The real cost of moral-vanity, of name-calling, poor reasoning, selecting one’s evidence, and the triumph of doing things because they “feel-good” rather than because of the cold hard numbers, is measured in the trillions. This disaster was entirely foreseeable, totally predictable, and completely unnecessary. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #