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

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



EU gives 20% (sic) of their budget to demigoddess of climate change

And people wonder why Greece, Italy and Spain are in a mess.

By Sophie Yeo in Warsaw

20% of the EU’s budget will go towards fighting climate change, climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard announced in Warsaw today. 

This equates to €180 billion on climate spending between 2014 and 2020, which will be used to reduce emissions domestically and help developing countries adapt to climate change—three times what was provided in the previous budget.

Much of this will be spent on domestic projects, helping with the development of climate-smart agriculture, energy efficiency and the transport sector.

But of course, much of this is just a PR statement (otherwise 20% of the rest of the EU budget has been cut. Where are those screams?). The money is probably relabeled: shifted from one category to another. Same spending, greener tint.

They even admit themselves, they are taking €15 billion away from overseas aid in order to soothe their anxiety about the weather 100 years from now. This will mean a lot to hungry people in Cambodia.

If I thought that €15 billion would have been efficiently used, this would be a real disaster:

Over the next seven years, €15 billion from the EU’s overseas development budget will be ringfenced for climate spending. This is separate from what is provided each year by individual member states. For instance, the UK will provide £3.87bn of international climate aid between 2011 and 2015.

See more at: RTCC

We have arrived at the glorious point in the big-government growth-curve where a politician can boast they are spending a fifth of their budget trying to stop storms and hold back the tide, and journalists say “OK”.

But hey, it’s only €30 billion a year.

—————————-

UPDATE: Manicbeancounter reminds us that though this is a news story now, the 20% figure was announced in Feb 2013, and as I noted then, even discussed back as long ago as June 2011. Amazing how long a dumb idea can live. Manic had a look at details, and concluded it was rearranged labels and hype. A PR exercise, so they can claim a “win” at an event that achieved nothing much.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
EU gives 20% (sic) of their budget to demigoddess of climate change, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

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

198 comments to EU gives 20% (sic) of their budget to demigoddess of climate change

  • #

    Too many of us are becoming too poor, too cold, too hungry, and too angry to cry.

    All through the industrial and technological revolution, we strove to be ever more efficient with what we did in order to create more and live better. We did this by taking into account the seen, the unseen, and by correcting the unintended consequences as they became known. Our politicians strove to take more and accomplish less by looking only at the seen and ignoring the unseen. They maximized the unintended consequences and used them as an excuse to take more and spend more.

    We have now reached the point where politicians are taking nearly everything and are preventing us from doing what we know best to do: create wealth and living better. They require us to create too much of the wrong things at a much higher cost than doing nothing. This cannot end well but it WILL end.


    Report this

    640

    • #
      Mark D.

      Rejoice Lionell, this is EU not US.

      For now anyway.

      Maybe the worst will happen to the EU in time for the rest of the idiots to see and respond correctly.

      I’ll hold their breath………


      Report this

      20

      • #

        Where the EU goes, Obama is sure to follow. It is a race to the bottom.

        There is still a chance that we in the US will say NO to Obama and refuse to follow him down the rabbit hole. It is a slim chance but still a chance.


        Report this

        110

        • #
          Turnedoutnice

          The UK is in almost open rebellion against the Maoist EU bureaucracy and the Common Purpose quislings they set up to act as the real UK government.

          This became overt at the last election because Cameron and many others are part of Common Purpose, as was Rudd and probably Gillard. The man who ignorantly forced windmills on the UK in our previous government, Prescott, is also a big Common Purpose goon who floated to the top.

          I suspect no-one who reads this blog will be surprised to read that the centre of Common Purpose indoctrination in the UK is the University of East Anglia, which has in it the CRU responsible with GISS and NOAA, also probably the committed Marxists in the Aussie BM and the NZ guy for falsifying temperature records worldwide.


          Report this

          150

          • #
            dave ward

            Whilst there is certainly a growing discontent with the EU meddling in every aspect of our daily life, Common Purpose is NOT well known outside the blogging community. If I stopped 100 people leaving my local supermarket, I doubt that more than one or two would have heard of them, or knew their true purpose (sic). Because they are deeply ingrained in the media, it is rare to see them mentioned – let alone their links with leading figures. I regularly write to the local newspaper in Norwich, but I know from experience they won’t print anything controversial – particularly opinions critical of the UEA. Hardly surprising when Richard Jewson is both chairman of the UEA council, and chairman of the papers publisher Archant. He also has connections with many large organisations involved in “green” issues, and has close ties with the Monarchy.


            Report this

            50

      • #
        Truthseeker

        I would not rejoice too much … some of these numbers are really, really scary ….


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      Let’s hope it ends by 2015, where Abbott and the US stalled to sign the treaty put forward by COP19. As a result of this, some 132 “poor” countries walked out, including the world’s biggest emitters, China and India – looking to pig-snout the trough that we “rich” countries have to fill if the deal goes through.

      If it does, we’ll be “responsible” for every “calamity” in poor countries, including earthquakes of all things. It’s weapons-grade stupidity.


      Report this

      200

    • #
      Steve

      How very Don Quixote-like….tilting at windmills and all.

      Sorry…


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Eddie Sharpe

    No national Government could get away with it. That is no real Government of a functioning state vould ever get away with indulging 20% of its spending on a single issue non- problem that we dont have. Instead we have this useless bunch of corrupt , would-be, do-gooders telling us what to do and indulging in whatever latest fad takes its fancy with our money.
    The EU is a microcosm of what the UN aspires to be. An UNelected autocracy, free to pretend has has noble motives but we are not free to bring it back to reality at the ballot box, because all EU decisions are made by UN elected appointees.


    Report this

    480

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ’20% of the EU’s budget will go towards fighting climate change’, why is Oz worried about how much is spent on combating man made climate change, by Europe? Not a pang of guilt is it?


    Report this

    460

    • #
      Otter

      I’d say it was more the concern that when the EU economy is whipped down the toilet at warp speed for a NON-issue, nations such as Australia are going to be feeling the very undeserved pain along with the rest of the globe.

      And if you are so concerned about the climate, please do contribute 20% of your income to the cause.


      Report this

      532

    • #
      bob parker

      As a kid I can remember Pig Iron Bob bragging that he signed up for whatever the UK got when they joined the EU. and that was over 50 years ago. I think if you look a little closer into Aussie legislation you may find that the ass hole who started this downward spiral is long gone.


      Report this

      72

    • #
      clive

      Not a pang of guilt is it?
      No Blabberthe4th,in case you have been asleep for a while,we have told all and sundry that CAGW is bull shit.But we still feel the pain of our friends of the EU and I for one don’t like seeing Green-Nazis wasting other peoples money on a non problem.


      Report this

      340

    • #
      Heywood

      “why is Oz worried about how much is spent on combating man made climate change, by Europe? Not a pang of guilt is it?”

      No guilt at all, we just find it amusing. Typical of the EU though, the only way to fix a precieved problem is to throw other peoples money at it. Perhaps you should donate 20% of your unemployment benefit and see how it goes.


      Report this

      390

    • #
      Ian

      Possibly because if the Senate remains anti-LNP we might be involved in an ETS run by Europe.


      Report this

      100

    • #

      This is not a new announcement. The 20% was announced on 8th February. See the document – point 10 page 6. The table on page 46 gives the appropriate data. “TOTAL PAYMENT APPROPRIATIONS” for period 2014-2020 is €908.4bn, so 20% is €180bn. Now found the “climate change” category. It is an old announcement, and is total PR spin. Joanne Nova posted about here, and I looked at the figures here.
      Connie Hedegaard is just contributing towards the EU’s rubbish recycling targets.


      Report this

      90

  • #
    Otter

    20% to a non-issue? That Is (sic).


    Report this

    140

  • #
    john robertson

    At the speed the EU is moving 20% of nothing is still zero.
    And if their production trends continue,soon 20% of their budget will be foreign aid, to their states(I mean countries).
    If their deficits continue to grow, does 20% of a negative number become income?
    I suspect the 1780′s French haircut will become popular in Europe once again.


    Report this

    250

    • #
      pattoh

      How about an 18th century penal colony on Macquarie Is. for all the AGW gravy train stowaways.
      Keep them there until it becomes a tropical paradise.


      Report this

      40

      • #

        Hate to break this to you, pattoh, but it’s the d[snip] that are in a tiny minority, and it’s the d[snip] who will suffer the consequence of their anti-science agitation.

        When the public finally wises up to the scale of the problem exacerbated by deliberate anti-science lobbying, the retribution will be severe.

        [ooooooooh Margot you scare me so. In the meantime stop with the "D" word. ] ED


        Report this

        232

        • #
          Heywood

          Michael the activist on the Suzuki thread, Margot the activist on this one.

          Reminds me of a certain Stealer’s Wheel song.

          “Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right”.


          Report this

          170

        • #
          Brett

          Is that from CAGW revelations?


          Report this

          40

        • #
          Winston

          I don’t think Margot that you can assume that it will be the denizens of Jo’s blog that will be called to account, instead of you and your ilk. Rather, I think it increasingly likely that serial liars and frauds among the alarmists may well justify some jail time should the issue ever be examined by an impartial umpire, where all the raw data is made available, and the powers that be are hamstrung by an ever angrier public they feel they must placate.

          If that were not the case, Margot, I’m sure you would have by now welcomed calls for a Royal Commission into Climate Science, if only to justify the “validity” of alarmist contentions that we face imminent catastrophe.

          But, of course alarmists such as yourself are completely against this sort of scrutiny being applied because, like rats in the attic, you lot hope to hide in the shadows and avoid the glare of the spotlight, while you go about your nefarious program of fiscal sabotage and societal destruction.

          Well may you ask for whom the bell tolls, because perhaps in the fullness of time, it tolls for thee.


          Report this

          270

        • #
          cohenite

          Of the 2 trolls I think Blackadder is dopier while Margot is nastier. But that doesn’t preclude either having large amounts of both qualities.


          Report this

          41

        • #
          Justin Jefferson

          Margot, I asked you to show how you took into account the valuations of the people in the policy action you prefer, versus the counter-factual of no such action, now and indefinitely into the future. This is necessary to establish whether your beliefs are rational. Obviously if they’re not you have no claim to science.

          Hurry up and answer will you because I’m beginning to suspect you’re just evading a total demolition of your irrational belief system.


          Report this

          60

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    As C. Northcote Parkinson pointed out in 1960 (and later) the bureaucracy determines the size of the budget by deciding how much they want to spend in each bureaucratic fiefdom. The total, plus 10% to allow for any attack of fiscal vapours, is given to the Treasurer who decides how to extract that amount from the taxpayer.

    Since no bureaucrat wishes to shrink his sphere of influence, his remuneration or his chances of promotion, the total grows each year. Its growth is in no way retarded by the (traditional) over estimation of costs because extra money won’t be forthcoming that year, and by the reduction in the next year’s budget if no money remains unspent. Nor is any function declared obsolete, just in case it might be needed.

    You see this system in place with Connie Hedegaard. By any definition her position and department should have been declared redundant and no longer necessary, but no group of politicians will ever say so unless under threat to their own positions. The sign of hope in Europe is the rise of the Right Wing, who are capturing an increasing number of votes. This will bring the politicians to ask “what can we do that will be popular with the public”? All too often in the past, this has led to a spending splurge on show piece buildings and events, but his time it might just be different.


    Report this

    170

  • #
    diogenese2

    The EU approach to figures is much the same as my accountant. When I asked him what my profit was he would always ask “what do you want it to be?”
    From the EU 2013 budget idiots guide. Total budget 150b euro’s (which is 1% of the EU GDP). The finer breakdown shows Environment/climate change : 400 MILLION and Humanitarian aid as 900 MILLION. there is no “Overseas Development Budget” the quoted expenditures are hidden inside other categories. Note above the phrase “and help developing countries adapt” is preceeded by ” reduce emissions domestically”. Somewhere billions spent on agriculture, energy (in)efficiency and transport are badged as “fighting climate change”. Whereas, as pointed out on yesterdays blog by, most notably, Peter Miller – the “renewables obligation” is pushing up emissions.
    Expenditures in this area would be included in the sums.
    This duplicity is, i’m afraid basic EU accountancy. By the way, the EU budget has not been passed by the auditors since the old King died. My accountant is a rank amateur in contrast.


    Report this

    180

  • #
    Manfred

    Playing with numbers – Green redistribution in their own words.

    As Europe’s economy wanes and major industrial investors head to the US or elsewhere for cheaper power the question is, will the European State have sufficient money and a reliable source of electrical power to run the printing presses that print the money they need to continue the building of this Green Babylonian tower…that is after they have paid the escalating cost of unemployment benefit and wider welfare – the raft of ‘unintended consequences’ imposed on their sheeple ?

    And will we see the Green elite take-up climate salary sacrificing for the greater good?

    The delusional nightmare that is the Green Dream has reached its apotheosis. The sheeple are waking.


    Report this

    231

  • #
    dp

    Hmmmm – looks like the EU voted with China and India, both of whom have a vested interest in seeing Europe’s economy collapse in a heap. So ends WWIII for Europe.


    Report this

    160

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    Journalists cannot complain about additional monies going to alleged public interest issues – like CAGW – without being accused of being right-wing, capitalist, profit-seeking shills of private enterprise. They would have to admit to evenn themselves that there is a limit to what the government should do with its citizens money wrt potential, not actual, danger (or security). They would have to admit to even themselves that the government does not always IN PRINCIPLE act in reasonable as well as the socially recognized, ideological best interest of its citizens.

    Any liberral will and must always side with the actions that, again at least in principle, do well for the average joe. Individualism is the enemy of collective supremacy, and saying adaptation is the better route throws the responsibility onto the shoulderrs of those affected. Even if that means those affectted have to step up to the world court and prove they have been affected badly.

    You will notice that the nonsense on historical loss and damage (and ongoing L & D) does not require proof that the L & D was caused by prior increases of CO2, only that some statistical portion – also not defined – of either storm numbers or intensity is so-stated by IPCC consensus. There is also no portion of said L & D that is attributed back to the injured parties for excess population growth, the habitation of vunerable lands, or the environmental changes in land use that exacerbated the storm damage. Or even the political and social mismanagement that created substandard (for weather conditions) building codes, emergency services etc. that prevented or even worsened the survival of affected peoples.

    The UN Loss and Damage movement comes from the liberal basis that a people have no accountability for the number of children they chose to have, where they choose to live, how they choose to live, the social structures they created, or the quality of goverrnment they tolerate. Unless they are the power brokers – the rich. The rich are responsible and accountable not just for the wealth they have but for the history by which they got it. And the definition of rich is inclusive, for it joins not just the Lords and Ladies of our aristocratic nations but even the coal-miners of Australia, Pennsylvania, Poland and Wales, for these people still have more than the struggling fisherfolk of the Maldives.

    The very strange thing is that this accoutable group who needs to cough up includes Al Gore, David Suzuki and all officials of the IPCC. But I expect these have tax accountants to make their personal lose disappear. Or even turn a profit.

    Loss and Damage is an outcome of the liberal philosophy of history as a record of Oppressors and Victims. By definition all rich are Oppressors (they got by taking) and poor are Victims (they are poor from having their wealth taken away). The theft is real even if it is the theft of potential, i.e. the poor are powerless to improve their lot because the rich have stolen their power as well as their tangible assets.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Lawrie Ayres

      Doug,
      Back in the eighties Europe had a far bigger and more urgent problem; war with an aggressive Soviet Union. Nations found it necessary to spent vast sums on a standing and battle ready defense force. The collapse of the USSR allowed that money to be spent on popular, if stupid, pursuits. Russia must be rolling on the floor laughing at the way their old foes are trashing their economies and allowing their societies to be reduced to a warring rabble between seemers and doers. Just as Germany and Japan were the big winners of WWII, the Russians are the big winners of the Cold War.


      Report this

      110

  • #
    Franny by Coal light

    EU Commissioners are like Ministers without a mandate. But hey, why wait for a mandate when you’ve got all that cash to spend securing the future of the next conference series.

    How much positive spin can be put on achieving nothing. “Go home and do your homework ” is hardly what you expect from an elected politician.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Adam Gallon

    Just remind me, how much is “Big Fossil Fuel” supposed to be spending?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    crosspatch

    Every one of those Euros will land in someone’s pocket and not one of them will change the temperature.


    Report this

    230

  • #
    Bruce

    Very short-sighted use of resources on part of the EU leadership. A fraction of this money, if it had been slated at Polish MEP Pawel Zalewski had suggested for Ukraine, would have brought that important country very rich in those natural resources that industry in the EU actually needs, as things stand, it will remain in the Russian sphere according to Kiev’s Azarov’s U-turn this week on the trade pact.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Ross

    The day I read that Connie Hedegaard and the EU Commissioners agree to take a 20% salary cut to help fight this “non problem” will be the day I’ll view their views with any respect.( NB. I’ll never agree with them).
    Until then they are just troughers like all those others in the line leaving Warsaw at the moment.


    Report this

    240

    • #
      Manfred

      I reckon they should take an 80% pay cut – they can afford it – leave them with a healthy 20% instead. Oh, and while you’re at it, do what Tony suggests is The Solution – pull the plug on all coal fired power generation……then watch the sheeple wake-up.


      Report this

      70

  • #
    Peter Miller

    I wish you would stop being so nasty to all those EU bureaucrats and politicians. After all, I am sure their proud mothers think they are doing a good job.

    And they should know.

    When nobody controls an ineptocracy, this is always what happens – massive waste and no discernible benefits, but lots of smug faces.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    pat

    Britain’s contribution has just gone up, Jo:

    24 Nov: UK Telegraph: Richard Gray: Britain’s bill for climate aid rises to £4.5 billion
    An extra £1.5 billion of British public money is to be sent as aid to developing countries to help them tackle climate change after the European Union decided to spend additional funds on aid
    Britain has been committed to sending an extra £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money abroad as aid to help poorer countries tackle climate change due to a new European Union policy.
    As part of a new budget, EU leaders have taken the decision to give the funds to developing countries which say they suffer damage due to global warming.
    The money comes on top of £2.9 billion the Government has already pledged from its own aid budget to spend on climate change projects. The announcement has angered Conservative MPs and global warming sceptics.
    Among the climate change projects already funded by the EU is a 13-mile-long train line in Quito, Ecuador, a country that has enjoyed growing wealth and reduced inequality due to its oil industry…
    However, as ministers and officials attempted to negotiate terms for a new deal on reducing carbon emissions last week, European leaders approved the new EU budget from 2014 to 2020.
    It included plans to siphon off €15 billion (£12.5 billion) over the next seven years from the main EU budget to be used as climate aid.
    The UK contributes about 12.5 per cent of the EU’s overall budget, meaning that about £1.5 billion of the additional aid over the next seven years will have been paid by British taxpayers.
    Growing numbers of Tory backbenchers are now calling for the Government to withdraw from expensive climate change and carbon emission commitments.
    Japan’s decision to sharply reduce its carbon emission goals and Australia’s scrapping of a tax on high carbon emitters has increased the pressure…
    Connie Hedegaard, the EU Commissioner for climate action, said the EU was committed to spending 20 per cent of its entire annual €960 billion (£805 billion) budget on climate-related projects.
    “The development-aid budget will also see 20 per cent being used to help support countries we are supporting address climate change,” she said.
    A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “Our economic and climate security depends largely on developing countries being more low carbon and adapting to the unavoidable impacts of climate change.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10469434/Britains-bill-for-climate-aid-rises-to-4.5-billion.html


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    O/T

    Australian who has just retaken the Guinness world record for most Christmas lights on a single dwelling expects to pay additional $2,500 for power over the Christmas period, says he is being assisted by energy company through green energy.

    I hate to tell him that solar doesn’t work at night and wind is usually at it’s least efficient overnight as well, I hope the snowy scheme generates during the evening past the peak period.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      RoHa

      All his Christmas lights provide the equivalent of sunlight on his solar panels, so he can keep running them at night.

      (And I don’t want to hear about the second law of thermodynamics.)


      Report this

      10

    • #

      Australian who has just retaken the Guinness world record for most Christmas lights on a single dwelling expects to pay additional $2,500 for power over the Christmas period, says he is being assisted by energy company through green energy.

      This is just another of those money making cons.

      Pay a little extra and we will source green energy for your home.

      The electrical power coming out of the hole in the wall is just electrical power.

      No one, (and let me stress, NO ONE) who is connected to the grid can say their home is supplied by green power only ….. just because they pay that little bit extra to the power retailer.

      It’s the same as a renewable power plant, (well, every single one of them) saying they can supply X number of homes with green power.

      It’s charlieromeoalphapapa.

      They supply power to the grid only, and can NEVER supply the 24/7/365 power needs for one home, let alone X homes.

      Tony.


      Report this

      140

      • #

        Tony’s still stuck in the ’70′s, and he’s wrong again.

        Here you can see the growth in German generation of renewable electricity is subsituting for nuclear and fossil fuels:
        http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Electricity_Production_in_Germany.svg

        If the renewables “can NEVER supply the 24/7/365″, then how is it that renewable generation is gradually replacing other sources, Tony?


        Report this

        029

        • #
          Brett

          It said Australian, not Austrian, silly duffer. I don’t think the energy company is going to import electricity from Germany.
          So how do you stop the nasty electrons coming through the hole in the wall Margit? Do you have a colour filter that only lets the green electrons through?


          Report this

          100

          • #

            I see, so Australian electrons are different to those German electrons in some subtle way, thus justifying Tony’s, “can NEVER supply the 24/7/365 power needs” statement, which I have demonstrated is incorrect in terms of German and Spanish electrons.


            Report this

            021

            • #
              Brett

              Do you mean ‘Demonstrated’ as in protest, or had a little tantrum?


              Report this

              100

            • #

              Margot,

              Look, I couldn’t care less if you believe outright lies. That’s neither here nor there, but please Margot, when you start spreading those lies, about a subject you have shown you have no understanding of whatsoever, then I’ll call you out on it.

              Margot, this link is to a very simple diagram.

              Load Curve Eastern Australia

              It shows power consumption for virtually all of Australia East of the WA border. I don’t just make this stuff up Margot. This is actual data.

              This shows a typical day’s power consumption for the Summer Months, and Margot, that’s not just a guess, but actual power consumption.

              Note first the curve itself. Note the lowest point, and as you can see from the scale at left that low point is just under 18,000MW. Margot, that low point never changes. It’s around that 18,000MW every day of the year. So now we know that we require ABSOLUTELY (and Margot that’s absolutely) 18,000MW minimum power, even while everyone is tucked up and sound asleep.

              Note the Pink area. That is coal fired power with some Hydro and some Gas fired power. The Blue area is the daily peak requirement, and most of that is from gas fired sources, some coal fired power, and Hydro.

              Margot, see that yellow bit at the bottom. That’s all the Wind power in Australia. That’s around 2%, if that.

              Now Solar is difficult to show, but this is all solar power, both commercial and rooftop solar power. See the curve itself, now start at around 6AM and follow the line of the curve through until around 6PM.

              ALL the solar power in Australia (and Margot that’s ALL the solar) is the thickness of the black line indicating the curve.

              Margot, while this Load Curve is for Australia, this curve is similar, in fact almost identical to anywhere else on Planet Earth, be it town, area, city, region, State or Country. The percentages for Renewables are similar as well. Margot, there is no Country on Planet Earth where Renewable power, wind or solar can provide for that 24/7/365 ABSOLUTE requirement.

              Now Margot, you explain to me, and by extrapolation, all of us, just how it is that you can say renewables can supply 24/7/365 power.

              Off you go then.

              Margot, all you have are lies, outright lies, and you spout them like they are facts. The only place they are facts are in your mind Margot. You believe what you want to believe, but don’t expect us to believe them too.

              Tony.


              Report this

              370

              • #
                bobl

                Actually Tony, there is one way Margot can be right, that’s if we ignore the reliability requirement. Solar and wind can replace baseload Nuclear and Coal if and only if, the human race sacrifices the reliability of it’s power supply. That is, at some times accept there will be no power, or at almost all times, too little for everyone. Since Margot is so for renewable power, I conclude she will apply to be shed first from the grid via her smart meter whenever there is a deficit (Which will be for all practical purposes all the time).

                On the same basis, if a consumer buys “Green Power” as Margot insists is possible, then they should be cast off the grid, any time there is insufficient renewable supplies for all green energy subscribers. After all it’s only fair that purchasers of renewable energy get the full benefit of what they have purchased. Now, how to decide who gets kicked off first.

                Margot, when are you going to answer my questions

                How many grannies are acceptable to die in winter due to fuel poverty
                How many babies should die in heatwaves or cold snaps
                How many third world babies should go unimmunised in order to pay for your green subsidies.
                How many third world people is it acceptable to have starve while we feed their food to our cars
                How many years is it acceptable to delay that cure for cancer or malaria
                How many people with medical machines, or on operating tables is it acceptable to kill because the power went off at the wrong time.
                How many traditional land owners is is acceptable to kill to make way for sequestration projects
                How many whales should die, while the funds that could be invested in their preservation are instead spent on preventing 0.000024 degrees of temperature rise in a century

                Come on Margot, I’ve been waiting weeks, weeks…


                Report this

                170

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Sorry Bobl,

                Even ignoring the reliability (of supply) angle, you are still left with frequency drift.

                I posted about it earlier in reply to Margot, but my comment got lost in moderation
                (three today – a new, all-time record).

                Here is the link.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                bobl

                MV frequency drift is only a problem because of the behaviour of rotating machines under variable loading, yes our network is designed to protect the generators from excessive or light loads in order to maintain voltage at 230V +10 / -6% under all load conditions, if there is too much renewable energy the regulator on the generator cant compensate and the network goes down on a frequency error.

                In a 100% renewable scenario the frequency is crystal locked and doesn’t depend on load, even with current technology we could if we liked convert the generator output to DC insert an inverter and the frequency problem goes away. This approach however is really too unreliable and expensive to contemplate, and it only really delays the problem.

                Electricity generation works by matching generation to load, load is king, and for that you need generation that is variable to some degree, you need to know how to ramp up the energy into the network to meet the load in reliable ways, generators can ordinarilly cope with up to 30 % odd overloads without damange for time enough to spin up another unit.

                Renewables aren’t like that, depending on random environmemtal conditions the renwables generate a random bit of energy that you’ve gotta jigsaw puzzle into place from moment to moment. Renewables don’t do overload duty, they just drop off the grid instead. So for all intents and purposes its impossible to do wind and solar efficiently, which is partly why renewables never get more than a fraction of their nameplate capacity.


                Report this

                30

            • #
              cohenite

              I take it back, Margot is dopier than Blackadder.

              Green energy [what an oxymoron] is expanding in Germany because huge subsidies for Green energy will continue until it reaches 25% of produced power.

              The real point however, is that energy produced by renewables is effectively unusable.


              Report this

              80

        • #
          AndyG55

          It will be so funny to watch that red line start climbing rapidly over the next several years with those 10 new LARGE coal powered stations.

          Nuclear will obviously drop, and as the renewable structure rapidly decays, so will the wind and solar.

          Well done Germany, your economy is worth far more than bowing to the AGW fraud, and you have wasted far too much already.

          Good to see you getting back on track. ! :-)


          Report this

          110

        • #
          AndyG55

          Margot, your moronic lack of understanding of issues like “base load” is quite hilarious. :-)

          You have shown a remarkable resilience to actually learning ANYTHING !

          Pressure hose was up full bore when they brain-washed you, and it left NOTHING behind.


          Report this

          110

        • #

          Why do you and your kind keep telling lies, Margot?


          Report this

          110

        • #
          bob parker

          This week I read with interest that Germany is to dump its windmills and restart the coalfired power stations again. Starting immediatly


          Report this

          80

          • #
            AndyG55

            I suspect they will just let the wind turbines and solar rubbish just rot and naturally decay

            Head back to mainly COAL and GAS.. but they may get sensible and bring some of their nuclear plants back on line at some stage.

            They know where which side their economy is buttered on !! :-)

            They are not as MONUMENTALLY STUPID like the Poms seem to be !


            Report this

            110

        • #
          MemoryVault

          If the renewables “can NEVER supply the 24/7/365″, then how is it that renewable generation is gradually replacing other sources

          Margot, as one involved in the power generation industry, I’m going to tell you something.
          I’m not going to bother trying to explain it much, because I doubt you could understand.
          Even if you could understand, you wouldn’t accept it, as it is counter to your fanatical religious beliefs.

          But I’m going to tell you, so that in a couple of years, when you regularly find yourself sitting in the cold and dark because of rolling power blackouts, you’ll understand why. Here goes,

          Margot, within the confines of current technology, it is not theoretically possible for wind and solar, and other variable-feed energy systems, to supply more than about 20% of overall grid supply. In practical terms, it is not possible to balance a networked grid supply with even just 10% of its electricity coming from constantly variable sources.

          The reason is, as variable-source input approaches 10%, it becomes impossible to maintain grid supply at a constant frequency, as measured in Hertz in electricity supply. When supply frequency varies above or below specified requirement (50 Hertz in Australia), the system trips out, leaving you sitting in the cold and dark.

          .
          What this means in practical terms is this, Margot. Within the confines of current (and foreseeable) technology, 90% of your electricity supply HAS to come from a non-variable source, such as coal, oil, gas, hydroelectric, or nuclear. Put another way, once a country can generate 10% of its power requirements from variable sources, building any more is a complete waste of time, money, resources and effort.

          THAT is the lesson Germany has just learned, and THAT is the lesson Australian politicians have yet to learn, which is why, someday soon, you will find yourself sitting in the cold and dark, waiting for the power to go back on, Margot.

          Trust me on this, Margot, when it happens you may as well go to bed. Phase/frequency-shift trips are a bitch to sort out. You probably won’t be able to have a hot breakfast, either.

          .
          To all the electrical engineers out there – please keep in mind that this explanation is based on the KISS principle, and is aimed at lay readers.


          Report this

          140

          • #
            bobl

            Ok MV i’ll remember that however due to it’s simplicity it isn’t in fact correct, that leaves you vulnerable. It is in fact possible to balance such a network, but not within the current legacy design and legislated constraints of the network +/- 6% voltage and +/- 1% of frequency. For one it requires distributed energy storage, a non-existant technology at the scale we’re talking. To permit greater then 10 percent renewables would require regulation equipment to be installed on every street corner. It could be done, but no sane engineer would ever do that – enormously expensive and unreliable.

            The ultimate physical limitation is just that energy in to the grid needs to equal energy out, if the demand is X GW then the supply needs to be X x 1.15 GW at that exact time (To allow for losses) but as we know, the wind doesn’t magically rise and ebb just as demand rises and ebbs. In Fact, when photovoltaic and wind systems are less efficient, eg hot, still, humid days and nights are the time the public wants their airconditioners the most.

            Margot, as usual your simplistic view betray your ideology, since you are so fond of deferring to the authority of experts then I and Tony and maybe MV (I’m not sure on his quals) are suitably qualified for your questions.

            So what would you like to know about energy generation, Transmission and Distribution from us experts?


            Report this

            50

            • #
              MemoryVault

              .
              Just about anything is theoretically feasible Bobl, just not practical.

              That’s why I used the phrases: “within the confines of current technology”, and “What this means in practical terms is”.

              If/when somebody gets around to figuring a way to store the peak load power requirements of a medium-size city, complete with commerce and industry requirements for three days, in something less than the size of a shopping centre, then maybe.


              Report this

              40

              • #
                bobl

                Sorry MV you left yourself open… I was simply closing the hole. You are correct, within the confines of current design greater than 10 % renewables is impractical ( but not impossible ) but in the end the physical constraint will always apply, you can only push out of the network what you put into it.

                If it’s the middle of a calm night and you are generating 0 kW then noone is going to be operating anything. This happens over Australia pretty much any time there is a continental high over Australia which is pretty much all of winter!

                I’m happy if Margot wants to forward her address to make sure that she’s the first off the grid when the wind stops blowing, for the good of the planet you know…


                Report this

                40

              • #
                MemoryVault

                I’m happy if Margot wants to forward her address to make sure that she’s the first off the grid when the wind stops blowing, for the good of the planet you know…

                Perhaps we could set up a website where the Margots of the world can register their willingness to be excluded from supply, when needs be. Sort of like the opt-out register for cold-call phone marketing.

                Quite apart from anything else, it would give all the Margots something else to feel all warm and cosy about.

                .
                Until the power went off, of course.


                Report this

                50

        • #
          Tim

          VERY gradually replacing other sources, Margot. VERY gradually.

          Since 2000 Germany’s total wind capacity has gone from 8.8 GW to 31.3 GW, an annual average growth of 1.9 GW. Non-hydro renewables only increased from 1% to 7.8% in a decade.

          If Germany keeps that pace up it will have 100% renewable energy sometime a century from now…if it hasn’t bankrupted itself subsidising unworkable renewables in the meantime.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Gbees

          Germany buys its backup power from France next door. Ironic isn’t it? Germany shuts down its nuclear power plants then purchases nuclear power for backup for useless renewables from another country. Germany imports 11 to 17 billion kWh/yr. (France is 75-80% nuclear.)


          Report this

          00

      • #

        Oooh, look, in Spain, since 2005, they’ve reduced fossil fuel generation by 15% and nuclear by 14%, while renewable generation increased 32%:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Spain#Electricity_pro_person_and_by_power_source

        Now, Tony, how is this possible?

        Could there be some sort of “charlieromeoalphapapa” problem inherent in the free advice you’ve been offering here on this blog for years?


        Report this

        121

    • #
      Len

      In Spain solar works at night. Diesel generators are used to supply power to the grid from the solar panel owners. Get the same price as solar panels.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    from jo’s RTCC link:

    RTCC: This will be the first time that there has been a ministerial dialogue dedicated to climate finance. The purpose of the discussion is to find a way to scale up the finance promised by developed countries to the US$ 100bn they have promised to deliver annually from 2020 to be delivered through the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
    It comes with high expectations. “Countries have known about this for a long while,” says Liz Gallagher, senior policy advisor at E3G. “I get a sense there’s going to be some announcements on a range of different issues associated with finance. Whether that will be enough to placate and temper some of the quite heightened frustration in these negotiations, I don’t know.”
    http://www.rtcc.org/2013/11/19/eu-directs-20-of-budget-to-climate-change-on-eve-of-un-finance-meeting/

    21 Nov: Bloomberg BNA: Dean Scott: High-Level Talks Focus on Climate Finance, But Holders of Purse Strings Mostly Absent
    The meeting was not attended by a broad range of finance ministers–most countries sent the same environment ministers who were already in Warsaw–and more progress will require bringing financial officials together, (Alden) Meyer, (Union of Concerned Scientists), said…
    U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern said at the finance talks that the U.S. recognizes “that substantial flows are needed to support developing countries in building low-carbon economies and adapting to the impacts of climate change.”
    Stern told reporters hours later that an entire day of high-level talks on finance was historic because it marked “the first time there has been an extended high-level session devoted to finance” at a COP summit since the signing of the 1992 framework convention on climate change…
    http://www.bna.com/highlevel-talks-focus-n17179880286/

    from AFP’s “Fraught” Talks piece:
    Still grappling with the global economic crisis, the developed world is wary of committing to a detailed long- or short-term funding plan.
    The text did not mention any figures or set any milestones.
    “This conference should have been a finance conference,” Bangladeshi negotiator Qamrul Chowdhury told AFP. “All we got were peanuts.”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/fraught-un-talks-end-in-climate-pact-to-stave-off-global-warming/story-e6frg6so-1226767108907

    developing countries need to opt out of the IPCC process altogether. so-called CAGW policies will cause the deaths of many in Britain, where they can’t afford heating, & will further impoverish millions in the developed world. for developing countries, who are expected to buy (oftentimes with loans) our renewables, expertise, etc., it’s economic death. better they just develop in an economically-viable fashion that suits their own needs. forget the carbon emissions crap. it was always a scam.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    what’s it all about?

    25 Nov: SMH: Mark Kenny with AAP: Fairfax-Nielsen poll: Voters want carbon tax gone, but reject Tony Abbott’s ‘direct action’ policy
    Tony Abbott’s efforts to repeal Labor’s carbon tax have the backing of voters, with a new poll showing 57 per cent of people want it gone now.
    But in a blow to the Prime Minister’s plans, more people like the supposedly ”toxic” carbon tax than his proposed replacement policy.
    Just 12 per cent of voters believe Mr Abbott’s ”direct action” policy of using taxpayer funds to purchase emissions reductions from polluters, and planting trees, is the answer. That amounts to a virtual vote of no-confidence in direct action, which has support 4 percentage points lower than the 16 per cent in favour of keeping a fixed carbon price.
    The Age-Nielsen poll of 1400 voters found that Australians overwhelmingly wanted to see Australia meet the nation’s commitment to cut emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 based on year 2000 levels.
    While both sides of politics have committed to the minimum target, the poll shows voters prefer the policy Labor took to the last election – a switch to an internationally linked emissions trading scheme.
    Fully 29 per cent nominated an ETS as the preferred mechanism to combat global warming – well ahead of ”some other policy” on 24 per cent and 11 per cent who favoured ”no policy at all”….
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/fairfaxnielsen-poll-voters-want-carbon-tax-gone-but-reject-tony-abbotts-direct-action-policy-20131124-2y41i.html


    Report this

    20

  • #
    ROM

    Quoted from Jo’s headline post;

    We have arrived at the glorious point in the big-government growth-curve where a politician can boast they are spending a fifth of their budget trying to stop storms and hold back the tide, and journalists say “OK”.

    That quote would have to be one of the most devastating indictments of utterly moronic politicians and their running dogs in the media that I have seen in a very long time


    Report this

    161

  • #
    pat

    what remarkable & timely poll results, Fairfax Nielsen!

    25 Nov: SMH: Mark Kenny: Labor storms ahead
    Bill Shorten has made the strongest debut of any opposition leader since Kevin Rudd in 2006-07, propelling Labor into the lead over a government weighed down by its secretive asylum-seeker response and an unconvincing commitment to action on global warming.
    The first Fairfax Nielsen poll since the September 7 election has charted a rapid recovery for the ALP, with the opposition shooting to a 52-48 per cent lead over the government on the preferences of respondents – the quickest poll lead achieved by any federal opposition after losing an election.
    It is also the first time Labor has led on the two-party-preferred vote in more than three years…
    Labor’s primary vote has recovered to 37 per cent, up 4 percentage points since the election, while the Coalition’s primary support has fallen by 5 points to 41 per cent.
    The Greens also picked up support, rising from 9 per cent to 11 per cent…
    However, respondents also expressed overwhelming belief in the reality of climate change, with nearly 87 per cent judging the 2020 target of a 5 per cent emissions reduction as either about right (46 per cent) or too low (41 per cent).
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-storms-ahead-20131124-2y43r.html


    Report this

    31

  • #
    Robert

    I was looking at French Television a couple of days ago and there was snow everywhere,down to around Aix-en-Provence,roads blocked, trains and planes delayed and yet it’s not quite Winter yet. Due to global warming?


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      France obviously needs the €20 Billion or so then, to help it adapt to such unprecedented snowfall.


      Report this

      60

    • #

      Yes, Robert, all the sensible people would expect that a globally-averaged warming of 0.8 degrees (so far) should have permanently abolished all snow from everywhere by now.


      Report this

      017

      • #
        Heywood

        But ‘a globally-averaged warming of 0.8 degrees (so far)’ has resulted in cold records tumbling in the northern hemisphere. Go figure.


        Report this

        130

        • #

          According to my research, globally, hot records are being broken at 3 times the rate of cold records.

          You *did* research this yourself before making your contribution, right?


          Report this

          120

          • #
            Brett

            Awesome research! Gotcha 3 times as warm cold.


            Report this

            80

          • #
            Heywood

            “According to my research,”

            Wikipedia isn’t research Margot.

            Still up to your carpet bombing tactics I see.

            http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/2899-record-cold-temps-667-record-warm-temps/


            Report this

            110

            • #
              Bob Malloy

              Wikipedia isn’t research Margot.

              Still up to your carpet bombing tactics I see.

              http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/2899-record-cold-temps-667-record-warm-temps/

              Again, Margot vanishes at this point, counter evidence is a bitch.


              Report this

              40

            • #
              Bob Malloy

              Wikipedia isn’t research Margot.

              Still up to your carpet bombing tactics I see.

              http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/2899-record-cold-temps-667-record-warm-temps/

              Again, Margot vanishes at this point, counter evidence is a b$#@h.

              second attempt to post this, spam filter doesn’t like the b word I guess.


              Report this

              20

              • #
                MemoryVault

                spam filter doesn’t like the b word I guess.

                Nah – the spam policeman has been having a bad hair day – it’s not just you.

                [MV, very few posts get removed or held in moderation manually by us Mods (the police if you will). The reason is simple and you'll be able to tell IF we ever pull a post because it messes up the order of the threading within posts from that point on.

                The AUTOMATIC filter is tripped by a number of words including most standard swearwords, words like KILL and ASSASSINATE, I think certain phrases related to Slayer Science and other words determined solely by JOANNE. I have not been able to read why some of your posts get caught I suspect it finds the letters spelling the bad word imbedded in a benign word (killjoy might be caught for example)

                We Mods don't have access to the filter list, we have no choice in the matter other than a plea to JOANNE.

                PLEASE STOP PICKING ON US VOLUNTEERS FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF AN AUTOMATIC SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER! If anything, thank the trolls and abusers of free speech that make the AUTOMATIC filter a necessity for JOANNE. ] ED


                Report this

                50

              • #
                MemoryVault

                My apologies ED.

                I was not referring to you MODS when I referred to the “spam policeman”.
                I refer to you MODS as the MODS, or directly by nic – eg – ED.
                The “spam policeman” is the automatic filter list.

                I got the term “spam policeman” as a nom de plume for the automatic filter list, directly from Joanne in an email many months ago, when she was explaining how and why a post had disappeared. I’m also pretty sure both Joanne, and other contributors here, have referred to the auto filter as such, from time to time.
                I just naturally assumed it was a pretty commonly used term.

                .
                My comment above was made in that context.
                I had three comments in a row on two separate threads, go directly to moderation. I knew it wasn’t you MODS but rather the auto filter, because there was nothing apparent in them to earn the ire of a MOD.
                I emailed about it and Joanne tracked it back to the use of a phrase referring to an accepted physics constant much beloved by a certain troll with a predilection for old threads. Joanne emailed back and explained.

                .
                My apologies again for any misunderstanding.
                Despite my occasional ribbing, I do really appreciate the effort you guys put in.


                Report this

                20

  • #
    pat

    bizarre opening para, given the headline!

    25 Nov: AFR: Phillip Coorey: Coalition carbon policy not popular
    Voters have given the thumbs down to the Coalition’s direct action carbon policy while the Australian Industry Group has raised concerns about its lack of detail and the inadequate time for consultation.
    The latest The Australian Financial Review/Nielsen poll, the first since the election, finds that while 57 per cent of voters believe Labor should vote to abolish the carbon tax, the most popular alternative is an emissions trading scheme. Support for direct action ranks statistically with having no policy at all…
    The poll of 1400 voters finds when it comes to options to fight climate change, 29 per cent support a trading scheme, 16 per cent want a carbon tax, 24 per cent say “some other policy’’, 12 per cent back direct action and 11 per cent want no policy at all. Coalition ­voters are evenly divided, with 24 per cent wanting direct action, 20 per cent an ETS and 27 per cent saying they want “some other policy’’…
    http://www.afr.com/p/national/coalition_carbon_policy_not_popular_qKGTwzjI69o4U6M4Qbk9GP


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      What a load of bunk. Trendy media types reading all sorts into poll results that just isn’t there. Australians are canny (trendy types aside) and know the Carbon Tax has to go and the Direct Action isn’t worth bothering with, do job almost done.


      Report this

      70

  • #
    pat

    25 Nov: AFR: Laura Tingle: Coalition’s short walk from triumph to disaster
    Nielsen’s John Stirton cautions that the poll is “against trend” so will have to be validated by other polls, even if polls published already suggest the Coalition has been struggling to get any momentum from the fact it at last occupies the Treasury benches…
    A look at how this poll is built, compared with the last by Nielsen a couple of days before the last election, tells us that the Labor recovery has been nationwide but nowhere greater than in Queensland.
    ***Labor’s primary vote is now actually leading that of the LNP 42 to 38 per cent, compared with 27/49 per cent on September 4-5…
    http://www.afr.com/p/national/coalition_short_walk_from_triumph_ENZxb2U9FGHI9cNzeC4N4I

    the qld SWING looks like more than just “against trend”, Stirton. it looks like it provided you with your National headlines. where on earth did u poll in qld?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Stephen Williams

    Now they are saying that there are only 7 years till our DOOM!!
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/11/lingering-warming-effect-would-mean.html#more


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Lars P.

    No wonder Europe is in a recession since years. This can only prolong and deepen it = throwing money on useless things and increasing cost and unreliability of energy.
    What they will achieve is to have hundreds of thousand of windmills and “backup” diesel generators connected to the grid – so in reality moving the electric energy generation on oil. Does this make sense?

    And to achieve this result spend hundreds of billion of euros – billions of hard worked hours worth of taxes wasted.

    Europe in the previous century had developed the TGV, the Concorde, the “Chunnel”, nuclear energy, highways, achieved individual freedom of travel within the EU. What does it have to show this century? Windmills, solar panels, dying industry and a green Gaya cult.

    Scriptbook how to make out of 28 successful economies a train wreck.
    The only way to come out of this is individual countries to revolt, and this will be a slow process, meanwhile debt is accumulating and money wasted.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      It’s the Post Industrial Age Lars.
      Just wrap up your industries and post them to the developing world, to let them catch up with their Carbon emissions.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Lars P.

        Eddie, You will be surprised to see that human resources costs make in many cases a relative small part of the finished product – can be 8 % if one produces the same thing in China versus 11 % in Germany, whereas energy may be 3 times it, for many industries energy may be a more important factor then human resources costs.

        Then there are also other factors of course…


        Report this

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        Eddie,

        Brilliant comment :-)


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Lars

      In many ways the EU’s ineptocracy in Brussels bears a remarkable resemblance to the court of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

      Hugely expensive, unaccountable, pompous and prepared to waste money on a colossal scale simply to be able to say “Look how clever we are at spending money”. The question of whether or not the money is being spent wisely is a complete irrelevance.

      I am not sure when the EU’s auditors were last able to sign off on their accounts, but it was probably at least 12 years ago.

      When the history of the decline and fall of the EU is written, the focus will doubtless be on the waste, the bloated bureaucracies and the failed politicians sent there by national governments.


      Report this

      140

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Part of the problem is that the “elites” are divorced from mainstream activity. Paid handsomely by some government or operating in a NGO, their lifestyle has little connection with ordinary worries. Various perks, awards and sums of money come their way. They invest their capital in real estate and multinationals. They don’t worry about losing their job, or any dividends/awards/payoffs from the multinationals as the latter take the jobs wherever it suits them.

        So the “elite” aren’t worried about companies threatening or going elsewhere, as they cannot see that it affects them. “Spending money that the country doesn’t have, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, at the behest of people we didn’t elect” is fine by them if it makes them feel good and/or important.

        The problem for them comes when the ordinary people get fed up with rising costs and taxation, and either emigrate or drop out of society. This in turn increases the pressure on the remainder until there is an explosion. I don’t see any sign that they understand, or are concerned enough to prevent this happening. Historically it seems to end in dictatorship and war.


        Report this

        90

  • #
    pat

    25 Nov: AFR: Laura Tingle: Coalition’s short walk from triumph to disaster
    Nielsen’s John Stirton cautions that the poll is “against trend” so will have to be validated by other polls, even if polls published already suggest the Coalition has been struggling to get any momentum from the fact it at last occupies the Treasury benches…
    A look at how this poll is built, compared with the last by Nielsen a couple of days before the last election, tells us that the Labor recovery has been nationwide but nowhere greater than in Queensland.
    ***Labor’s primary vote is now actually leading that of the LNP 42 to 38 per cent, compared with 27/49 per cent on September 4-5…
    http://www.afr.com/p/national/coalition_short_walk_from_triumph_ENZxb2U9FGHI9cNzeC4N4I

    the qld SWING looks like more than just “against trend”, Stirton. it looks like it provided you with your National headlines today. where on earth did u poll in qld?


    Report this

    40

    • #
      john robertson

      Polls say whatever the pollster wants, recent polling here in Canada has been completely erroneous, couple of reasons here, people are becoming aware of the agenda of the pollsters and conservatives do not answer polls.
      If I have time, I now make a point of taking them, to give the most vapid and left leaning responses I can imagine.
      My take, these A-Holes have lied to me for years so its only fair to return the favour.
      If busy my default;”Sorry not buying any”. Click.
      These polls,showing public love for the recently ousted socialist thieves, were all the rage here from 2006 on,funny the Libtards (your Labour) are still falling in the only real poll, the ballot box.
      Another bias/design feature, is the people chosen to be polled.
      Data mining works wonders.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Disgusting: Connie the Hag is out of control. We have to all resolve to stop her and bring her to justice.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    comprehensive look at the 20% for CAGW when it first came up in February 2012. it’s taken til now to be approved, so there may be some changes. developing countries account for almost none of the money. note it says in Feb 2012: ‘From January 2013 they (EU member states) will have a fresh and significant source of new revenue from ETS [emission trading scheme] auctions.’ Giles Dickson from French engineering firm Alstom. much more at the link:

    Europaeum: New: the EU budget – it has never been so green
    Reprinted from The European Energy Review on 23/02/2012 by Sonja van Renssen, Freelance climate, energy and environment journalist.
    Today a mere 5% of the EU budget is estimated to go to climate-related activities…
    Hedegaard reportedly had to fight hard for her 20% slice of the next budget, however…
    EU energy commissioner Günther Oettinger reportedly wanted no more than 10% of the budget to go to climate.
    Hedegaard managed to win out because she gained the backing of Commission president José Manuel Barroso. One source suggests that Barroso saw climate change and its “mainstreaming” mission as a peg for the whole green growth agenda which might in turn function as a peg for the whole European project – justifying a sizeable budget for the bloc in the first place…
    The two biggest parts of the EU Budget are the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and “cohesion policy”, which distributes funds to regions to even out development disparities. These together make up two-thirds of the budget. Much of the money reserved for climate-related activities will have to come from these two programmes, e.g. improved farming practices that also benefit the climate.
    The Commission’s Energy department, headed by Commissioner Oettinger, can expect money for its priorities from the cohesion policy funds, from the so-called Connecting Europe Facility – a new €50 billion programme to fund cross-border infrastructure (energy, transport and broadband) – and from an enhanced low-carbon research, development and deployment programme…
    One of the main objectives of new cross-border infrastructure is to enable decarbonisation of the energy system by adapting it to cope with the expected large-scale expansion of intermittent renewable sources. Holmes (think-tank E3G) says that the most important task of the new policy must be to leverage private investments in infrastructure. ‘Last time we had a big infrastructure build-out it was publicly funded. Now we need private capital and investor preferences [for low-carbon investments].’ This is where policymakers come in: they must set incentive frameworks and take on some of the policy and technology risk of investors, says Holmes.
    In a new report published in February, E3G argues that many of the public funds needed to unlock private capital could come from public banks such as the European Investment Bank (EIB) rather than directly from EU or national government coffers. It suggests the EIB doubles its low-carbon investment by 2020 (to ***60% of all its activity) and that the EU reviews financial regulation such as that related to the pension industry to ensure long-term investment in low-carbon infrastructure is not penalised. Public institutions must increasingly operate alongside commercial banks to help investors in low-carbon projects secure both early-stage finance and re-finance their projects once operational, Holmes says…
    Much of the money set aside for efficiency and renewables in the current budget has not been used by member states, for example because they’re not aware of it or cannot meet the co-financing requirements (there is still the crisis, after all)…
    In its 2014-20 budget proposals, the Commission proposes that a third of its €80bn “Horizon 2020” R&D programme goes to climate-related activities. This will be spread out over multiple programmes, but the one that is closest to industrial hearts is without doubt the Strategic Energy Technology or SET Plan.
    Called the “technology pillar” of the EU’s climate and energy policy, it was drawn up by the Commission back in 2007 to promote the research, development and deployment of low-carbon technologies. At its core is the coming together of public and private actors to launch joint initiatives in six priority areas: wind, solar, bioenergy, CCS, electricity grids and nuclear fission…
    Member states need to match EU funds, companies say, and the private sector will then match those. ‘Member states should be doing more and will shortly have the means at their disposal,’ says Giles Dickson from French engineering firm Alstom. ‘From January 2013 they will have a fresh and significant source of new revenue from ETS [emission trading scheme] auctions.’ …
    Member states are supposed to spend half the money they will earn selling carbon allowances to industry from 2013 on climate-related activities, but it remains to be seen how many will do so and what proportion will go to research and innovation. The EU ETS is already supporting low-carbon technology deployment through the “NER300″, which consists of 300 million carbon allowances currently being gradually auctioned off specifically to raise money for CCS and renewables. The carbon price is crucial in all these ETS-related funding streams and whether member states and MEPs agree on a “set-aside” of allowances to raise the future price will therefore be crucial in the coming months…
    It comes down to member states on all fronts. It is they, rather than the European Parliament, who hold most of the power when it comes to approving the budget and the Commission’s proposals have already raised eyebrows in EU capitals. Some do not want the EU to spend as much as €1 trillion and many don’t like the idea of earmarking funds, whether for climate or something else. The Commission has issued proposals for a budget that can set the scene for a decarbonised economy in 2050. But it is member states, through their support for this budget and in complementary funds of their own, who must show the world that Europe believes in its own low-carbon agenda.
    http://www.europaeum.org/europaeum/?q=node/1633


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Hedegaard managed to win out because she gained the backing of Commission president José Manuel Barroso. One source suggests that Barroso saw climate change and its “mainstreaming” mission as a peg for the whole green growth agenda which might in turn function as a peg for the whole European project – justifying a sizeable budget for the bloc in the first place…

      Barroso, the previously Portugese Communist, calculating on dressing up his socialist Eutopian ambitions as environmentalism.


      Report this

      80

  • #
    Stan

    Don’t worry about the people in Cambodia – they will be much better off without EU aid and interference.


    Report this

    12

  • #

    This 20% spent on “climate change” is just hype. There is no separate category for climate. Neither is this anything new. This figure was being bandied around nine months ago. I looked at the figures in February. I wrote

    Of the EUR 960bn budget for 2014-2020

    1. Smart and Inclusive Growth = 451 (47%)

    2. Sustainable Growth: Natural Resources = 373 (39%)

    The rest (Categories 3-6) = 136 (14%)

    It is just as misleading to claim 20% of the budget is for “climate change” as to claim 86% is for “growth”. There are no departments identified, like for a national government. Nothing like “Agriculture”, “Health”, “Foreign Affairs” or “Defence”.
    Like with climate science climatology, you have to look at the figures and not the press releases.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Wally

    Reminds me of the old Dave Allen sketches of King Canute standing at the beach and shouting “I King Canute command you to go back”.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    King Geo

    The former “Powerhouse EU Economy” is fast tracking towards “3rd World Economic Status” – meanwhile the former 3rd World Economies of China & India do the total opposite and become the new “World Economic Powerhouses”. All of this has happened in the past 2 decades because some Western Economies (EU & UK) believe that AGW is real – who would have believed the Europeans could be so dumb.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    RoHa

    If they put 20% of the EU budget into climate change, how are they going to be able to pay their salaries and perks? That is where 97% of the budget goes.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    handjive

    North Korea’s The Green Politician’s Brilliant Climate Change Strategy

    Originally seen on Real Science, and culled from the US Department of Energy (thank you, Government!), comes this informative picture-


    Report this

    10

  • #
    PeterS

    They want the rich countries to pay? OK then when is China going to pay? I think they should at least pay a few trillion.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    people wonder why Greece, Italy and Spain are in a mess.

    The whole shootin’ match is in a mess.

    In the EU, only failure has rewards.

    The EU is trying desperately to throttle what remains of semi-working economies like Germany’s.

    The vast majority of member economies sharing the Euro currency would no longer qualify to join it because of their excessive spending to support and to do the things that the EU dictates.

    The EU Commission has become the Imperial (Imperious) Council of Europe. Member states are obliged to “co-operate” by implementing legislation according to the dictates of the Council. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the EU Parliament is anything but a sham and an excuse to pay more people to be ineffective.

    The EU has no sovereign rights. It pretends. So does Hutt River Province. Well; the latter actually owns territory so has more of a sovereign claim.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      pattoh

      Hey Bernd

      With a whole lot of EU countries keeping their gold reserves in the “care” of the City of London or ComEx, & paper/physical multiples reported to be running @ 48.5:1 (ComEx) & rumoured @ ~100:1 (London),
      you would have to wonder where the Gold price will go when the EU eventually collapses & the former members have to issue their own currencies again.

      Interesting times in a very oriental sense.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Tim

    Much of this will be spent on domestic projects, helping with the development of climate-smart agriculture (sterilizing via GM crops?), energy efficiency (Coal power replaced by windmills and solar panels to ensure hypothermia?) and the transport sector (Fuel price-hikes to shut down enterprise?), €15 billion from the EU’s overseas development budget.(More starvation.)

    The overall theme here seems to be population reduction by a number of means.


    Report this

    51

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s a couple of comments I made at WUWT.

    Neville. says:
    November 24, 2013 at 5:56 pm

    Here’s the EIA co2 emission numbers for OECD and non OECD from 1990 to 2011.

    http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2011&unit=MMTCD

    OECD (developed) 1990 —11.6 bn T 2011 —13 bn T. An increase in just 1.4 bn T pa in 21 years . Non OECD ( developing China, India etc) 1990 —-10 bn T 2011 —-19.6 bn T. An increase of 9.6 bn T pa in 21 years.
    All individual countries co2 emissions pa are available at the link
    Neville. says:
    November 24, 2013 at 6:10 pm

    Here are the EIA co2 emission forecast until 2040— see graph. The OECD emissions will essentially flatline for 30 years while non OECD emissions will continue to soar.

    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm

    They say that fully 94% of extra co2 emissions will come from China ,India etc and only 6% from the OECD until 2040.
    The entire OECD could retire and live in caves and it wouldn’t make ZIP difference at all to climate and temp.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      AndyG55

      “The entire OECD could retire and live in caves and it wouldn’t make ZIP difference at all to climate and temp.”

      And the really ridiculous thing is that this appears where they actually WANT to be.. in caves !

      Their continued push for unsustainable* renewables will push more and more production and industry to China, India etc, leaving Europe a basket case.

      *unsustainable in terms of the economy, ecology, electricity supply etc etc..

      Thankfully, many countries are starting to wake up to this fact. they may just be able to save themselves.. Time will tell !


      Report this

      61

      • #
        King Geo

        Well said AndyG55 – you so eloquently portray the state of play in the “dysfunctional” EU – just like the EU is a basket case (as you say) so has been the COP 19 Conference in Warsaw which was attended mainly by “greenie gravy train” delegates. It has been in Oz’s best interests that the Abbott Govt turned a blind eye to this “Greenfest” knowing full well that it’s objectives are incongruous with the economic well being of our fine country.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    It’s interesting that an organisation can spend $30 billion in one year. With zero return on investment. And nobody bats an eye.

    Craziest financial model I’ve ever seen.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Frederick Colbourne

    Doesn’t the EU Parliament decide how the money is spent?


    Report this

    11

  • #
    Dave

    Fuel Poverty Threat by CAGW Renewable Energy Sources.

    1. 11 to 16 percent of Germans are now struggling to pay their energy bills. 600,000 households have the electricity turned off every year.
    2. 15 to 18 percent Belgians are now struggling to pay their energy bills. 240,000 households have the electricity turned off every year.
    3. 11 to 13 percent Spanish are now struggling to pay their energy bills. 500,000 households have the electricity turned off every year.
    4. 10 to 15 percent Italians are now struggling to pay their energy bills. 2,100,000 households have the electricity turned off every year.

    All of this fuel poverty is due to increased electricity, gas, oil etc price rises due to GREEN charges and renewable energy subsidies paid by power generation companies to the government.

    The new death rate expected this year due to Green Policies is going to be bigger than the last two combined. The Greens are not concerned for the poor, the disabled, the elderly nor the young.

    Their new GANG GREEN Motto is:

    “Save the world from CAGW, kill off the poor.”

    In future years, the people responsible for the millions of deaths due to these GREEN policies will be made to face the music. They simply do not care about future generations, as they are trying to wipe them out NOW.

    And this from Professor Sian Griffiths, president of the Faculty of Public Health in the UK:

    “If we see much more of the cold weather of recent days, it is likely that as many as 50,000 people will die unnecessarily over this winter. This is a tragedy in terms of human life and also creates a huge – and preventable – strain on the NHS.”

    These predicted deaths, are totally preventable with cheap energy supply. The Greens have blood on their hands every year.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      AndyG55

      “The Greens have blood on their hands every year.”

      Not to mention the ABJECT CRUELTY to birds and bats, from wind turbines and solar concentrating stations. The Greenies just DON’T CARE about that either, in fact they WORSHIP it.

      I also wonder just how much damage the offshore turbines are doing to ocean life, with their fluctuating magnetic fields and pressure variations. etc
      This must play havoc with the navigation of dolphins and many other sea creatures.

      But the Greenies just DON’T CARE !


      Report this

      110

      • #
        Dave

        AndyG55,

        The off shore Wind Mills are worse, the foundations, the monopile and the tower etc are full of steel & concrete, just to hold one 5 MW turbine.

        1. The foundation is 1,300 tonnes of concrete and steel that sits on the sea floor.
        2. The 600 tonne steel monopile sits on that to the surface.
        3. And last the turbine tower & turbine with over 500 tonnes of steel.

        Total over 1900 tonnes steel and 700 tonnes of concrete for one 5 MW turbine????

        These bases obliterate nearly 100 square meters of sea bed. The support craft necessary for installation is massive (see link above), and then the transformer substation alone is 1,300 tonnes above water, plus foundations and monopiles.

        Where as a 2,000 MW coal fired power station uses about 4,000 tonnes of steel for the turbine and generator. The difference is huge (500 times more steel per MW for Wind Mills).

        A. Wind, 1,000 tonnes steel per MW capacity. (assuming 40%)
        B. Coal, 2 tonnes steel per MW capacity.

        The whole GREEN Renewable energy stuff is a joke, and currently this year alone, 1,000,000 tonnes of steel has been allocated to wind turbines in Europe. Wonder what power source the steel mills use?

        Wind mills are a shocking criminal overuse of a great resource for a useless energy supply.


        Report this

        100

      • #
        PeterS

        Yes Andy55 the Greens don’t care. Actually they hate the human race and would rather see it reduced in size significantly; excluding themselves of course. Hypocrites and evil the lot of them.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Maverick

        True environmentalists understand that 1) people come first, the wallabies can’t help us, 2) a capatlist economy comes second,economic systems without the the incentive for efficiency, hard work, innovation and technology can’t help us, and 3)respect for the balance of management of the broader environment comes third, focus on just CO2 does not help anyone.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        diogenese2

        From Sandy, Bedfordshire UK (my wife’s birthplace): “We have now completed sufficient research and are confident that Sandy Ridge is a suitable site for a single wind turbine”. Statement 19/9/2013 from Sandy Lodge, headquarters of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I have visited the ex-sanctuary many times but never again. You really can’t make it up.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          diogenese2

          Meanwhile in the “flow country” of the far north of Scotland; “this is, without doubt, one of the most worrying wind farm applications we have seen in Scotland”
          says, in objection, Stuart Housden, Director, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (Scotland division).
          Of course Strathy Wind Farms is proposed by Scottish Hydro, whereas Sandy Ridge is Ecotricity, who are planning 13 more wind farms on top of the 6 under construction and 15 in operation (some of which – like Sandy – are singles. The RSPB has posted no objections to any – funny that.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    Bones

    I’ve been looking but could’nt see Margot’s reply to TONYfromOZ about Spain & solar power,did I miss it.Poll results for labor,are they from the Land of Oz or the Wizard of Oz


    Report this

    70

  • #
    pat

    24 Nov: NYT: Kofi Annan: Climate Crisis: Who Will Act?
    It is essential that governments start phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, which currently account for about $485 billion a year, and are far greater than the global investment in renewable energy. While cutting subsidies is an issue for developed and developing countries alike, it remains true that the Group of 20 countries accounted for 78 percent of global carbon emissions from fuel combustion in 2010…
    Climate change must inform any new policy, whether in the development or the energy sector. It must determine the way we build our houses and the way we structure our economy…
    To those who argue that global warming is just the way of nature and not in any way related to human activity, the panel responds, “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
    ***The dominant cause. Not just one among many…
    As a consequence, we will witness more extreme weather patterns such as droughts, storms, floods and heat waves. As we saw, just days before the Warsaw conference, with the devastating effects of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, those who bear the brunt are the poorest and most vulnerable. We should also expect to witness a dramatic increase of various infectious diseases, especially vector-borne diseases such as malaria or dengue fever.
    Eventually, all of us, whether from the industrialized or developing world, will feel the consequences. In fact, this has already started, as those who experienced recent wildfires in Australia and California and this year’s floods in Europe can attest. Climate change will threaten our security, exacerbating tensions that lead to violent conflicts as the scramble for resources escalates out of control.
    But let me conclude on a note of cautious optimism…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/opinion/climate-crisis-who-will-act.html?hpw&rref=&_r=0

    ***Kofi, do you know the meaning of “likely”?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    25 Nov: Guardian: Graham Redfearn: How rich countries dodged the climate change blame game in Warsaw
    The steps in Warsaw towards a new global climate change deal looked more like shuffling of feet
    This new “loss and damage” branch can be seen as an explicit and formal recognition that impacts from climate change are inevitable…
    But what the agreed text conspicuously avoids is any suggestion that contributions made by developed countries should be worked out based on their overall contribution to the 40% increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution.
    In short, this would be seen as an admission of liability and rich nations do not want a court case…
    The UNFCCC “parties” (almost 200 countries) agreed to go back home and “initiate or intensify domestic preparations for their intended nationally determined contributions” to whatever deal might be brokered in Paris in 2015…
    But the text of the agreement makes clear that whatever nations do offer, this will be “without prejudice to the legal nature of the contributions”…
    When it comes to offering even a broad outline of what a new Paris deal will look like, the decision from Warsaw leaves the door not so much open as swinging wildly on its hinges.
    As the document says, a deal requiring action from 2020 could end up being “a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force”.
    So pretty much anything, then…
    ***During the two weeks of talks, observers were consistently blaming Australia for slowing the process down.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/nov/25/climate-change-warsaw-rich-countries-blame-paris-deal

    ***how powerful we are, Graham! of course, Warsaw’s failure had nothing whatsoever to do with cool, green Obama & his envoy, Stern’s clearly confrontational agenda prior to and during Warsaw, practically re-writing Kyoto & all that.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    No offense to any Catholics, some of the best Skeptics are Micks. But the Medieval Catholic Church had a monopoly on the Truth, and they only extracted a ‘tithe’ of %10. So any lefties who criticise religion should realize that their religion takes double.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Dave

    GREEN REVOLUTION:

    WIND MILLS:

    1. Worldwide there is a total nameplate capacity of 282,482 MW as of end 2012.
    2. European Union alone passed some 100,000 MW nameplate capacity in September 2012
    3. United States surpassed 50,000 MW nameplate capacity in August 2012
    4. China passed 50,000 MW the same month.

    Wind: 300,000 MW nameplate capacity worldwide today for wind.

    SUN POWER:

    Solar: 200,000 MW nameplate capacity worldwide for solar all kinds.

    FOSSIL FUEL:

    Bayswater Power Station is 2,640 MW, so the GREENS have generated enough power to shut the equivalent of nearly 190 of these coal monsters worldwide.

    What happened then, nothing has been shut down, OH!
    The wind didn’t blow and sun didn’t shine enough.

    The Margots and Whooshes of the world really have got no idea.

    Billions spent on garbage, but in the process these GANG GREENS are killing millions of people worldwide.

    They are systematically killing the poor, the aged, the young, disadvantaged and disabled worldwide through an agenda that no one has ever seen before in history.

    And here is the EU giving €15 billion to third world countries solely for their inhabitants to be annihilated. The GANG GREEN will pay for their crimes against humanity and future generations very shortly.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    jan Freed

    I am convinced that AGW is our civilization’s greatest threat and will cost trillions because of our so-called skepticism and delay.

    Further denial and delay will cost additional trillions and doom millions to death and destruction of homes, livelihood, and communities. We have seen much of this already, as predicted thirty years ago.

    We are cynical of the science, but give a pass to the Think Tanks set up by the Kochs and others. Why would this be so?

    ——

    Note to readers: Assume Jan is genuinely asking. For something different, lets try to engage him or her. Go on. Maybe Jan is at uni? Humour me. We know how the usual polarized reparte goes. Not much point in repeating it.
    Note to Jan: Let’s start with the dooming of millions. We want to talk evidence here, please join the dots. How do you know extra CO2 will cause death and destruction? – Jo


    Report this

    05

    • #
      gbees

      “I am convinced that AGW is our civilization’s greatest threat and will cost trillions because of our so-called skepticism and delay.”

      You say you are convinced of this …. What empirical scientific evidence do you have to support your convictions? Where is it located, what scientific journal(s), title of the paper(s), date, author(s) etc … or do you just have links to your favourite Green propaganda?


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Heywood

      Hi Jan,

      You mention “Further denial”. I am curious to find out exactly what you think we deny?


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Heywood

      “Note to readers: Assume Jan is genuinely asking.”

      Jo, given the content of this link, I am not so sure that “Jan” is genuinely asking anything.

      Just another drive by activist methinks.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Heywood

      Sorry Jo, as I read on there is no way Jan was genuinely asking the question.

      It seems she is just another activist.

      “Jan Freed is a former high school science teacher and a volunteer with the Pasadena Foothills Chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby.”

      What is it with high school science teachers and activism on this blog?

      Here are some examples of Jan wearing her bias on her sleeve in an op-ed she wrote for the Pasadena Star-News.

      “…climate disasters besetting our nation.”

      “…what we must do to reduce Earth’s fever. “

      “…unprecedented drought, fires and floods, the most costly in history…”

      “The pattern of disasters and extreme weather…”

      “…most citizens want to see carbon emissions decrease”

      “…more aggressive about “drill, baby, drill.” Still?”

      …and that’s just the first three paragraphs.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      AndyG55

      “I am convinced that AGW is our civilization’s greatest threat ”

      Sorry Jan, but the BIGGEST thread is the ridiculous amount of money WASTED on this issue. It has many countries with massive unsustainable debt, and run-down energy supply systems. This debt will have to be paid off by future generations, as well as them having to put up with inflated energy prices for dubious supply reliability.

      There is actually very little science backing anything catastrophic happening because of a very minor amount of warming.

      The fact is that AGW is still very much an unproven hypothesis.

      There have been NO EXTREME EVENTS that are not well within the statistical realm of what has happened even in the very short record that we have.

      I know the newspapers and the climate alarmists like to say that every NATURAL climate event is caused by AGW,
      but there is NO PROOF WHATEVER, and even the IPCC has said so.

      ps. The latest Engineering I have seen indicates to me that any CO2 forcing log based below 200ppm, then threshold limited.
      ie. Since we are no at 400ppm, no amount of extra CO2 will make one iota of difference to global temperatures,

      Also, you need to realise that CO2 is the ABSOLUTE building block of ALL LIFE ON EARTH and we desperately need MORE of it in the Atmosphere if we are to support the world’s increasing population. (and stop wasting food on biofuels.. monumental idiocy)


      Report this

      30

    • #
      MemoryVault

      Note to readers: Assume Jan is genuinely asking.

      You’re kidding, right, Jo.

      About the best thing you could do for Jan is send him/her the email addresses of Margot and the Master Baiter.
      Depending on Jan’s sex/sexual preference, there could be a match made in heaven in there, somewhere.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      AndyG55

      And Jan, it is very unwise to bring climate PROPGANDA to this site.

      We have seen it all before and are getting thoroughly sick of it.!

      Just a friendly warming. :-)


      Report this

      10

    • #
      AndyG55

      Meanwhile, in the USA

      http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20131125_endofhurricaneseason.html Slowest hurricane season since 1984

      ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf Hurricanes are getting weaker.

      And I predict..

      Over the next 30 years:

      you experience some large hurricanes.

      many deltas around the world will flood

      many parts of the world will have droughts

      arc caps will melt and re-freeze.

      temperatures will either go up a bit or down a bit

      its called

      NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE !!!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      The greatest threat is not AGW. The greatest threat are those who know nothing trying to destroy the economies of all nations for a cause that has been shown to be without merit.

      How many people will die from AGW? Millions freeze to death now due to lack of heat. And many of those do so where it is available, but too expensive because of the whole AGW scam. And that is WITH the resistance. Without it, and rushing head long into abolishing all gas, coal and oil energy production would result in BILLIONS dying from lack of energy. To produce heat, to run factories to produce medicines that stop plagues, or that provide basic medical care.

      The greatest danger is the destruction of the economies of the world for a scam that has not been proven, and the evidence shows is not a danger.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      observa

      We are cynical of the science, but give a pass to the Think Tanks set up by the Kochs and others. Why would this be so?

      Jan it doesn’t matter the motives of any scientist, their funding, their qualifications, or the colour their skin for that matter, but but merely that they can produce ALL their data, methodology and conclusions for scrutiny by all. It has nothing whatsoever to do with
      g whether you are dining companions with Al Gore or the Koch Bros, but if they want to enter the debate with no science they’ll get all the short shrift they deserve.

      Further denial and delay will cost additional trillions and doom millions to death and destruction of homes, livelihood, and communities. We have seen much of this already, as predicted thirty years ago.

      Jan, apart from the IPCC backing away from your brand of catastrophism why don’t you mull over this and understand your insignificant place in the big scheme of things-
      http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/climatehistory.pdf
      We’ve only had a reasonable thermometer record for 150 years (Australia only a 100 years of reasonable Stevenson Screen rollout) but here’s a fact on cyclonic activity in Oz for you-
      http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml
      You were saying about the last 30 Years?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    And they keep wondering why their economies are so anemic?

    What the EU needs are a few good economists (I said good, not the Krugman type).


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    EU gives 20% (sic) of their budget to demigoddess of climate change

    I just couldn’t resist the temptation to rephrase this slightly (I did try to resist, honest).

    EU gives 20% (sick) of their budget to demigoddess of climate change

    It seems so fitting, so perfectly fitting. Wisdom is indeed justified of all her children. :-(


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard

    “Create wealth and living better. They require us to create too much of the wrong things at a much higher cost than doing nothing”.

    I think higher costs are inexorable in our current system because the problem is that all money these days created by banks is ‘fiat money’, meaning it isn’t backed by anything – it’s essentially created out of thin-air through fractional reserve banking. It’s why US dollar has devalued by 97% and the British pound by over 99%. The US, like so many other counties, interestingly, doesn’t actually create its own money – it borrows it from the Federal Reserve, which is privately owned, and then the Federal Reserve charges the US government and its poor citizens interest, meaning it’s mathematically impossible to ever pay back. This is the same in UK – money is created out of thin-air by the BOEN, which is privately owned, and interest is charged. Peter Joseph has a fascinating video-documentary explaining the fraudulent nature of fractional reserve banking system called ‘Zeitgeist Addendum’.


    Report this

    10

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>