JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Unthreaded Lewandowsky weekend

What can I say. Not another “downfall” video, oh yes. Oh Yes! But for those who know the background on the Recursive Fury retraction, the irony is delicious. Enjoy. Right to the end.



Yesterday I said I had to learn German. Today it’s probably better that I haven’t.

Read on for clues if you are not familiar with the saga.For the Elaine reference, see here. For anyone new to this who thinks skeptics are mean, click the pic…

Reichstuhrer J.Cook

If you can bear it, see also:

h/t to Not Lewandowsky, and Paul.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (72 votes cast)
Unthreaded Lewandowsky weekend, 8.7 out of 10 based on 72 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/lslb2lq

174 comments to Unthreaded Lewandowsky weekend

  • #

    This is not at all amusing. We all know that wind turbines are causing an alarmingly large toll on bird populations, but now it has emerged that California’s solar thermal plant is burning birds to death.

    102

    • #
      jon

      It’s a solar thermal extra crispy shrine?

      20

    • #
      ianl8888

      Where now for the Precautionary Principle ? :)

      10

    • #
      agwnonsense

      I always thought CFC was a chemical. It appears it is actually eco friendly Fast Food -California Fried Chicken. <:o)

      10

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      At least the birds are safe from solar arrays at night. However the wind industry is no better for bats at night time, as Arnett 2008 showed. If it’s any consolation “the proportion of the night when winds were >6 m/sec was negatively associated with bat fatalities at both facilities”, so times in which winds are strong make it less likely bats will be flying around and getting hit.

      On the other hand… Coal mining, when done unsafely such as in China, kills many dozens of workers every year. Even in the USA about 20 people die in coal mining every year (USA Government stats). To put that in perspective, nearly 5 times as many people died during work that supports coal mining and not during the actual mining of the coal. Rightly or wrongly, at some level we put an economic price on human life and therefore a small number of deaths can be overlooked if they were accidental and occurred during the generation of a vastly larger benefit.

      People do die while repairing wind turbines, it’s true. The renewables seem to kill less people than coal does. Nuclear appears to be the safest of all forms of power generation, even with the occasional major accidents included, though it is odd they didn’t think to include renewables deaths in the picture. Considering how little is generated from renewables it would be easy for a dozen deaths in a year to exceed the death rate from the serious players. Hard to say without adding up the toe tags.

      No matter which way you play it, there is no reward without risk.

      00

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    I have seen zillions of “Downfall” parodies (the first that I recall was a satire about the famously paranoid British politician, Gordon Brown), but this is the funniest yet. By the way [OT], if there’s anyone out there who’s only ever seen the “Downfall” skits and not the actual film, it really is one of the greatest films of recent decades. Admittedly, I say that as one who hasn’t actually seen many of the other films of recent decades, but I’m pretty confident I’m right.

    120

    • #

      I agree with you on the Downfall film. It is very dark, showing Hitler and his staunchest supporters still believing to almost the very end that their leader can save them. It is a very powerful and bleak film, and has surely reminded Germans of the massive difference between those times and now.

      40

  • #
    scaper...

    I see a lot of angst around the blogosphere concerning the Direct Action policy.

    Well, it was part of the coalition policy before the last election.

    Was the policy a strategy to ensure the left could not call the coalition “Deniers” during the election campaign?

    Will DA be legislated? Does certain elements (Enviro-corps) need legislation at all?

    Was DA used as “we are going it alone” to avoid shelling out $3B to the UN?

    Politics is not all black or white.

    70

    • #
      el gordo

      All good points scaper.

      50

    • #
      Keith L

      The advantage of DA is that it wastes less money and can be turned off much easier.
      I am hoping that it get stymied by Palmer and that is the end of it.
      (Obviously after the ‘carbon tax’ has been killed as well)

      220

      • #
        el gordo

        Observation tells us that CO2 does not cause global warming and Abbott, ‘the science is crap’, does this nonsense. If Clive says I’ll help kill the tax on a harmless trace gas and the mining tax, but I won’t be supporting DAP because its nonsense, then Abbott will have to consider his future.

        A double D election, fought over the veracity of AGW, would be our best outcome.

        72

        • #
          Keith L

          Best outcome would be to dump the CT, not implement DA, tell the greens ‘hard luck’ and then get back to rebuilding the country with cheap energy.

          220

          • #
            el gordo

            Of course, if his DA fails to pass muster and he drops it, then that would be the best outcome, but Clive may be offered a sweetener to pass all the bills.

            For me its not just about the economic folly of AGW, but the larger concept of mass delusion through the MSM and education system. Its a disgrace and this side of politics is no different to the other, with only individuals like Dennis Jensen prepared to speak up against groupthink.

            170

            • #
              Joe

              Clive was originally pushing for the carbon tax already collected to be paid back. Abbott’s push to pay 2.5Bn to the ‘polluters’ would probably go some way in achieving that, but us punters would rightfully expect any such windfalls to flow on to us from those companies just as the CT did if wrongs are to be righted (any compo already paid taken into account of course)

              03

            • #
              Steve

              Well said Gordon -I have been telling anyone who will listen you can’t fit a foggy paper between lobs and labor. Same dog, different leg action……

              10

        • #
          Andrew

          That’s rubbish – a DD election on the environment against the green-left that dominates very TV station, newspaper (except the Oz), the blogosphere and on the ground? How well did that go? WA narrowly averted a 2-3 catastrophe by only about 15,000 votes.

          They will also make it a referendum on Medicare, the pension, other cuts to be revealed in May, PPL. Hell, they would even beat Abbott666 over the head with BORDER PROTECTION!!

          Abbott666 would lose.

          31

          • #
            the Griss

            Perhaps Australia NEEDS another term of Labor to really grind in the moronity of the Green/Labor agenda.

            Many still haven’t caught on.

            93

            • #
              Bones

              Griss,are you pissed,there is now way we can afford another term of the green/accomplished liars party.I can’t think of any way your comment could be even mildly amusing.Those that did’nt get the change of govt memo never will,they are too busy spending your money.

              40

              • #
                the Griss

                No, just pissed off.

                And I know there is no way we can afford another term of the green/accomplished liars party, but if Abbott and co don’t get their fingers out of their ears, that is what very well may happen.

                If it does happen, it will be down totally to the namby pamby performance of the Liberals, their refusal to bring the ABC into line with its contract, and refusal to dump all the junk that is unnecessary and wasteful like the DAP, PPL, feed in tariffs, RET etc.

                Maybe Liberal voters will turn to PUP to try and get what they want ?

                Imagine Clive with the balance of power in the HOR as well ! OMG !!!!!

                30

              • #
                Bones

                The Liberals can’t do anything about the bitchy AUNTY abc otherwise we will never here the end of the whining about censorship.The gangreen/liars party will view it the same as discrimination,it only works one way.

                00

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Griss

                I’m p%ssed off.

                Every time I think of something to say and come here.

                I find YOU’VE ALREADY WRITTEN IT!!

                KK :)

                ps

                Maybe I read it and say to myself : I wish I had said that!

                10

        • #
          scaper...

          There is a bit of maneuvering going on behind the scenes with Clive at the moment.

          The reason Clive is being so vocal is because the Minister is considering shutting down Clive’s nickel mine. The tailings dams are full and possibly seeping toxic chemicals.

          If the mine does get shut down Clive will blame Hunt (political payback) for supposedly blocking the DA legislation. Clive is setting up the connection which is “catergorically unconnected”.

          Palmer is using his political clout to support his own financial interest.

          Funny how the MSM has not picked this up.

          30

          • #
            scaper...

            I would also add that the MSM has not picked up on the fact that this government will not be giving the UN the $3B to fight climate change.

            Maybe because no one has told them so?

            50

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      scaper… said “I see a lot of angst around the blogosphere concerning the Direct Action policy.

      Well, it was part of the coalition policy before the last election.”

      ——————————————————
      And rightly so scaper…

      When you have Hunt promising an extra Billion dollars into this coming budget and promising the possibility of even more in years to come it’s about time we started to let him and the Liberals know that they’re wasting our money.

      ‘Mr Hunt said today that the extra billion will be added in the May budget “with further funding to be considered in future budgets”.’

      https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/4/24/carbon-markets/extra-billion-direct-action

      To quote the Fin Review ” the world is fukt” and so are the Liberals if they persist with that nonsense.

      Maybe Clive is right after-all.

      60

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Or was it an Abbott stroke of genius.
      A bargaining chip. OK, we’ll help you scrap the carbon tax, but we aren’t going to let you have your DAP.
      Well folks, we tried, but that nasty senate just won’t allow us to fight climate change on our own terms.
      Too bad, so sad, never mind.

      171

      • #
        Keith L

        That is exactly what I am hoping for.

        50

        • #
          Bones

          You ain’t Robinson Crusoe,Keith.First was flim flam,then the CT,no DAP and then the rest of the climate train out the door.A harder problem is how to get the gangreen/ socialist out of our learning institutions.

          172

          • #
            Keith L

            That is just going to be a slow constant process. Like cleaning ‘putty’ out of a nappy.

            52

            • #
              Bones

              Keith,do you think we got the red digit from the same person?

              31

            • #
              the Griss

              High pressure hose.. then hang out for several days in a hard frost..

              Come’s out white as !!!

              You just have to remember to thaw them before using them. :-)

              40

      • #
        Steve

        Had it ever occurred to people that if as I suspect libs and labor are just two sides of the same helegian dialectic coin, the “struggle” is mostly theatre…..

        I keep thinking back to the Australia card, then the expected outcry, so it was traded back to what was wanted anyway- the infamous tax file number…..

        So much theatre…..

        10

    • #

      I was at a party full of people who thought that it was a travesty that Labor were not still in power. Just remember what sort of people vote.

      30

      • #
        el gordo

        Assuming half the population has been brainwashed into thinking CO2 causes global warming, with Fairfax and aunty pumping out propaganda, a DD election would be quite risky.

        Rod Stuart might be correct, I sincerely hope so.

        20

  • #
    Sonny

    Hi Jo,

    You’ve been sayin we’ve reached the “end game” for quite some time now, and if your last two satirical posts are anything to go by perhaps you believe that the ‘climate debate’ is so close to being won by the skeptics that we can resort to open ridicule of the alarmists.

    I would warn people that a cornered animal can be most dangerous.
    The globalist pro Agenda 21 financiers of the climate change false flag have not had their power diminished at all. If you think this is over, watch out.

    234

    • #
      scaper...

      Methinks someone listens too much to Alex Jones.

      One specimen for Lewandowsky.

      What absolute crap. Proves there are pants wetters at both ends of the spectrum!

      43

      • #

        To some extent Sonny is right. These people are pushing a political agenda. For most of them it has little if anything to do with the environment. You have to remember that many leftists have mental disorders that compel them to hate mainstream society and to do everything they can to vandalise our society. Just look at the anger in the eyes of certain presenters at a certain TV station and their obsessiveness with global warming, the ’97 per cent consensus’, the carbon tax that ‘isn’t a tax but more like a speeding fine’ and so on. At tertiary institutions these people were force-fed an intellectual diet of hatred for our society. They were told we were evil colonialists, racists and environmental vandals. Their hatred has become deeply ingrained and all-consuming. They see every issue through the mist of their hatred. They truly are bigots.

        When they latch onto a public policy issue they do so not to promote the interests of others but to use them in ways that operate against the interests of the mainstream community. Just look at the issue of illegals. They don’t give a damn about refugees. They just want to open our borders because they can see the harm it will do – which, incidentally, shows just how racist the Left are. They are driven by the same psychology that drives a common vandal to destroy things of value to others, and they get the same malicious pleasure from it as the common vandal does.

        Want an example. Take a look at the gaggle of ‘refugee this and that’ individuals and groups that advocate on behalf of illegals. Ask yourself why so many individuals feel so compelled to push this issue. I already gave the answer above. Now ask yourself this: given the relative disadvantage in many Aboriginal communities in this country, how much could be done to improve their circumstances if just a few of the leftist nutters advocating for illegals were to spend even a small proportion of their time and energy on Indigenous issues? And this applies to certain politicians, too – especially one angry, obsessed senator. The simple answer is that they can get more political mileage from pushing their open borders agenda, and cause more harm in doing so. They don’t give a damn about illegals. They just want to use them as a political weapon.

        These people won’t just go away. After they lose the global warming game they won’t just say, ‘Well, that’s it then. Let’s all go get therapy for our mental disorders and live happily ever after.’ No, they simply will find another vehicle through which to satisfy their hate-driven desire to vandalise our society.

        341

        • #
          Bones

          Take a look at the gaggle of ‘refugee this and that’ individuals and groups that advocate on behalf of illegals. Ask yourself why so many individuals feel so compelled to push this issue.
          MONEY,Barry,there’s gold in the thar illegals.These people don’t push the barrow for the indigenous because they have their own gold-diggers.Would’nt want any demarcation or stepping on another groups turf.

          41

        • #
          Geoff Sherrington

          Did you view the rude, argumentive words on ABC Tv the other night when Greg Hunt was interviewed by Tony Jones’ missus, whatever name she uses, about the Direct Action Plan?
          When I ws younger, there used to be a manner of conduct loosely called respect for office, or for achievement, or for seniority. The ABC seem intent on open hostility to just about every plan of the Prime Minister.
          They would not have lasted in employment to sunset in my old organisation.
          Sure, I once played a funny trick on Bob Hawke when he visited one of our mining areas as Prime Minister. He was turkey red with anger on ABC TV when he found out. But I also had a joke with Gough and Margaret wgen they visited, but they lsaughed about it in excellent humour.
          This spectacle of jumped-up reporters showing naked hostility cannot be allowed. Our world has moved on since the days of Hitler-style hate speech.

          91

          • #
            Franny

            I suppose Sir Robin Day, Sir David Frost and Jeremy Paxman all must have once seemed as impudent upstarts.
            Have they set a bad example that every 2-bit journalist now aspires to emulate without the finesse?

            20

      • #
        Sonny

        I suggest you read the UN’s Agenda 21 document and you will see how perfectly the UN IPCC Climate Change hoax supports, enables and furthers the agendas of depopulation, deindustraliazation, ‘sustainability’, and a central fascist global dictatorship ..

        All simply a coincidence scaper?

        120

        • #
          Reinder van Til

          You are absolutely correct. More dangers on the road ahead

          70

        • #

          For those of you who want to read the document and make up your own minds:
          http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

          20

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Sheri,

            I read some of Agenda-21 two years ago. Frankly it turns my stomach. I’ll just stay opposed to it 100%.

            Of course, few of those with enough influence to start implementing it are paying any attention to me and I have seen only one group opposed to it and their fight is within Colorado (another state that might as well be called part of the left coast of the U.S.)

            10

            • #

              Of course. Being opposed to something you only partially understand is a time-honored tradition.

              I would note that anyone who did not understand the purpose of the United Nations was to create a government over the world may have been sleeping in civics class. Agenda 21 seems completely natural to have come from such a body. Still, I do want to know what the document says, personally.

              10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                It’s a very detailed plan for how humans will live under the wise stewardship of the UN so that planet Earth and the power of the UN are both protected. It’s the most audacious power grab in the history of the human race. It gets right down to the tiniest detail level about where humans will live and how they will live, what they may and may not do and so forth. And oh, did I mention that about 85 – 90% of this country will be off limits to humans. And it’ll work about as well as obamacare.

                And like the apple the serpent tempted Eve to eat, it all sounds so good and noble until after you’ve swallowed it. Like any huckster the UN knows exactly how to sell this garbage.

                Frankly I doubt they can pull it off but it’s bound to get started and be a lot of trouble before people wake up and say NO! People may not know where it comes from or what it’s called but we will all feel it if we live long enough.

                ——————

                Yes being opposed to things is certainly time-honored. We humans are really good at that. Our problem comes when we have to decide what to put in place of what we have torn down. At that point we frequently get into trouble don’t we. I would suggest The Constitution but by then I wonder if anyone will know what it is, much less where to find it. I will know, however. I plan to have one of my copies of it in my hand up until the second I die. Beyond that I won’t be able to help.

                I hope everyone who values this country will be fighting the UN all the way and will have The Constitution ready when needed.

                31

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              This line (25) in the table of contents should frighten everyone on Earth if nothing else does.

              25. Children and youth in sustainable development

              Every would-be tyrant goes for the minds of the children. It’s one thing to try to convince adults who at least theoretically have the intellectual capacity and the required knowledge to make an informed decision. It’s quite another to indoctrinate children who do not have the intellectual capacity to evaluate what they’ve been told by authority figures.

              10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Read that section (start at section 25.1) and be very afraid. It involves youth in decision making, decision making that belongs to adults with actual world experience, not children who can be so easily led to give away their very freedom in pursuit of Utopia on Earth.

                10

        • #
          scaper...

          So, tell me what influence these so called globalists have in Australia? I’ll answer it for you…absolutely none!

          Don’t subscribe to wacky conspiracy theories.

          Apparently, according to the left, there is an IPA, ANDEV, Murdoch conspiracy happening with the government. As an active member of the IPA and a foundation member of ANDEV, I laugh at the suggestion!

          Gee, with the globalists and the above vying to enslave the masses it must be crowded behind the scenes.

          13

          • #
            Sonny

            So your logic is, my team is falsely accused of being involved with a conspiracy, therefore my enemy is similarly so falsely accused? In other words one false conspiracy theory negates them all?

            Those who seek to achieve an agenda which is profoundly anti the interests of the majority of the earths population MUST act by deception. They are the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

            50

          • #
            Geoff Sherrington

            Scaper,
            For evidence, trot along to you local Council Environment Officer (there will be one or more) and ask about their spending & activities with ‘Local Governments for Sustainability’, formerly named ICLEI (Google it). My Council in Melbourne, Manningham, circles the wagons and dos not communicate with me because I mentioned an interest in ICLEI. Fishy. What is being hidden?
            ICLEI is a United Nations child in concept, part of Agenda 21, now an NGO in some places. Your Council could well be funnelling heaps of your rates to them. So far as I have discovered, part of this goes to places like local councils in Africa.
            Before you get too cocky about Agenda 21 and its tentacles like ICLEI, do your homework & report back. I’ll bet you a tenner that you will be gobsmacked.
            Why don’t all of us ask our Councils?

            30

        • #
          Manfred

          Unfortunately, most don’t understand the toxicity of UN Agenda 21. Read in context with ‘The Green Agenda in their own words‘ the chills will be cascading up and down the back of all but the insane left.

          Many view the UN as a benignant force in society, if characteristically corrupt and usually impotent (ref. Oil for Food – Iraq, or the conflagration in the Sudan readily spring to mind).

          An apt malapropism, a benighted farce appears a more accurate description in my view, with an overtone of totalitarianism.

          80

    • #
      Joe V.

      Not so much a cornered animal as an opportunist infection. It will quietly move onto the next susceptible opportunity while humanity celebrates surviving its last attempt.

      The nonsenses of A21 are more subtle, pervasive and harder to call out than the (now) obvious nonsense of CAGW.

      Like the recent Heartbleed internet bug scare, it’s not the ones you know about you need to worry about most. Eternal vigilance, as they say.

      70

    • #
      Reinder van Til

      You are absolutely right Sonny. This is not the moment to claim victory at all. The battle is still going. Maurice Strong and de Rothschild (the illuminati) who started the IPCC won’t give in easily. And Agenda 21 is still in process. That ugly marxist evil agenda.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joglX2w_9II

      60

  • #
    el gordo

    I would like to see a discussion on Hunt’s white paper.

    20

    • #
      scaper...

      Maybe it should be read in full first, not the bites the media have focused on.

      White Paper.

      I’ve read to page 57 thus far.

      30

      • #
        handjive

        I hear you, scaper.

        I might read the whole thing, but, I only want to read one statement, and the truth:

        There has been no warming for 17+ years.
        The models are now wrong.
        The UN-IPCC is redundant.
        NO MORE MONEY TO BE WASTED.
        And, accountability.

        When I get bored looking for that, I might spend some time on the the greenLiberal version greatest strategy since
        the Picard Manoeuvre from Star Trek.
        I hope the final move is a doozy, because they have me fooled so far.

        Please accept this with (poor) humour and respect.
        I mean no harm. Just a cynical bastard.

        51

      • #
        the Griss

        A big reduction could be gained by upgrading the current coal fired power stations to modern technology.

        Why one would ever want to reduce emissions of one the major building blocks of all life on Earth, is a totally different question.

        The levels have been so low for so long, and plant life seems to be really enjoying even the small amount that we have managed to release from sequestration in fossil fuel beds.

        92

      • #
        handjive

        scaper.
        I thought I would give it a go.
        Well done for getting to page 57.
        At the end of step 1, page 9, it says:

        ~ “This pre-qualification process will involve due diligence checks to ensure that projects can generate the stated emissions reductions within the timeframes indicated.”

        I would consider due diligence to be done regarding the UN-IPCC/CSIRO science first, before we get to this point.

        ~ end of step 4, page 9:
        “Proponents will receive payment from the Regulator for credits at the contract price.”

        At this point, I would hope for an explanation on how many extreme weather events will be stopped, and when.

        If zero result is the response, I must call fraud.
        it doesn’t matter how much, or, how much less than their political opponents, it is fraud.

        I am getting frustrated and angry.
        And, energy will get cheaper?
        Instantly?
        Tommorrow?

        Apologies.
        I better stop.

        81

        • #
          the Griss

          If there is a double dissolution, look for many Liberal voters to swing to PUP. He’s an idiot, yes, but the Liberals are proving themselves to also be idiots.

          If Greg Hunt is still environment minister, I for one WILL NOT be voting Liberal at any next election.

          I have emailed several Liberal MP’s saying as such.

          51

      • #
        handjive

        For an ‘educated’ review of the white paper,
        Check out @theconversation:

        Direct Action policy still leaves loopholes open for big polluters

        20

      • #
        Timo Soren

        Why not just assume that Australia could somehow use NO coal or natural gas or petrol. Then calculate that you would lower the Earth future temp over the next 100 years, say by .001 degree. Then ask yourself what would you pay for that .001 degrees.

        I would pay nothing for that reduction. So the miracle No coal, No natural gas Not petrol better come at no cost!

        40

      • #
        handjive

        Greetings scaper.
        I been considering what you are saying. Slept on it, even.
        Watching insiders this sunday morning, and the interview with Clive Palmer brings me back.

        If the final gambit of the Abbott govt. in climate wars is to have no policy by having PuP kill both policies in the Senate, is it possible Abbott anticipated that when elected opposition leader?

        It doesn’t kill the spectre of the grim reaper called global warming, as peddled by the UN-IPCC and it’s useful idiot flying monkeys, nor emasculate the global warming tenets of Gaia either.

        And, they will be clamouring & shrieking. Baying for blood.

        It’s not the final move, as far as I can see. Long from it. Blinkered as I might be.

        Only the truth will kill the global warming monster.

        Like Abbott saying; No Warming for 17+ years despite carbon dioxide levels rising (& using the words ‘carbon dioxide’).
        Therefore, we will stop all spending until we can be certain.
        And, as this information (stopped warming) was known, but hidden for years, an investigation into who & why. (it’s a travesty)

        $3billion Direct Action (much, much more if you count state global warming waste spending) that could be spent on … ?

        The waste must stop now.
        Whoever does it will be a hero. A real leader.

        71

        • #
          scaper...

          FINALLY! Someone has touched on what I’ve been hinting here for months.

          10

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘is it possible Abbott anticipated that when elected opposition leader?’

          If so then its tactical genius and I suspect Hunt is unaware that he has been setup for a fall.

          10

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘Whoever does it will be a hero. A real leader.’

          Abbott may not look like a charismatic leader, but I reckon he could be a revolutionary. Exciting times ahead.

          31

  • #
    PeterK

    Article on British Columbia Canada “Hello, My Name Is Coal” stickers campaign.

    http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2014/04/24/my-name-is-coal-stickers-in-vancouver-boast-benefits

    The group’s website and video can be viewed at:

    http://hellomynameiscoal.com/

    20

  • #

    Let me show you what cheap electrical power looks like, and then let me explain why.

    Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors)

    This is the latest electrical power data from the U.S. data that is now released on an 8 week lead time. (and for an example, Australia releases their data on a yearly basis, which is then released by Government in a new report, so that data is basically 15 to 18 Months behind actual)

    Before the explanation, here’s some background which I have mentioned earlier. Coal fired power is closing down in the U.S. but, as I have so often said, it’s old (basically ancient really at 50+ years old) Now, as I have also mentioned, the coal fired power which has closed, has been replaced by Natural Gas Fired power, (NG) not only in its totality, but in fact by more new NG power than the closed coal fired power.

    NG plants have the capability to run up at short notice from stopped to running and supplying, something coal fired power cannot do. Because of that, NG power is used as Peaking Power, in other words, power that is required at specific times, around breakfast as people rise and ready for work, and then again when they arrive home from work and into the evening, typical times of increased consumption.

    So now, the perfect explanation is offered by this data I have linked to. As those NG plants have replaced coal fired power in total, then those closed coal fired plants were used specifically for those peaking power periods, reinforced by the fact that no large scale coal fired plants (mostly 2000MW+, but in the U.S. any plant greater than 750MW Nameplate) still do what they always do, run flat out 24/7/365 supplying what they always have supplied, humungous amounts of electrical power. Now, why coal fired power delivery to grids has fallen is that it has been replaced by NG. All those smaller plants have closed, and up until they closed they were supplying Peaking Power only, when needed. But because they could not ramp up and down at a moment’s notice, they ran all the time, turning and burning, (and emitting CO2) but not delivering power until called upon at Peaking Power times, and this is what is called Rolling Reserve, or Spinning Reserve power. This is a job that now is done by all those new NG plants, which do come on line at a moment’s notice.

    So, you’ll remember the Polar Vortex in January, and also how that extreme cold, (dare I even say the coldest Winter ever) carrying over into February as well, electrical power consumption spiked in the U.S. and spiked considerably higher. So, when electrical power is needed the most, and cheap electrical power at that, where do you think it came from?

    Coal Fired Power.

    The data bears this out, and here’s the explanation.

    Note on the chart at the link the total power generation spike, and for that you’re looking at the right hand column, and scroll down almost to the bottom for January (31 days) and February (28 days) and see how much of a rise comparing with earlier January and February from the earlier two years (above) and the Year To Date totals, below.

    Now, look across to the left hand column, and that is coal fired generation, and again note the spike for these 2 Months, also above and Year To Date below, more power from coal fired generation than for years, and that’s a pretty dramatic increase.

    However, look now at the fourth column, and that is for NG generation, and note how it’s still basically the same, or even a little lower than the 2 earlier years.

    So, while total generation has spiked, as has coal fired power, NG power has been stable or lower.

    Why?

    Because those coal fired plants still used as Running Reserve, the older, smaller plants, were now called upon to just stay in operation, delivering their power all the time, because it was needed ….. all the time, during this extreme cold snap. It’s cheaper power than the newer NG plants, so that is why the NG plants generation has stayed stable or gone down in power generation. The providers have sourced their power from the cheapest sources in operation, those older coal fired plants.

    Isn’t it amazing how much simple, probably meaningless, and even boring statistical data can tell you, if you know what is happening.

    Now another point here is shown at the sixth column, Nuclear Power, far and away the cheapest power in the U.S. (Coal fired power in the U.S. costs around 2.4 to 3 cents per KWH tops to generate, while Nuclear power is around 1 to 1.5 cents per KWH to generate) Note how when called upon, Nuclear power also ramps up to levels greater than for the last 2 years.

    That total generation for Nuclear Power for January equates to a Capacity Factor of 94%, and February 90%, so virtually every unit in the U.S. was supplying power.

    So, when power consumption spikes because of the extreme cold, where does it come from? Where is the most reliable power available from? Where does it all come from, no matter how old the Plant, and some of them are still operational after 80 years of life?

    Coal Fired Power, and Nuclear Power, the two most vilified methods of electrical power generation there is.

    This is something that Wind Power and Solar power will NEVER be able to do, and it’s hard to say the word NEVER just the one time.

    It seems that it’s perfectly acceptable to call for reductions in CO2 emissions, right up until REAL electrical power is needed.

    Tony.

    242

    • #
      Lawrie Ayres

      Thanks Tony. You are a wealth of good information. I think nuclear will get a run one day but the Helen Caldicotts will have to go and the toadies in the press who consider her knowledgeable.

      61

      • #

        So many people have so little understanding about Nuclear power generation.

        I want you to look at the image at this link.

        It shows a man holding one pellet from a nuclear fuel rod assembly in his ….. BARE hand.

        Now, lets use the same incorrect analogy used by renewable power plant proposers where they say that this wind plant will supply all the power needs for X number of homes.

        Now, look at that pellet.

        Using the same argument, FIVE of those pellets will supply all the electrical power needs for one home for a full year.

        The average reactor at a PWR power plant contains almost 18 million of those pellets in 51,000 fuel rods held in 193 fuel rod assemblies and a typical Nuclear power plant has 2 reactors.

        The scare campaign is the ONLY thing they have when arguing against these power plants.

        The image is at the following Post, part 5 of an 11 part series I put together in July of 2009.

        Nuclear Electrical Power Generation – Why The Fuss? (Part 5)

        Tony.

        This image is at the following post

        111

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          It shows a man holding one pellet from a nuclear fuel rod assembly in his ….. BARE hand.

          I think I would not do that — unless it was spent and no longer capable of generating significant heat.

          02

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Again the objectors do not say why they object. Let’s be reasonable. I think I’m right. If you think I’m wrong it’s OK to tell me.

            00

      • #

        After the $$$ are counted how much will insurance costs be for Nuclear?
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iL9qKi2-9Y

        00

        • #
          • #
            Timo Soren

            Hence the reason to switch to Thorium Reactors. The US choose to proceed with our present Nuclear Reactors so that we would have access to bomb making materials. The principal cost of insurance at $375million per reactor is for leakage.
            A good article http://www.thoriumsingapore.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=37
            actually from Kirk Sorensen’s webite:
            http://energyfromthorium.com/thorium/
            but I couldn’t find it there.

            Environmentalists should really jump on this. 1/10 the waste of present nuclear. Almost all possibility of leakage is gone. THe present nuclear waste can slowly be ‘burned’ in the thorium reactors and about 1/10 of that would remain. So not only would we reduce present Nuclear Waste by 90% the remaining waste now has a 1/2 life of much faster time. The DOWNside to this is we don’t get weapons grade material from this reactor. (AHh….. too bad.)

            30

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              (AHh….. too bad.)

              Timo,

              You say that as if you think it a good thing to not have bomb grade material available. I’ll by all means respect your opinion. But In today’s world I will also disagree.

              It’s certainly a good thing that ordinary power generating reactors not be able to produce bomb grade stuff. But I still want my government armed with bombs sufficient to be the same deterrent they have always been from the end of WWII until we foolishly began to disarm while others began to arm themselves with nuclear bombs. Absolutely nothing works better in stopping a would-be aggressor than the certain knowledge that he’ll go up in smoke for his trouble making.

              The strong man on the block is secure. The weak man is not.

              This will be a controversial position as it was the last time I stated it. But no one has ever shown me a good argument for believing that being unarmed in an armed world is a good idea. Pakistan has nukes and the means to deliver them. Iran certainly will have at least one in the near future. Neither nation is the slightest bit stable. Korea has them and the means to deliver them and Korea is ruled by a child in a man’s body. The missiles are rattling all around the world. Be wise, not foolish.

              Nuclear non proliferation is a myth. Mutual disarmament is a myth. Obama’s policies are a joke — no, actually more like treason. I hope we wake up before it’s too late. “Ban the bomb,” is a busted hand for anyone who tries to play it.

              Please note that I have never said I like things this way. But to deny the reality all around me is simply impossible.

              10

          • #

            Thanks Sheri
            So the total insured figure is only 12 Billion and an out of date estimate of the still on going Fukushima cost here is $250 Billion.
            http://newsonjapan.com/html/newsdesk/article/89987.php

            Here ¥20 trillion and the conclusion that nuclear will not be cheap.
            http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/04/16/national/critics-hit-nuke-power-justification/

            00

        • #
          Geoff Sherrington

          Sliggy,
          It comes clearer when you reclassify the economics slot for the insurance. It is not a real concept – only a part is genuine insurance. The rst is a social impost created over the decades by those who oppose nuclear power. There is a raft of similar social imposts, like compulsory payments of billions from plant operators to fund waste disposal research. When Yucca Mt was canned by the Chicken Littles in the US Govt, they did not even offer to refund those billions. It is all on the record.
          Nuclear power, when costed on principles of physics, chemistry, engineering, is about the cheapst of the majors.
          Only when these anti-nuclear social imposts are costed in does it get to the stage of allowing the assertion that wind power is cheaper than nuclear
          Which was always a major aim of the irrational anti nuclear brigade.
          I might know, I’ve been in the brawls since 1970.

          30

          • #

            Geoff the $250 B figure above is not based on fear mongering. The Fukushima disaster is real. It cannot be removed from reality by belief that it cannot happen. It did happen and IS getting worse.

            00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Tony, there may be another reason for the spike in coal use. Besides the very hard winter, there was a Canadian natural gas pipeline shutdown because of an explosion and fire in late January that caused fears of Natural Gas shortages. Several areas went to voluntary reduction in NG usage.

      There is another problem looming that may be connected to the increase in NG consumption for generating electricity:

      http://ir.eia.gov/ngs/ngs.html

      The blue line is stored reserves of NG. So many people heat their homes with NG and will now be competing with electric utilities for the NG. What will that do to prices?

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Tony, on a tangent, and I know you love tangents, there is circulating information contradicting the long-running theme that RET and CT were responsible for the recent doubling of electric power prices. Poles and wires are back.

      This article on Their ABC quotes a 2012 parliamentary inquiry and the AEMC. (They also quote The Australia Institute but I’m trying to ignore anything that damn fool Denniss says, being a former advisor to the Greens.)

      But Mr Abbott’s claim that the renewable energy target is expensive is not supported by the data. The Australian Energy Markets Commission says the renewable energy target adds four per cent to the average electricity bill. For an average household, that’s about a dollar a week.
      … …
      Despite the clear reality of falling demand, the network companies insisted that demand was rising, and they carried on investing billions of dollars into the grid. Every dollar of that investment is now being recovered from consumers, via our power bills. Every dollar, plus ten per cent—a guaranteed return granted to them by the regulator.

      ‘What we found was those network businesses—that earned the most profits were the ones that invested the most,’ he says. ‘So there was a perverse incentive in the system for an overinvestment in the poles and wires, and that led to dramatic profits for those businesses, but of course it was the consumer that paid for that cost of that additional capital.’

      ‘We discovered a network business that had invested $30 million in a substation in Newcastle, and I actually visited the substation. It wasn’t connected to the grid. The reason why it wasn’t connected to the grid; when the decision was made a couple of years ago to invest in this particular piece of infrastructure, it was projected that the demand would be there. But the demand didn’t eventuate.’

      (my emphasis).
      There’s other nonsense such as domestic solar being perfect for powering airconditioners at the hottest time of the day, which is a lie since the maximum panel output will be at maximum solar altitude, which is at midday and not between 3pm and 4:30pm, but then what else do you expect from that useful idiot Denniss.

      Similar murmurs of regulations driving up the price were reported 2 years ago in The Australian:

      In Queensland, a review of the electricity network found that $1.5 billion in savings could be achieved without threatening the network’s reliability. Darryl Somerville who led the review said power prices could ease if companies spent less on capital.

      UTS’s Institute for Sustainable Futures research director Chris Dunstan said savings would flow from regulatory changes. “There needs to be some network infrastructure investment. The problem is we got the balance wrong and we can’t blame networks because they’re just responding to regulations they’re given,” he said.

      So the price rise is mainly not due to the carbon tax but it is due to government intervention in another form.

      The bizarre thing is that the Australian only says the requirement for high reliability is what drives up the cost but they don’t mention the regulation guaranteeing a 10% profit on these infrastructure goldplating efforts.

      Another incompatibility between these stories is the Energy Efficiency Council was talking up demand management (ie remote shutdown of air conditioners) instead of building new generation capacity back in 2012, yet this week we’ve just been told by Industry Minister McFarlane that Australia has more electrical generation capacity than it needs. Right so there’s surplus capacity and yet demand curtailment is still advocated. Now what flavour of energy generation has a large nameplate capacity that doesn’t translate to actual timely supply? Neither article seems willing to point out the obvious answer.

      I guess the next phase of this investigation would have to question… which actual, literal paragraph of the AEM regulations guarantees the operator a profit (of 10% or near enough) and if it exists then which genius introduced it?

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        To misquote someone we probably all know,

        Beware of Greeks bearing only 4% increases.

        They bring on too many 4% increases and soon the camel collapses.

        The words, “It’s only…,” should ring loud alarm bells.

        10

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Hi Andrew
        It looks like Tony hasn’t seen this so can I give it a go?
        I heard part of this programme while driving into town. I must learn not to listen to the ABC while driving. It is a recipe for road rage!
        The entire segment that I heard was a load of old bollocks.
        To set the scene, there are four committed entities involved in providing you with power.
        The retailer is confined to providing the household consumer with energy at a rate that is constant for long periods. At the same time, the wholesale price changes every five minutes, so there are periods during which the retailer has to make up for losses that occur when the wholesale price is high. This has driven many up the creek, in other jurisdictions. The retailer bears the cost of service to each customer, which is divided among wages and salaries for administration and call centres, insurance, facilities, taxes, advertising, etc. And most importantly profit. The retailer takes about 40 cents of your dollar.
        The distribution company is the supplier of the poles, the wires, and the transformers. The distribution company bears large costs of wages and salaries for highly skilled labour, insurance, losses involved in damaged equipment etc., as well as a return on invested capital. Since this business is of necessity a virtual monopoly, its revenue is in the form of a ‘rate base’. This rate base is established by a regulator, who takes all costs into consideration in determining a reasonable return on capital. The distribution company typically ends up with 30 cents of your dollar.
        The high voltage transmission company is in a virtual monopoly position as well, and the regulator establishes the rate at which the generators will pay the HV transmission company. This operator has huge amounts of invested capital, as well as the cost of employing skilled personnel. The HV transmission operator derives revenue from the generators.
        The generator produces electricity from some other form of energy. The generator bears the brunt of the cost of building and maintaining complex plant, insurance, wages and salaries, and the cost of fuel. The generator must also pay the HV transmission tariff, and, in order to stay solvent must do this by bidding into the market at prices which are above his cost of production. In addition, the generator must contend with an army of bureaucrats that are unfamiliar with the industry, or for that matter, managing any business. Then of course, for nearly two years, now, there is the ridiculous tax on air. Then of course the generator must also purchase renewable energy certificates, which the solar panel buffs have ‘sold’ through their panel supplier. The generator needs about 30 cents of the consumer’s dollar to avoid the debtors’ prison.
        The yobbo that Aunty had to interview of course played all the tricks, suggesting for instance that the tax on air had little effect. As someone who has an eye on wholesale prices day in a day out, believe me when I say the average wholesale price virtually double around mid-year of 2012. (I must admit this varies somewhat from one market to the next). The second trick was to suggest that the rate base of ten percent is only a risk rated return on invested capital. Then of course was the story about some sub-station that was built unnecessarily. I would be surprised if that rumour was in fact true. However, it is possible. As with any business the assumptions made when deciding where and when to invest capital are sometimes proved to be incorrect.
        The entire piece was propaganda that would make Joe Stalin proud. It was a sham.
        The ABC is completely out of control. It is worse than Pravda ever was.

        10

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        I forgot to mention of course that Australian consumers enjoy reliability of supply that is second to none.
        This cannot be achieved without continually replacing old plant.
        In this programme the insinuation was that the level of expenditure on ‘poles and wires’ to produce this reliability is unnecessary.
        Aunty should have to operate in an environment in which its supply of electricity is frequently interrupted, or in which the quality is shoddy.
        Aunty would scream and holler then.

        10

  • #
    Yonniestone

    This is ficken funny :)

    Is it too soon to use Recursive Führer?

    90

  • #
    Eddie

    The clip is hilarious.

    Dare I ask, how can an Unthreaded Lewandowski Weekend be ?
    Unthreaded, that is.
    Unhinged perhaps.
    There used to be nice & sometimes mysterious pictures to set off & inspire unfettered weekend thinking.

    Enlightened weekend thinking needs something, well lighter than even the best ever Lew humour though, to set off the strands of productive idle inquiry.

    Or am I just being precious ?

    21

  • #
    sierra117

    Priceless!

    10

  • #
    Lord Jim

    I posted this at WUWP and would be interested to hear other responses (I have been told climate scientists think of everything I could possibly think of, so I presume there is some reasonable response to the charges of circularity and unfalsifiability?).

    “In a classical experiment I presume you could determine a causal relationship between x and y by observing what happens to the dependent variable, x (say temperature) when you make changes to the independent variable, y (say, CO2). You would also need to control other variables, z (z1, z2, …) that could influence the relationship between x and y.

    Now, I assume a climate model does something like the classical experiment I have outlined above, but with assumed parameters (i.e. there is an assumed relationship between x and y etc.).

    Now, where a model fails to match empirical observations and someone says, some variable z (‘aerosols’ or ‘black soot’) is repressing the relationship between x and y (i.e. although there has been an ‘exponential’ increase in co2 it’s not warming because aerosols are causing cooling, etc.), on what basis is an appropriate value for z determined? Is the value given to z basically just a fudge factor to suppress the supposedly known effect of the xy relationship and explain away the failure of the model to match reality?”

    10

    • #

      I’m a coauthor of a paper where we had a very good fit to the data but could measure a variable parameter (z) in another experiment, so we did. It turned out to be 10 times too big so we published the work with the extra experiment to show that we were wrong.

      A bit of a novelty, unfortunately.

      20

      • #
        Lord Jim

        Thanks for the response Vic G Gallus.

        I noticed M.Mann in an Op-Ed (‘Climate-Change Deniers Must Stop Distorting the Evidence’; http://www.livescience.com/39957-climate-change-deniers-must-stop-distorting-the-evidence.html) has said:

        “Yet there are numerous explanations of the slowing of warming (unaccounted for effects of volcanic eruptions and natural variability in the amount of heat buried in the ocean) that do not imply a lower sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gases.”

        The implication of that statement is that if one did not invoke one of the ‘numerous explanations’ (which are supplementary hypotheses, not evidence) then the failure to warm would suggest a lower sensitivity.

        But if one can simply invoke a supplementary hypothesis to save the CAGW hypothesis (high sensitivity) how can high sensitivity ever be falsified?

        Mann does suggest an independent reason for believing that one or more of the supplementary hypothesis might be true, however:

        “Moreover, other lines of evidence contradict an equilibrium climate sensitivity lower than 2 degrees C. It is incompatible, for example, with paleoclimate evidence from the past ice age, or the conditions that prevailed during the time of the dinosaurs.”

        From this it would appear that the belief in a high sensitivity (and thus the various ‘supplementary hypotheses’) is justified by climate reconstructions.

        Which is to say, it appears that the rejection of the modern empirical temperature record and the existence of CAGW (high sensitivity) depends substantially on the robustness of paleoclimate reconstructions.

        10

        • #

          Hasn’t it been shown beyond doubt that CO2 increase followed temperature increase during the last ice age?

          I’m pretty sure that the data suggest that temperature plummeted quite a few degrees after the CO2 level went up 1000ppm when the dinosaurs were around. There is then a more recent period where the CO2 level drops 2000ppm while the temperature remains constant.

          Still, “Moreover, other lines of evidence contradict an equilibrium climate sensitivity lower than 2 degrees C. It is incompatible, for example, with paleoclimate evidence from the past ice age, or the conditions that prevailed during the time of the dinosaurs.” sounds good.

          10

          • #
            Lord Jim

            Well, yes, but as you would be aware there are all sorts of problems with the paleoclimate reconstructions (e.g. http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/hockey-stick-explanation/). At the end of the day they are just another conjecture.

            I suppose the ‘other line of evidence’ CAGWers might like to try is the empirical evidence of disaster (hurricane, flood, famine, fire etc.), but there doesn’t seem to be much empirical support for that either – although, again, there is a lot of conjecture.

            In terms of the logic of it, I don’t think the grounds for inferring the existence of high climate sensitivity are strong.

            As i see it, the modern temperature observations – as problematic as they are are – are more reliable than paleoclimate reconstructions or models with assumed parameters (that can only be ‘saved’ by being made basically unfalsifiable).

            20

            • #

              From your link

              Nobody even knows if there is a temperature signal in trees.

              In the Hide the Decline episode, the tree data that showed declining temperatures post 1960 were omitted. Is there a post showing how bad other correlations of actual poxy measurements with actual temperature measurements are so everyone knows how long a bow is being draw?

              Since the Yamal trees are in a wet area with fertile soil and temperatures that rarely go above 30°C you would think that they would be a good proxy. Still Briffa used less than 10% of the data available (12 data sets) so it can’t be assumed to be a good proxy. (and don’t get me started on the bristlecone pines)

              10

          • #
            Lord Jim

            Hasn’t it been shown beyond doubt that CO2 increase followed temperature increase during the last ice age?

            I think there was a paper that allegedly showed co2 followed temperature and then Shakun et al allegedly showed that rising co2 caused much of the warming.

            00

            • #

              I refuse to pay to read the whole paper but in the abstract they write

              in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature.Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation.

              It appears that they re-wrote the temperatures using other proxies other than the local temperatures. WUWT has an article on it. I haven’t read it in full but there is a large variation in timing of the warming from each of the 80 proxies, that the author ignored. This allows the final result to vary depending on the cherry picking of proxies to use.

              Considering the other dross published by Nature, I would take this paper with a pinch of salt.

              10

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              I think there was a paper that allegedly showed co2 followed temperature and then Shakun et al allegedly showed that rising co2 caused much of the warming.

              The paper was junk.

              By the way, use of proxies as a stand-in for real data bothers me a lot. It’s too easy to claim they correctly represent the truth and too hard to prove it.

              20

  • #

    I have been looking at the follow-up to the “hoax” paper. The survey was of the US population, as opposed to people visiting alarmist blogs. There are two major findings.

    1. Lew’s “Conspiracist ideation” hypothesis is falsified by the US Survey. Rather than people with belief in conspiracy theories tending to reject science I find

    Strong opinions with regard to conspiracy theories, whether for or against, suggest strong support for strongly-supported scientific hypotheses, and strong, but divided, opinions on climate science.

    The American’s love their conspiracy theories, so my result is robust.

    2. Belief in “climate science” emanates from extreme socialist-environmentalist views.
    Compared to the US population, frequenters of alarmist blogs are dominated by (not surprisingly)strong believers in “climate science”. But there also hold very extreme anti-”free market” views – Even when compared with the tiny minority of the US population who share their strong beliefs in “climate science”. I find

    There is no evidence from the papers that enlightened expert scientists and their supporters are trying to save the world from an avoidable catastrophe, but plenty of evidence that people with strong and dogmatic political beliefs are using “climate science” as a vehicle to foist those beliefs on everybody else.

    The follow-up paper is available here.

    30

    • #

      First line from the Lewandsky abstract

      Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970′s

      Yes, Conservatives just love the healing power of crystals.

      21

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Magic wands are even better.

        On the other hand, hydrotherapy is big among the liberal set. So where is Lew’s case?

        If you don’t know what hydrotherapy is I’ll leave you to look it up. That way Jo won’t complain.

        00

      • #

        Taking Lew’s comments at face value academically is a few grades below relying solely on Wikipedia. He makes some real howlers, due to not critically evaluating his data.
        For example

        1. Last year Lew made the following statement

        While consistency is a hallmark of science, conspiracy theorists often subscribe to contradictory beliefs at the same time – for example, that MI6 killed Princess Diana, and that she also faked her own death.

        Steve McIntyre checked the underlying paper. No respondent to the underlying survey made the claim, but there was a correlation.
        2. Title to Lew’s 2012 paper begun.
        NASA faked the Moon Landing, therefore (climate) science is a hoax…
        It is very unlikely that either of the 2 scam responses (out of 1145) had that reasoning. For a scientist to claim a result that was not tested for is appalling.
        3. The US study falsifies Lew’s conspiracist ideation hypothesis.

        20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Conspiracy theories are even part of Lew’s supposed science where the pushers gather to think up new ways to bamboozle a gullible public with their own conspiracy theory that certain ideas make one likely to be a denier of their worthless faith.

      I only know this one thing. I was a lot more gullible when I was young. But as I went through life I learned from experience, not only mine but that of others and now I’m not so gullible anymore. Some of us get wiser as we age but unfortunately others do not.

      Just read at face value without looking any deeper, Lewandowskies work has the appearance of junk science. In the end he’s undone in my mind by his own exuberance in trying to prove skeptics are anti science. He’s working too hard to prove a point than I know is usual for anyone doing sound research. How much more do I need?

      30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Should have said, he’s working harder to prove his point than I know is usual for someone doing sound research. How much more do I need.

        Sometimes it doesn’t come out right. :-(

        10

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    Unthreaded? Unhinged more likely…….:o)

    03

  • #

    A reconstruction by Steve McIntyre worth reading.

    Read the postscript for the tie-in with Lewandowsky.

    10

    • #

      In the postscript Steve McIntyre also says:-

      One of Turney’s first endeavours was as joint leader with Joelle Gergis of the Australian contribution to PAGES2K.

      The link is to a short article. A graph shows the relationship between Western Australian rainfall and Law Dome snowfall in the last 100 years. Climate Audit, as part of the criticism of the Gergis/Karoly temperature reconstruction looked at the unpublished Law Dome ice core data, observing it was nearly 10 times the thickness of the canonical Vostok data for the last 2000 years. So I detect slight inconsistency here?

      00

    • #

      The link with Lewandowsky is of itself interesting. He authored a manifesto (posted at “The Conversation“) that was signed by a number of Australian academics, including Chris Turney, David Karoly and Matthew England. According to Lew

      We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.

      Steve McIntyre also notes that this manifesto was modeled on Peter Gleick’s similar U.S. manifesto the previous year. This stated

      Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.

      A quote from 2000 years ago fully answers these “scientists”. Matthew 7:3 states:-

      Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

      40

  • #
    warcroft

    dear Jo and Co. . .

    I point you all to this info graphic:
    A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science

    http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/t_original/ck4wisusvgsuwz4u8byd.png

    Every point is a reflection on the ‘settled science of climate change’.

    Whats funny is its been posted on a 100% pro climate change a site, lifehacker.com

    http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2014/04/this-graphic-is-a-rough-guide-to-bad-or-badly-reported-science/#comment-1518263

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Our esteemed scientists wouldn’t do that, would they? Would they?

      Oh nuts, they would, wouldn’t they? :-(

      10

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    I take my hat off to whomever scripted this particular parody.

    Well done.

    Now for one with the mann!

    10

  • #
    Mark D.

    I would like bilb to post (it is an open thread) information on available best-of-breed solar products. I’m looking into a solar solution to power a non-grid connected home. The products would need to be delivered in the USA.

    Are you here reading bilb?

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Are you serious Mark?

      I doubt that you can get satisfactory electrical service for any home only by solar means. There are a lot of installers out there. But they remind me of the organizations that jumped into the solar water heating game with poorly designed and installed systems and disappeared again as soon as the tax breaks expired. The ones I’ve seen are operating out of suite so-and-so in some commercial complex, buying panels from someone else and able to disappear easily the minute things start to go south for them. I get email and mail solicitations multiple times a week.

      10

      • #
        Mark D.

        Roy, yes I am serious. We have property that we’re considering building on. One problem is that the most beautiful spot to build is over 1/8th mile from the road and utilities. Running buried electric that far is expensive. Even though I’m not a fan of solar to replace grid power where the grid is already built, I can see a potential economy for a remote house especially if the tax credits and rebates are still given.

        I know that the market is full of inferior panels but the name brands might be more expensive than necessary. If we go through with the idea, I’d probably include massive wet lead acid batteries in a separate fireproof building. I’m not afraid of batteries and have the expertise to maintain them. Additionally, we’d have a generator and appropriate low usage appliances. Several engineering challenges will need to be overcome: septic system will be better as an all gravity flow (difficult to get a permit these days because of regulations requiring mound systems). Water supply will require pumping from a deep well and I’m considering the viability of a domestic storage tank to be pumped full with the generator only a few times a week. I have high-pressure natural gas available and the plastic piping is relatively cheap to go that 1/8 mile (much cheaper than electric cable). The generator and hot water, laundry etc. would use natural gas. I’ve seen some information on domestic fuel-cells for generating power and I still need to research that more.

        The site is on top of a substantial hill so well suited for wind generation too but I’m not sure I’d like the noise and I don’t like the idea of climbing 60 feet up for the required maintenance.

        32

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Mark,

          I’ve looked into solar a little. So since you’re serious, see who is installing systems on local county or city buildings, maybe also the park districts, etc. Those are the people going strongly for solar to be politically correct and to lower their electricity cost (I’m dubious about long term cost saving) and they’re likely to have done the research you need. And I found out just by asking that if you show an actual interest in their projects there’s going to be someone who’ll be happy to talk to you. How much useful information you can get that way I don’t know but it’s where I would start. On the other hand, someone doing large systems might not want to take on a project the size of your house.

          You should also talk to any homeowners you can find who have solar installations. I found out they’re also willing to talk about their experience if you show a real interest in what they think of their systems.

          Wind power is something I can’t tell you anything about — except that I don’t like the idea. Fuel cells might be something useful. But I’ve never looked into them.

          I know you know that batteries will be both expensive and messy to deal with. Lead-acid type will be the only good choice unless you know something I don’t. And they’re bad enough in my car with constant corrosion of terminals and cables no matter what I’ve done to prevent it.

          One thing to look at is companies that will install and maintain the system and keep ownership of it. I heard of this from both the guy near me who has solar panels and the guy at the rec and park district. They just sell you the power. I have no details on how this works but it might save you a lot of trouble and expense if you can find one that can deliver the power you need.

          Which leads to the question, how big a demand do you think you’ll need to support at one time? I suspect you’ve already looked at that. But I was really surprised when I got a smart meter put in and could read out the constant minimum load I have running all the time, half a kW, bare minimum. Then there’s the A/C running at 5+ kW including anything else going… …big load, that.

          Good luck with the project. I’m going to envy your ability to get away from city life.

          10

          • #
            Mark D.

            Thanks for the ideas Roy,

            Wet lead acid batteries of the size I’d consider, are what telephone companies have used for years. They are big and heavy but they last quite a while (20 year design life) if treated well both in charging and discharging.

            http://www.exide.com/fr/en/product-solutions/network-power/product/classic-ogi.aspx

            In a properly designed battery room they don’t require that much maintenance.

            Where we live air conditioning is seldom needed so that won’t even be part of the design. The largest energy consumption; inside space heat, hot water heat and laundry drying will be Natural gas with wood burning as a backup. Electric loads will be for lighting (LED), refrigeration, water pumping and the other sundry intermittent loads. In our present house with standard lighting and not much concern for economizing, we use about 1000kWh per month or 30kwh per day. That, I think, makes a 5kW solar system way too small (5kW x 4.6 average sun hours per day = 23kWh) however we don’t even try to conserve here. For example, we presently have two refrigerators and one large deep freezer. Also, we still have children at home which raises our electric usage noticeably. This new home will be designed with retirement in mind so much less laundry and much less TV and computer usage.

            I think a 5kW solar system with generator back-up would be fine with three or more days of battery storage. I’d be installing the system myself and I have space for a ground level installation making both the installation and maintenance of the panels very simple.

            I found this site for pricing examples: http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/systems-folder/OffGridPackages.html It looks like $20k would be the range of pricing for system and their batteries. I know the batteries I want would cost more. The cost of extending grid power to the building site would probably be $10k (not researched yet) and the solar system keeps saving maybe $1000 per year in electric bills. Roughly, this means a cost break-even at 10 years with another 10 years life of the system not counting tax credits, rebates and probable inflated electric costs. By then (20 years) I’ll be old enough to be living farther south :(

            Incidentally, the property already has a house and garage near the roadway. I’d be able to keep grid power there for any heavy power consumption like welding and shop tools. I’ve even thought about a couple of mobile battery banks on trailers in rotation from the grid connection to the future house. (creative right?)

            PS Don’t be too hard on my calculations I’ve only begun to put this to paper and there will be much more deliberation before anything is decided.

            I’m going to look seriously at fuel cell technology as Rod Stewart mentioned below too.

            00

            • #
              Sweet Old Bob

              Refrigerator can be gas. Also, 20 K won’t put in utilities ? Water meter cost is really high?
              Best wishes. Keep thinking outside the box!

              00

            • #

              Mark,

              I want to treat this seriously, because this is an obviously serious inquiry.

              The system itself has a best case life span of 25 years, and even if you are treating this as a case of ….. this will see me out, I would still caution that even so, thought must be given to what happens later, when you move on and the property enters the market. The fact that it would then require either a new system, or grid connection would then probably be a negative selling point.

              Having said that, an off grid solar package of your proposed size is not going to come cheap.

              The battery bank here is the point of most cost, and even though some companies would claim a 20 year life span, I would still caution that you should perhaps go with the 7 year life span, hence the original battery setup, and then three replacement sets for the proposed life span of the panels themselves. Then, I would also suggest there is the cost of replacement Inverters, keeping in mind that in an off grid situation, they are running 24/7/365.

              So, adding all that up, and keeping in mind what happens after you move on, or the place comes up for sale, an up front grid connection may result in a cheaper cost, keeping in mind that the solar system saves you 25 years of grid cost power as well, so that would also need to enter the equation as well.

              Your high power consumption, and you mentioned 30KWH per day again further increases the cost, here especially that battery bank.

              3 days of autonomy would be a recommended minimum, here and probable a day more would be better, but three days is sufficient.

              So, original full setup cost might run at about what is shown at this link. (pdf document 3 pages, Australian prices, good information here too)

              Now, battery bank costs as shown at this link. (This is for 96KWH, 3 days autonomy, and again, Australian prices.)

              New Inverters as well add to the cost.

              So now, you’re looking at perhaps $150K+

              Look for panel degradation of between 2 and 5% per year after 7 to 10 years as well.

              Your saving is the original connection and 25 years of grid power at (Australian price and your 30KWH per day consumption) around $70,000.

              So, that original grid connection, while seemingly large would be cheaper in the long run, and the big consideration here is for the future when you move on and the home enters the market, and grid connection then will not be what it is now.

              I might suggest here that these Australian costs would be similar to what they would be in the U.S. even considering that grid power costs are half what they are here in Oz.

              I hope this is of some help.

              Tony.

              21

              • #
                Mark D.

                Tony, I typed several paragraphs in reply to you about 24 hours ago. I hit the “post comment” button and then went on to help wifey with dinner. Somehow it never posted.

                Thanks for your thoughts and the links, I appreciate it. In a nut shell, I’ll have to reduce the electric consumption to about half or less say 10 to 20 kWh per day before the solar plan would work. The batteries I’d be planning to use really do have an design and expected life of 20 years. Telephone and railroads use them all the time and with good care they will last that long and longer. They aren’t the type you see sold by solar outfits. Those batteries are less expensive but you are right 5 to 7 years life if kept cool for their entire life and carefully charged and discharged. Highest quality charge controllers are key to battery life as well as temperature. One advantage of my location is that keeping them cool is effortless 9 months out of 12.

                Inverters are being improved upon continuously but I would plan to use as many DC powered devices as possible, thereby reducing the size and cost of the inverter(s). DC powered pumps and refrigeration compressors are readily available in the marine catalogs so the inverter may only have to supply technology loads. Further, high quality natural gas powered standby generators are not too expensive so I might reduce the battery capacity to a point where generator start-stop cycles and wear and tear were acceptable. If fuel cell technology looks economical then that too could be in the mix.

                I anticipate that grid power will increase by a substantial amount looking forward 20 years, simply because governments will want more fees and taxes to take care of “Services”. True too, natural gas will likely go up in cost so I’ll need contingencies but overall I think the self sustaining solar will increase in cost effectiveness even with panel deterioration. In any case, I’ll not do anything that prevents a grid tie hookup in the future.

                There are other reasons to be untied from the grid and also in a somewhat remote defensible position. The house will be built with insulated re-enforced concrete exterior walls and I’m looking at pre-stressed concrete panels for the roof (with 1 meter of earth and sod on top. It will be fire proof and if bad things happen with civilization we will have some security advantages. Besides that, we contemplate leaving for several months of the nasty winters we have here. This meaning that the solar system would be idled during those darker November to March months.

                I have mechanical abilities to save construction costs so all the labor for concrete formwork, electrical, plumbing and heating would be saved.

                Tony, again thank you for your input. I’ll add more information in the next months as I put more of this together. It isn’t going to happen immediately, it is more of a 12-24 month plan. We have to kick out some children and downsize first. The planned house will be rather small in comparison something around 1200 square feet (111 sq/m). It could be even smaller because we are used to small living quarters on board sailing craft.

                00

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Mark D:

              What is your ratio of electricity to heat?

              There is a (possibly are several) ceramic CHP fuel cells which provides electricity and heat using natural gas. The heat would do for space heating/clothes drying and water heating. They usually run about 20% efficient for electricity and 40-60% for heat. Obviously they require piped natural gas.

              Try Ceramic Fuel Cells – they were in Melbourne but since late 2012 in Germany. They claim their cell can produce 13,000 kWh per annum and 200L of hot water per day. Cost was quoted a few years ago as $30,000. They claim much higher efficiency for electricity production, hence less heat. I haven’t a link but remember that something similar (with first figures above ) was going into Danish homes. The annual temperature there is around 8℃, so a balance towards more heat was no drawback there.

              00

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Excellent, Graeme. I had forgotten about CFCL. I had some of their stock for a while.
                Here is an Oz forum that discusses the subject.

                00

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Found a little Bluegen video for you.

                00

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                I actually made a quid on the trade at the time. Haven’t looked back since. This does not look at all promising.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Graeme, thanks for the link. I looked up CFC and they appear to be on the edge of success or bankruptcy. Many of the bits of information on the web are three years old so they have been spending a lot on R&D without really having anything on the market.

                The ratio of electric to heat is towards heat most of the time in my climate. That said, the house will be “super” insulated so it may not be for the planned structure.

                I’ll keep following CFC and also the few other NG fuel cells that are apparently on the market.

                00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Mark,

              You seem to have things well ins hand. So don’t worry, no second guessing from me.

              And again, good luck with the project.

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Rod,

                The Bluegen video isn’t responding. I get the screen all set up for it after a long wait and then nothing. Are you surre the video is still there and available?

                Help! I’d really like to watch it.

                00

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Mark
          If you intend to have natural gas at your retreat, I think a fuel cell could be a better answer.
          Having said that, I did a lot of research into the technology fifteen years ago for my MBA, and I haven’t paid much attention since. Back then General Electric had a PEM fuel cell developed for commercial use called the Homegen 7000 and marketed by a company called Plug Power in the USA and Kubota in Japan. They were supposed to be capable of up to 7 kw. By doing some load balancing a fuel cell should be able to give you space heat (or cooling via an adsorption chiller) as well as electricity. I don[‘t know what has transpired in the last fifteen years however.

          00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Thanks Rod, that is encouraging. I spent some time on the internet a year or two ago looking for fuel cell manufacturers. It appeared then that it was just beginning to be available for residential settings. I’ll search those names you’ve provided.

            Makes me wonder why we hear about natural gas waste (flaring) at well sites? Why wouldn’t they set up a fuel cell and turn it into marketable electricity?

            10

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Mark,

              See my comment below.

              00

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Roy Hogue:
                video came up for me without problem. Have you up-dated Adobe Flash Player recently?

                Video is the ABC in full golly gosh! the wonders of science! mode from This Day Tonight. Historical value only I would think

                00

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Mark D: Try

              Simons Energy
              CONTACT US
              SYDNEY
              1/33 Maddox St, Alexandria NSW 2015, Australia
              Phone: 61 2 8338 8660 | Email: info@simonsgreenenergy.com.au

              MELBOURNE
              34 Strong Avenue Thomastown VIC 3074, Australia
              Phone: 61 3 9462 6700 | Email: info@simonsgreenenergy.com.au

              They sell 2 ranges of CHP units.

              Honda also sell a (gas) engine+heat unit which they claim has gone into 120,000 homes. Reading between the lines, this seems to have been in Japan, so the unit may not be able to supply all the electricity you want.

              May be others CHP, Combined Heat & Power, Co-generation etc.

              Good luck!

              00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Rod,

            Now you’ve got me curious. But all the Google hits on Homegen 7000 seem to be speaking about it in the future tense. But I found this, Ge MicroGen.

            So Mark, there’s a place to start.

            There are a lot of other hits, too many to search through. But this gives some specs, including 7 kW continuous output, fuel efficiency (I would rather see fuel consumption at specific loads), size, output voltage 120/240, design lifetime 15 years, routine maintenance interval 8,000 hours, major maintenance interval 40,000 hours, suitable for outdoor installation, conforms to IEEE 519 but I couldn’t get a download of the spec quickly and can’t spend too much more time (apparently deals with harmonic content of the AC output).

            No price info but I’d bet it’s substantial.

            It sounds almost too good to be true.

            00

  • #
    Timo Soren

    Personally I think the wind turbines will activate some latent chromosomes in those birds and they will start retro-evolving to mini-velociraptors on the ground. Flocks of voracious ground running blackbirds with large talons and hooked beaks. Large swaths of the west will inundated before we realize. Alfred Hitchcock almost got it right! :)

    31

  • #
    Timo Soren

    Does anyone have an update on the Australian effort to recover the costs of saving the ship of fools? Is UWA just going to write a check quietly to repay the rescue effort? Would love to read about that!

    71

    • #
      scaper...

      No, haven’t heard a thing. I guess the wheels are moving slowly in respect to compensation.

      I do know that the government are not impressed with the fools and won’t bail them out.

      40

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      UNSW not UWA, Timo.

      However, UWA will have its wallet out meeting the costs associated with fixing its Lew paper fiasco.

      10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Royal Society calls Lewandowsky “outstanding”…

    Which prompts me to ask where; out standing in the rain; out standing in the mud; out standing in the middle of left field; out standing in the middle of traffic? Exactly where is he standing?

    I can think of a few other possibilities but Jo might object. ;-)

    61

    • #
      Timo Soren

      I think you got the punctuation wrong:

      “Royal Society calls Lewandowsky out. Standing…”

      Seems a more realistic beginning of a paragraph.

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I just quoted from what Jo posted. But you raise an interesting point. Out of the climate change business would be nice, very nice.

        Or maybe you mean they called him out as in singling him out for complaint or discipline. That would also be very nice to see.

        00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I’ve seen this one before but it was well worth the repeat viewing — several times. It’s inspired comedy at it’s best.

    10

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    It is nearly 4 am in eastern Australia and I just woke up from a bad dream in which I had just woken up from a coma after 10 years. Found it hard to roll over and go back to sleep so I have made myself a hot chocolate cos its cold tonight and now I am a bit more settled I got to wondering….

    If Stephan Lewandowsky did not exist would we skeptics be crazy enough to invent him?

    …and I can’t wait for the movie to come out. It is sure to feature SL and Chris Turney with a bit part for David Karoly. The pivotal scenes at the AGU conference where the entire Team gets together to plot their course to fame and world domination will be beyond belief!

    Now I can go back to bed.

    31

  • #
    Carbon500

    Spoof film clips don’t really help matters. This one could for example in my view easily backfire – “is this the best that the deniers can come up with?” for example.
    The sceptics (for want of a better description) have got plenty of good factual ammunition without resorting to gimmicks. I’ve written a few letters to newspapers prompted by the threat of wind farm development here in the UK, and when it comes to real world temperature data vs. the near 26% CO2 increase since 1959 the warmists haven’t (of course) been able to come up with any answers to my points. Not one has come up with any figures to support the idea of man-made catastrophic global warming – all they come up with is ‘trust the science, 97%,’ and all the usual media generated rubbish.
    If anything, persistence with facts is what’s needed and will be effective in the long run, not schoolboy humour.

    12

    • #
      helen brady

      I hope you keep up that approach. Also I wish to comment on varioud direct action plans, since they concentrate on spending money within Australia and on many initiatives having direct benefits, for example more timber plantations, more humus in soil, better flood mitigation etc it is giving some action to those voters who would otherwise vote Green or Labor. Better by far than the carbon tax which needs to go as soon as possible.

      40

  • #
    handjive

    Loony Lew News!

    Paul Homewood has a good post:

    How To Counter The “97% Of Scientists Say” Argument

    But, in the comments:

    Robin Guenier, April 26, 2014 2:54 pm

    Thanks for reminding us of this excellent analysis Paul.
    My submission to the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee AR5 inquiry may also be of interest: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4191
    I review the Cook paper at 3.2 (iii).

    Nice review!

    What’s Up With That also has a post if you haven’t had enough:

    Full Moon on Lewandowsky

    00

  • #
    Peter C

    Pressing on the John Cook photo takes you back to an earlier post from 8 Aug 2013, titled ” Skeptical Science goes Godwin Nazi – or something.

    Unfortunately the photo links from that post no longer work.

    00

  • #
    Peter Crawford

    The scene in the film is very close to historical fact. Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch so let me explain: Lewandowsky is upset that the 9th panzer division is down to four tanks(panzer means armour in German). He calls on Goebbels, Krebs, Jodl, and Steiner to resolve the situation. They are found wanting. The fact that a panzer division at full strength is 200 tanks plus a failed Australian cartoonist dawns on him.

    Lewandowsky then despairs and rants at his underlings. The mysterious figure referred to as “Stalin” is thought to be David Evans.

    Hope this clears things up for all of you who are lucky enough to speak no German.

    40

  • #
    Neville

    A good article quoting ex NASA scientist Prof Les Woodcock. He says that AGW is nonsense and doesn’t think there is anything unusual at all with the climate over the last 100 years. And he certainly seems to have the expertise to back up his claims.
    Of course James Lovelock now agrees with him.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/26/Former-NASA-Scientist-Global-Warming-is-Nonsense#comment-1356635701

    But we know that many recent studies show a deceleration in SLR and a recent study of glaciers also show a deceleration in retreat since 1950.

    31

  • #
    pat

    VIDEO: 26 April: France24: World’s first electric plane takes off in France
    Making barely more noise than a domestic hairdryer, the world’s first ever airplane completely powered by electricity took to the skies for its maiden flight at an airport near Bordeaux in southwestern France Friday.
    Called the E-Fan, the small experimental aircraft designed by Toulouse-based Airbus measures little more than 6 metres from nose to tail, but could prove to be a key step towards greener, quieter and cheaper air travel…
    With a top speed of only 220kmh and space for just a pilot and one passenger, the E-Fan is unlikely to be replacing traditional commercial aircraft just yet, however…
    The E-Fan is “the first step” in the production of “successive generations of electric planes of increasing sizes, with the goal of building electric-powered jumbo jets within the next 20 years,” said Montebourg…
    http://www.france24.com/en/20140426-video-world-first-electric-plane-takes-off-france/#./?&_suid=139856495104209625824668038161

    00

  • #
    pat

    26 April: Japan Times: Stephen Hesse: A journalist who gets climate change right
    (Stephen Hesse is a professor in the Law Faculty of Chuo University and associate director of Chuo International Center.)
    (Dr. Heather) Goldstone is science editor at WGBH/WCAI, a public radio station in Boston. She also holds a Ph.D. in ocean science from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution…
    HESSE: Do you have any lingering doubts that human activity is the primary cause of climate change?
    GOLDSTONE: No. The United Nations’ most recent review of climate science concludes that there is unequivocal evidence that climate change is happening and that, based on all available science, it is extremely likely that human activities are the dominant cause. There is overwhelming consensus on these points. That said, our scientific understanding of the world is constantly evolving. It’s possible — although extremely unlikely — that we could be wrong about this, and I remain open to considering all evidence. That’s part of a scientific worldview…
    HESSE: At the WGBH climate talk you mentioned that 89 percent of scientists as a whole and 99 percent of climatologists accept that human-driven climate change is occurring; what are the main points still in contention?
    GOLDSTONE: Those statistics refer to the strong consensus about the fundamental points that climate change is happening, is largely caused by humans, and poses a real and present danger. Even among the 99 percent of climatologists who agree with that consensus, there is uncertainty and debate about specifics of how rapid and severe the impacts of climate change will be, and how they will play out in different locations. Two areas of active debate are the nature of future winter weather in North America and Europe, and the interaction between clouds and climate change…
    HESSE: What are your primary concerns regarding the public debate over climate change?
    GOLDSTONE: I find the widespread rejection of scientific knowledge disturbing. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions about whether and how we should respond to climate change, but we should be able to agree on a factual basis for that conversation. Scientific consensus doesn’t guarantee the right answer, but it is the best we have to go on…
    There have been a number of explanations for public misperceptions about climate science. Journalists have blamed scientists for being inaccessible or incomprehensible, ***while scientists have accused journalists of perpetuating the perception of debate. There have also been — and continue to be — deliberate attempts to mislead people about climate change. But research increasingly indicates that there may be fundamental aspects of human psychology that make it difficult for many people to comprehend and accept the reality of climate change…
    HESSE: In Boston you mentioned two of these aspects, the concepts of motivated reasoning and cultural cognition. What role you think they play?
    GOLDSTONE: Cultural cognition is essentially the idea that we subconsciously filter factual information through our deeply held beliefs, rejecting those items that conflict with or threaten our worldview. Motivated reasoning is a related phenomenon in which we actively — but, again, subconsciously — seek out information that substantiates or conforms to our worldview. We also tend to dismiss dire information if it is not presented with some message of hope or action. Climate change is an overwhelming challenge that could threaten beliefs in equality, justice, independence or fundamental human goodness, to name a few. The end result is it can be very hard for some people to accept.
    HESSE: You mentioned that some scientists accuse journalists of perpetuating the climate debate. Do you think media insistence on “balanced” reporting is responsible for some of the climate change skepticism?
    GOLDSTONE: I’m not aware of research that quantifies the impact, but I’m sure media coverage has affected the public perception of climate science. For a number of years, even well after there was a strong scientific consensus about human-caused climate change, much of the media continued to give equal weight to dissenters in an effort to provide a balanced account of a controversial subject. However, the end result was a distorted depiction of the state of the science.
    ***That has changed a lot in the past decade. One study found that by 2006, 97 percent of articles in four leading newspapers portrayed climate change as largely caused by humans, while only 3 percent covered it as a debate. The question is how long the hangover from earlier coverage will last…
    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2014/04/26/environment/journalist-gets-climate-change-right/

    ***if the MSM has been 97% CONSENSUS & only 3% DEBATE for the most part of a decade, why was Goldstone even bringing up the absurd accusations of so-called “climate scientists” that journalists were “perpetuating the perception of debate”? methinks Goldstone has been reading too much Lewandowsky!

    30

  • #
    pat

    revenge politics? who knows. but, if the Govt attaches DA to the carbon tax repeal bill, i would be highly suspicious of their campaign promise to repeal the carbon tax:

    27 April: Australian: Clive Palmer says rebel NT indigenous MPs to defect to PUP
    CLIVE Palmer’s party has taken in three rebel indigenous MPs in the Northern Territory legislative assembly, the MP announced this morning.
    Speaking with ABC’s Insiders program, Mr Palmer said Larisa Lee, Francis Xavier Kurrupuwuy and Alison Anderson would join the Palmer United Party after resigning from the Country Liberal Party last month…
    “We are also in serious discussions with other NT parliamentarians including Country Liberal Party MLAs and expect them to join Palmer United in the next few weeks.”
    Mr Palmer said he had not funded anything in the territory…
    Federally, he renewed warnings to Prime Minister Tony Abbott saying he should “learn to count” and continued threats to block the carbon and mining taxes, direct action and the lifting of the pension age to 70.
    “We don’t support lifting the pension age, no,” he said.
    “I just couldn’t employ Joe Hockey or Tony Abbott at the age of 69 no matter how competent they were because I couldn’t invest the time in training them because they’d retire the next year.”…
    In relation to the carbon tax and the Coalition’s Direct Action policy, Mr Palmer said he would vote down the former if the latter was attached to budget bills.
    “If they brought in a Direct Action policy by linking it to the budget and not allowing people to properly consider it in the senate we would take the appropriate direct action,” he said.
    When asked if that meant blocking the carbon tax repeal he said: “Absolutely.”
    “He needs to be able to count. That’s the reality of it. He has to count how many senators he has in the senate, that tells him whether he has a mandate or not,” Mr Palmer said.
    “We’re very happy the minister for environment gave us a response and a draft bill [ regarding Direct Action], now we have something to consider and we’ll look at it seriously.”
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/clive-palmer-says-rebel-nt-indigenous-mps-to-defect-to-pup/story-e6frgczx-1226897284587

    00

  • #
    pat

    for the record, there is no attribution whatsoever for the Australian’s Clive Palmer article.

    00

  • #
    pat

    blame the “Teabaggers”!!! that’s ugly, Frank. i can’t believe anyone can still use that phrase.

    nice to see some egg on Chris Hayes’ face too. Showtime, it’s past time to cancel this junk:

    25 April: Examiner: Teabagger favorite and Showtime climate change convert facing federal indictment
    by Frank Maccioli, Bakersfield Envronmental News Examiner
    The people behind a new, much lauded climate change documentary may find themselves in a quandary following breaking news about a Republican Congressman. In a press release today for Showtime’s Years of Living Dangerously, the producers of the series announced that Michael Grimm, a controversial Republican Congressman from New York and long time global warming denier, will state that he now believes in anthropogenic climate change in the next episode.
    ???The series is a must see for Bakersfield and San Joaquin Valley residents who are concerned about climate change and its effects upon the area…
    Grimm, who represents Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn, is a favorite of the Tea Party and has been involved in controversial actions before…
    In the upcoming episode he will explain his change of heart in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes. His decision was reportedly influenced by the effects of Superstorm Sandy, which devastated much of the area he represents…
    The problem now, however, is that several news agencies also reported today that federal authorities are about to indict the Congressman for violating campaign finance laws. A spokesperson for the series did not respond to this reporter’s request for comment on the development…
    In light of this latest revelation, some have speculated as to whether Grimm’s “conversion” regarding climate change was a legitimate change or rather one done to gain the sympathy of the political left. By being one of the few Republicans to embrace what the majority of climate change scientists accept, one could argue that former opponents may be less likely to go into full attack mode…
    http://www.examiner.com/article/teabagger-favorite-and-showtime-climate-change-convert-facing-federal-indictment

    25 April: Politico: Darren Goode: Grimm’s woes cast doubt on climate turnabout
    ***Climate activists just can’t seem to catch a break on Capitol Hill.
    Activists were spreading the good news Friday that New York Rep. Michael Grimm has become the first sitting House Republican to stop denying the science that humans cause climate change. But now the second-term lawmaker from Staten Island might be facing his own dangerous climate — inside a jail cell…
    Shortly before that story broke, the pro-Obama group Organizing for Action had been celebrating Grimm’s about-face on climate change. Grimm made his change of heart known during the third episode of Showtime’s docu-series “Years of Living Dangerously,” which will be broadcast Sunday…
    In a partial transcript of his interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, Grimm said he changed his mind thanks to former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), who is leading an effort to impose a tax on carbon emissions.
    “After speaking with Bob Inglis, it made me do some of my own research, you know, I looked at some of the stuff that he sent over, my staff looked at,” Grimm said. “But the mass majority of respected scientists say that it’s conclusive, the evidence is clear. So I don’t think the jury is out.”…
    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/michael-grimm-indictment-climate-change-106040.html?hp=l1_b1

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Believes in… It means nothing. Show me the evidence.

      Oh, you say you have no evidence? What a shame! :-(

      Sometimes politicians and rocks have about the same reasoning ability.

      00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Pat,

      This isn’t a complaint. But I keep wondering how much time you must spend every day finding and posting all the stuff you do. In your way you’re more prolific than Jo. How do you do it day after day? How many hours does it take?

      00

  • #
    richard

    something we can all look forward to, fit in any name you like.

    2008
    “Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was “the intelligence failure” in Iraq,[17] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration “misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq”

    2025

    Al gore later said that the biggest regret of his career was “the intelligence failure” on co2 while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2025 that his administration “misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from co2″

    00

  • #
    Anton

    Don’t mention the war!

    00

  • #
     DJCotton  

    This review gives an outline of the new paradigm based on physics …

    http://markets.financialcontent.com/stocks/news/read/27010277/Why_It%E2%80%99s_Not_Carbon_Dioxide

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Thank you Doug. I suspected for years that CO2 could not do what it’s been blamed for doing. There simply hasn’t been any real evidence for it — only an unproven theory. The circumstantial evidence against global warming is overwhelming all by itself. The planet is speaking to us if only we would listen.

      I hope your book gets shoved down the throat (figuratively) of every warmist on Earth. I suppose that’s a forlorn hope but I do hope it makes an impact.

      From your site I see the book is short. I think even a computer programmer like me should be able to understand it.

      00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    Doug and Roy,

    The hypothesis is very interesting but the system is so complex that any single hypothesis, no matter how good it may be, could only be PART of the explanation for the observations. For instance, a popular “consensus” claim is that the rate of recent warming up until “the Pause” is unprecedented and can only be explained by CO2. Also, many agree that there is an underlying ~60-year natural cycle.

    Anyway, here follows a transcription of data form Hadcrut3 versus Hadcrut4 and Gisstemp. Despite the efforts of all the above authorities et al to disappear the previously known “Super 1997/8 El Nino” and other “anti-clockwise adjustments” it is amusing to notice that the 30-year slopes to 1940 BEFORE CO2 emissions accelerated are rather similar to those from 1970 which are “only explainable by attributing a CO2 cause”:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:1970/to:2013/normalise/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2013/trend

    Of course, I might be accused of cherry-picking the start and end dates, but let’s see if some wizards of doom can clarify such.

    BTW, the separations between linear trends are not relevant, but the slopes verily are.

    Oh and the UAH data does not go along with disappearing the Super El Nino.

    Oh and…

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      The hypothesis is very interesting but the system is so complex that any single hypothesis, no matter how good it may be, could only be PART of the explanation for the observations.

      Bob_FJ,

      You get no disagreement from me except that I wonder if someday we can construct a model that does predict accurately, no matter what we throw at it. But it certainly remains elusive at present. After all the things I’ve seen go from impossible to possible in my lifetime I have to believe that we can increase our understanding of climate to that point if we continue honest work on it.

      The only thing I disagree with is that there’s any kind of empirical evidence that CO2 can, much less is warming this planet. If the evidence was there they would trot it out for display worldwide so fast your head would spin.

      Jo’s, The Skeptics Handbook, available for download on this site, made that point at least 6 or 7 years ago. No one has ever shot her down, not once. And they certainly have tried.

      00

  • #

    For those still watching, Quadrant has an article dated Februay 14th by Tony Thomas titled Suitable Cases For Treatment

    Professor of Psychology Stephan Lewandowsky is much in the news of late because the science publishers Frontiers dumped his paper, Recursive Fury (pathologising climate skeptics), because of its ethical shortcomings. Lewandowsky is a favorite of the Australian Psychological Society (APS). According to UK Guardian, the APS backed him all the way. The APS, said The Guardian, offers “a good example for journals to follow when subjected to organized bullying from contrarians trying to censor sound but inconvenient research.”

    “Exhibitors have packed up, the corridors are empty, voices echo, the complimentary coffee trolley has gone home. You’d be forgiven for thinking the Conference was over. But wait, not yet, what’s this? Down the corridors stride three professors to talk about one of the most serious environmental and health threats of the 21st Century, and why mental health professionals care about it.”


    Who were these eminent psychologists who “lowered the mood, and raised the pulse”? Professor Carmen Lawrence, a former Labor premier and ALP president; Lewandowsky, the chronicler of the now-failed Recursive Fury; and Professor Joseph Reser, the APS’s opinion survey guru.

    There is quite a bit more to read — follow the link to the article.

    00