JoNova

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



It’s climate apostasy again: Institute for Policy Studies terminates skeptic who cares about Africans more than climate modelers

Caleb Rossiter

No dissent over any point allowed. There shall be no other God than Carbon Reduction and the holy climate models!

The religious climate cult followers have shunned a long term member for the sin of saying the unthinkable. Caleb Rossiter, masters in Mathematics, was a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies for 23 years until last month when he wrote  these heinous lines in the Wall St Journal:

“I started to suspect that the climate-change data were dubious a decade ago while teaching statistics. Computer models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine the cause of the six-tenths of one degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperature from 1980 to 2000 could not statistically separate fossil-fueled and natural trends.”

Furthermore, he out-greened the greens by actually caring about life expectancy of Africans.

His Wall Street Journal OpEd continued: “The left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false.” He added: “Western policies seem more interested in carbon-dioxide levels than in life expectancy.”

“Each American accounts for 20 times the emissions of each African. We are not rationing our electricity. Why should Africa, which needs electricity for the sort of income-producing enterprises and infrastructure that help improve life expectancy? The average in Africa is 59 years—in America it’s 79,” he explained.

According to the World Bank, 24% of Africans have access to electricity and the typical business loses power for 56 days each year. Faced with unreliable power, businesses turn to diesel generators, which are three times as expensive as the electricity grid. Diesel also produces black soot, a respiratory health hazard. By comparison, bringing more-reliable electricity to more Africans would power the cleaning of water in villages, where much of the population still lives, and replace wood and dung fires as the source of heat and lighting in shacks and huts, removing major sources of disease and death…

Rossiter made the mistake of caring more for the poor than for the permitted policy:

“But it is as an Africanist, rather than a statistician, that I object most strongly to ‘climate justice.’ Where is the justice for Africans when universities divest from energy companies and thus weaken their ability to explore for resources in Africa? Where is the justice when the U.S. discourages World Bank funding for electricity-generation projects in Africa that involve fossil fuels, and when the European Union places a ‘global warming’ tax on cargo flights importing perishable African goods?”

John and Emina from the Institute for Policy Studies could not bear this:

…we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.

…we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours that a productive working relationship is untenable. The other project directors of IPS feel the same.”

See Climate Depot for a copy of the Wall St Journal article.

Rossiter’s website describes himself as “a progressive activist who has spent four decades fighting against and writing about the U.S. foreign policy of supporting repressive governments in the formerly colonized countries.”

“I’ve spent my life on the foreign-policy left. I opposed the Vietnam War, U.S. intervention in Central America in the 1980s and our invasion of Iraq. I have headed a group trying to block U.S. arms and training for “friendly” dictators, and I have written books about how U.S. policy in the developing world is neocolonial,” Rossiter wrote in the Wall Street Journal on May 4.

Rossiter directs the American Exceptionalism Media Project. He is an adjunct professor at American University and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (80 votes cast)
It's climate apostasy again: Institute for Policy Studies terminates skeptic who cares about Africans more than climate modelers , 9.4 out of 10 based on 80 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/pj77b85

97 comments to It’s climate apostasy again: Institute for Policy Studies terminates skeptic who cares about Africans more than climate modelers

  • #

    Looks like its Caleb rather than Carl?



    True, thanks. Jo


    Report this

    90

  • #

    Maybe the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) should consider changing their name to the (IPE) the Institute of Policy Enforcement.


    Report this

    290

  • #
    scaper...

    Rossiter said

    But it is as an Africanist, rather than a statistician, that I object most strongly to ‘climate justice.

    Racism?


    Report this

    52

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Green position. Racially adjusted death toll = zero.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      vic g gallus

      If you correct for the discontinuities of 1937-1938, 1959-1962 and 1975-1980, then the trend is 0 deaths per year due to watermelon policies.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Rogueelement451

    These type of situations are sometimes more than they appear at first glance.
    For all we know , Rossiter could be a first class pain in the ass and judging from the resume above he will most certainly have been in conflict with most of his peers at some time or another.
    So whilst they could not attack him on his World or USA policy views , as that would be very illiberal,once he crosses a line re CAGW they can get at him and even the damn President would agree that action to dismiss would be a great example.
    Grab them by the balls then their hearts and minds will follow. Typical political motivation, whilst someone is on a safe platform,defending the poor, opposing war, opposing colonialism they are safe , talk about your sceptical views on CAGW and they have their “Gotcha” moment.


    Report this

    100

    • #

      “This is what the IPS website lists as “goals”:No government funding: Since it is difficult to “speak truth to power” if one takes funds from that “power,” IPS does not accept any government money.

      Public scholarship: IPS turns “ideas into action” through staff who combine inter-disciplinary research and writing skills with activist experience, based on the belief that dynamic social movements drive most social change.

      Building alternatives: At least half of the Institute’s work focuses on positive alternatives to current policies and institutions. Some of this work is transformational and visionary, laying out alternative systems and institutions. Some offers steps toward those larger transformations.

      Social inventions: IPS has created many projects that then spin off into independent organizations, such as the Government Accountability Project and the Institute for Southern Studies, or become government initiatives, such as the National Teacher Corps in the 1960s and 1970s.

      The power of convening: With progressive movements often weakened by their fragmentation, IPS convenes unlikely allies to meet new challenges for peace, justice, and the environment.”

      Do you see anything that could conflict? It says they are focusing on “positive alternatives”. However, it is also very clear that they reject all fossil fuels, so it seems Rossiter may be correct and the alternatives are Africans living in the stone age. Of course, if we let them out of the stone age, then they are going to WANT things. And we can’t be having that.

      Another case of “we have ours” so who cares at all about what you get?


      Report this

      60

  • #
    llew Jones

    Here’s the left wing mathematician’s assessment of the scam called man made climate change:

    Dr. Caleb Rossiter was “terminated” via email as an “Associate Fellow” from the progressive group Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), following his May 4th, 2014 Wall Street Journal OpEd titled “Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change,” in which he called man-made global warming an “unproved science.” Rossiter also championed the expansion of carbon based energy in Africa. Dr. Rossiter is an adjunct professor at American University. Rossiter holds a PhD in policy analysis and a masters degree in mathematics.

    In an exclusive interview with Climate Depot, Dr. Rossiter explained: “If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’”

    “I have tried to get [IPS] to discuss and explain their rejection of my analysis,’ Rossiter told Climate Depot. “When I countered a claim of ‘rapidly accelerating’ temperature change with the [UN] IPCC’s own data’, showing the nearly 20-year temperature pause — the best response I ever got was ‘Caleb, I don’t have time for this.’” (sounds a lot like the CAGW cheer squad who offer their infantile analyses here)

    Note his reference to the nearly 20 year temperature pause.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/progressive-professors-fellowship-terminated-over-climate-scepticism/


    Report this

    250

  • #
    Peter C

    Welcome Caleb Rossiter to the community of Climate Skeptics!

    It all reminds me of Winston Smith (1984 by George Orwell). He harboured doubts for a long time before he went feral.

    All the lefties loved that novel! But it seems that Orwell was describing them, and the society they would like to create. How deep is that.


    Report this

    270

  • #
    tom0mason

    Jo,
    At the risk of being called an illiterate pedant the 4th sentence -

    “Caleb Rossiter, masters in Mathematics, was a fellow of the Institute of Policy Studies for 23 years until last month…”

    Should that not be Institute for Policy Studies


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Tim

    “…a distortion of science at a very basic level: namely, science becomes a source of authority rather than a mode of inquiry. The real utility of science stems from the latter; the political utility stems from the former.

    “A profound dumbing down of the discussion (including the abdication of logic) interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.”

    Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.


    Report this

    230

  • #
    GreggB

    The dogma of CAGW –

    “Thou shalt NOT!”


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Brett_McS

    I couldn’t recommend Robert Zubrin’s “Merchants of Despair” highly enough: a brilliant, easy read that is a real eye opener. This particular episode is just further confirmation of Zubrin’s point that these ‘environmentalists’ are nothing of the sort but are Malthusians to the core. Their guiding ‘principle’ is, as P.J.O’Rourke put it “Just enough of me, way too much of you”.


    Report this

    161

  • #
    GreggB

    Completely off topic, but have you seen the latest “it’s because of climate change” story over at The Conversation –

    “Why Haven’t We Encountered Aliens Yet? The Answer Could Be Climate Change”

    After ejecting coffee through my nose at the headline, it was actually a half-interesting thought-bubble.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Ron Cook

      GreggB

      This is what Ex Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown once suggested. How crazy can you get. The greens are all “as mad as hatters”.

      R-COO- K+
      Ron


      Report this

      51

    • #
    • #
      Yonniestone

      So after 4 billion years of “good weather” and remarkable luck over that time we have in a couple of decades screwed up not only the temperature of the planet but the possible odds of extraterrestrial life visiting us.

      I had to read it to believe it WOW, what an exciting time we live in.


      Report this

      30

    • #

      No, no, no! I watched an alien conspiracy program and the aliens are the ones causing the climate change. These people need to watch more of those fascinating documentaries on aliens!

      Scarier yet, the school lunch program will be revamped with climate change in mind. How many kids are going to eat school lunches? Michelle Obama wiped out a large number and this should just about kill the program. Great business opportunity if you can park near a school and sell real food.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      vic g gallus

      The Fermi Paradox? I thought he just made a good point as to why discussions about ET was for the kiddies.

      Might I add another one and that is that it doesn’t matter how many inhabitable planets there are out there. Calculate the intensity of a radio signal coming from Earth by the time it reaches the nearest star. Using the typical output of a small station, you get about one photon per planet per second. It might be possible that technology would improve to a point where we could communicate with intelligent life there, but anywhere in the galaxy?

      This observation led to the development of the Gaia hypothesis that a complex biosphere automatically regulates the environment in its own interests

      Not very scientific, is it? If we weren’t in a period of Earths history where feed backs kept the Earth’s climate relatively constant, we wouldn’t be discussing it. This lot sound like they’re into Intelligent Design not Evolution.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        the Griss

        “that a complex biosphere automatically regulates the environment in its own interests”

        Why the heck do you think Gaia has made all that buried carbon available to us. !!! :-)

        She want MORE CO2 !


        Report this

        20

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    The saddest part is he is absolutely correct.

    I wonder how many millions have been killed by ‘progressive’ policies?


    Report this

    61

  • #
    thingadonta

    If you want the answer of why they do this, read Malthus. But they have misinterpreted him.

    There are 2 agendas going on in climate alarmism, not just climate alarmism. The other is an ideology that society will expand beyond its’ means and inevitably run out of resources and crash. And the associated idea that society itself can’t fix the problem, because interests within society will protect the status quo, leading to the Malthusian catastrophe. Both these beliefs together are being used to fight industrialisation. One has to ignore society, and any arguments or reason that comes from within it, in order to save it.

    From these starting assumptions, all else follows. Data has to conform to the inevitable future, scientists have to conform to the inevitable future, Africa has to conform to the inevitable future. Its the long term inevitability that is the issue, not short term African welfare.

    Trouble is, the future is NOT inevitable, and Malthus has been misinterpreted. That would require a separate entire book. But it is Malthus they are worried about, read Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist, it’s Malthus that is the key element in most alarmist arguments, and the key dividing line.

    In Rio in 1992 it was Malthus who was dredged up to make humanity the common enemy. In the 1970s it was Malthus who was dredged up by the Club of Rome. And I think the IPCC is obsessed with Malthusian ideas, without actually explicitly saying so. And many alarmist scientists and societies such as above implicitly accept various assumptions about Malthus, without actually realising it.

    A book is needed somewhere on why Malthusian catastrophe is a curious theory but limited with respect to the climate and industrialisation debate.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Lucky

      thingadonta- a good post but I disagree with the proposition that the ideas of Malthus are the motivation. At, the core of greenism is the worship of the primitive, they want to set human life back to what is was in some imagined golden era. That era has not been defined, to some it is the stone age, to others it is the forests of central Europe in medieval times- the idealization of the ‘Volk’, deference to authority, defiance of anything intellectual or new, eager to sacrifice for the noble lord, and hostility to outsiders. Greenism as we see it is more correctly described as extreme right wing rather than left wing.


      Report this

      40

      • #

        Lucky—I don’t think Greens want to set back humans to the stone age—they want to set back everyone else to the stone age and keep the spoils for themselves. They are not going to stop using electricity, flying, using oil and cars, etc.


        Report this

        130

        • #
          vic g gallus

          Picking up bargain coastal real-estate.


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Leonard Lane

          Thank you Sheri, that needed to be said. And it seems universally true. The tyrants (and the leftist greenies are probably the worst) always want to exempt themselves and their families/cronies/supporters. But the rest must be sacrificed for the common good. Common good for the tyrants that is.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        mpcraig

        Lucky, I both either agree or disagree with the two you.

        Let me explain. I suspect Malthuis is at the heart of a lot of this. As is what you described. But it’s probably even more. Many greens simply don’t want man to intrude into nature any more than we have. There are people who are simply against pollution. There are those who want socialist or Marxist systems or central one world government.

        I feel this issue is so big because it appeals to a wide range of different interests. But I’ll differ from both you in that the biggest interest and the one pulling the strings is business and wealth and power. In other words, those with the most influence don’t give a rat’s ass about the climate or extreme weather or pollution or resource depletion or overpopulation.

        And that’s why this won’t just go away.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        That is the way I see it as well. There is an interesting article here that is in this vain.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      thingadonta

      To reply to all of the above. I still think Malthus triggers all the rest off. Remember communism was about power, but that came after the idea the capitalism would inevitably collapse-a Malthusian idea.

      The steps are this. 1. Society expands beyond means, or gets too rich with an underclass that cant be supported, leading to collapse or revolution. 2. This has to be stopped by forces outside the normal operations of society. 3. These forces develop other opportunistic agendas such as power and control, a bureaucratic elite to run things, a desire to change lifestyle sacrifices made to gain wealth but without realising the benefits gained from such sacrifices (eg living in cities rather than forests etc etc). 4. A more general desire to stop industrialisation and development because that will lead to collapse etc. 5. A scientific elite to guide the way etc etc. A corruption of the scientific and political process because the existing process cant save the inevitable collapse etc.

      All the things above occur, but the trigger or starting point is differences of opinion around Malthus.


      Report this

      10

    • #

      Malthus and anyone who follows him, is a very sick human being, psychologically. I think it would be a fascinating study to work out the personality profiles of people who buy into and push a Malthusian world view. An Essay on the Principles of Population was first published in 1798…216 years ago in which this clergyman said, “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.” This is just flat out wrong and has been proven time and again over the last 216 years. How long are we going to suffer this man’s foolishness and ignorance? How long are we going to put up with people in the 21st century quoting or following the ideas of an ignorant cleric of the 18th century? What Malthus represents is a pathology of human thought where the proponents of this kind of thinking use fatuous nonsense to push their agendas, never feel compelled to offer empirical evidence and when proven wrong (like Erlich was proven wrong by Julian Simon or Rachel Carson was proven wrong) simply shrug it off and continue as though nothing changed. This isn’t intellectual activity but pathology and should be treated as such, yet we out here who don’t follow this 3rd rate intellectual nonsense don’t call to account those that do, we don’t humiliate and shame them at every turn the way we should as when you are dealing with people who are totally closed to logic and empirical data you are left with killing them or shaming them. If they believed something that caused no harm one could just ignore them, but the work of Rachel Carson killed hundreds of thousands, thus showing these pathological whack jobs are dangerous.
      They would be in the dust bin of history except for one thing: In spite of the 3rd rate intellects that push this nonsense, in spite of the ideology being rife with pathology, they are useful idiots for those who want more power and that is something that is always with us and needs to be fought 24/7 eternally.


      Report this

      11

  • #
    ROM

    Somewhere over the last year or so the radical rabid left and it’s companion environmental organisations must be starting to fear for their future.

    On the face of it most will probably believe that I am talking through lower orifices when we see what damage to left eco-loons are doing to the lives of the ordinary man and woman on the street.

    When the Russian communist party was formed in 1912 they had a program of state building in that the communists intended to create a worker’s paradise where all would be equal.
    After seizing power in the 1917 coup Lenin recognised that pure socialism alone wasn’t going to succeed and embarked on a mixed capitalism, state socialism economy called the New Economic Policy.
    When Lenin had a stroke in 1923 and died in 1924, Stalin [ Joseph Djugashvili a Georgian, not a Russian aka Stalin = Man of steel] ] took over and implemented the full socialist doctrine of Marx and Engels enforced against some very serious opposition with the deaths and deliberate starvation and killings of perhaps as many as an esatimated 20 million Soviet citizens nearly all men.

    The point of that little bit of info is that the original socialistic left had an aim, a desire to build something positive for humanity even if we now know that communism in it’s pure form is an abject inhuman failure in being able to lifting the human spirit and the living standards of it’s subjects.
    The word “subjects” is used deliberately.

    Today the only seeming aim of the left and the eco-loons is entirely negative in every field the endeavour they try to influence.
    The left and the eco-loons try to use every means possible to prevent progress in the undeveloped world.
    They are quite happy to see lives destroyed and low living standards and short life spans for the poorest continue if anything that might improve their lives goes against their ideology and dogmas.
    They are quite prepared to see lives destroyed by trying to prevent advances in living standards in the undeveloped world such as trying to prevent and succeeding as we see below in the building of reliable and cheap energy generators and wide spread electrical energy distribution systems in the undeveloped world.
    Ina nutshell the so called environmental movement of the last fifty years has become one of modern mans most destructive to human advancement movements of all times.

    The left and the environmental organisations has led directly over the last 50 years to the unnecessary and completely avoidable deaths of some estimated 70 millions of the poorest and least powerful on this planet through their political influence in getting DDT banned in the 1970′ s leading to a huge rise in deaths from Malaria and in it’s denial using every means from physical violence, including wide spread crop destruction to the use of the courts of every nation in an endeavor to prevent the use of the GMO derived Golden Rice with it’s vitamin A deficiency correcting attributes for Asia’s rice eating hundreds of millions.

    As this thread is on the so called and claimed social justice orientated Institute of Policy Studies and their hypocrisy and disdain for the very people they claim to have at their organisations center of interest , the Bishop Hill blog has listed at least three of what would have been highly beneficial examples to the local peoples of the type of policies that these supposedly concerned hard left organisations and environmental outfits have recently managed to get cancelled or voided. or would have if they had had the oppurtunity

    Tonight the Bishop Hill blog has listed amongst it’s list, the latest totally negative human life and living standards destroying actions of GreenPeace over the last few months.

    The word is spreading about the inhumanity and utterly selfish self centredness of the left and the environmentalists, nearly all of which are to be found in the wealthiest enclaves and the academic centers of the western world where they lack for little in the way of personal comforts and luxuries. From where they try to enforce their own personal ideologies and dogmas on the world starting with the weakest and poorest and those least able to fight back against the power and wealth of these western based exploiters of human life for their own utterly selfish ideological ends.

    And it is a sign of the times for the left and the environmental dictatorship of the west that the undeveloped world is starting to fight back against the life destroying environmental dictatorship of the western left and it’s environmental organisations.

    India has had enough of Greenpeace and has now labelled it as a threat to its economic security.

    India spy agency says Greenpeace endangers economic security
    _____________________
    From Bishop Hill; The inhumanity of the environmentalist

    [quoted ]

    Further to my post this morning about progressives firing Caleb Rossiter for his temerity in putting the needs of Africans today ahead of concerns over global warming, it’s interesting to consider a couple of other stories from the last couple of days:

    # a report of Greenpeace rejoicing after getting huge renewable powerplant cancelled in Chile
    # a report of the alarming number of environmentalists who would have allowed a disaster like the Irish potato famine to continue unabated rather than deploy GM technology to combat it.

    What seems to link these stories is a passionately pursued collective goal and an almost inhumane willingness to accept individual suffering as a price worth paying to achieve it.
    I wonder if Greenpeace leaders ever gave a thought to the Chileans or if those greens gave a thought to the horror of the potato famine. And I wonder if John Cavanagh, the man who fired Rossiter, ever considers the suffering of sub-Saharan Africans. I hope so, but if he does it’s hard to understand his wanting to disassociate himself from someone who merely wanted to do something about it.

    Margaret Thatcher famously saw individual men and women where others saw only “society”. I think John Cavanagh and the greens probably exemplify the opposite view. Perhaps this helps us understand why they behave the way they do. It must be much easier to turn a blind eye to society than to living, breathing individuals.

    Update on Jun 13, 2014 by Bishop Hill
    Take a look at some of Cavanagh’s writings on Africa. “Climate Justice” appears to mean letting Africans rot.

    [ / ]


    Report this

    70

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    They are eating their own. It also demonstrates why they have no clue why their message is not getting out. When you live in an echo chamber, you produce ads like the 10-10 one.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    ROM

    From the links in the Bishop Hill site we see this from the Institute of Policy Studies

    [ corrected from "Climate justice as in a last para in the above post]

    I think Tony from Oz might have quite lot to say about the claims from this same “Institute of Policy Studies” that is the center of Jo’s headline post

    The Moment for Climate Justice

    [ quoted]

    A climate justice movement with a clear vision for a clean, equitable energy future is making itself heard. The drivers of this movement are people living on the front line of dirty energy in poorer countries and in low-income neighborhoods in wealthier nations like the United States. They understand firsthand the effects of dirty energy pollution and climate chaos, and are champions of innovative forms of clean rural and urban electrification—not only in the Global South, but just as urgently in the heavily polluting Global North. In fact, an international campaign to demand climate justice, representing over 100 groups in developing and developed countries, has called for efforts to ensure “people’s access to clean, safe, and renewable energy sources.”

    In Africa, climate justice activists are speaking eloquently about a new economy for Africans and everyone else that leapfrogs fossil fuels and delivers electricity to hundreds of millions of people through clean energy and energy efficiency.

    Augustine Njamnshi, Policy Coordinator of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance in Cameroon, asserts that “the transition must be just as much as it must be swift. There must be clear measures to ensure ‘climate jobs’ are created—jobs and livelihoods that are necessary for the shift to low carbon, climate resilient, and equitable development pathways.” Innovation abounds in these areas, but policy incentives still tend to favor fossil fuels over clean energy.

    Another dynamic group, Earthlife Africa, is opposing coal-fired plants in South Africa, which they argue will create far more environmental problems than energy benefits. Like most environmental justice groups, Earthlife couples that opposition with bold proposals for an alternative energy future. They are promoting studies about the job benefits of a renewable energy strategy. And they argue that, with the right policies, 50 percent of all South African electricity could come from renewable sources by 2050.

    African climate justice groups have documented how large-scale energy projects tend to serve big corporations and the wealthy. According to the South Africa-based NGO Groundwork, residents pay up to seven times more for their electricity in that country than major corporations do. Meanwhile, pollution from the country’s dirty energy system results in massive health costs to the state.

    The climate justice movement also points out that those most responsible for the problem should be the ones to help pay for real solutions. And that means divesting from dirty-energy corporations and investing in renewable energy systems that put people first. Desmond Tutu, South African social rights activist and retired Anglican bishop, recently wrote that “people of conscience need to break their ties with corporationsfinancing the injustice of climate change.”


    Report this

    20

  • #
    ROM

    The BH link that has Greenpeace rejoicing is a very sad indictment of the utter selfishness and ultimate viciousness and total lack of consideration and empathy for the poor and a nation that has few resources in a very undeveloped part of the World that you could ever come across.

    And when you read this you will have trouble even understanding in any way why anybody with a gram of sense or empathy and understanding for a nation and it’s peoples would ever want to prevent the building of a large hydroelectric project in one of the most undeveloped and needy parts of the world.

    Greenpeace rejoices after getting huge renewable powerplant CANCELLED

    Quoted from The Register

    Greenpeace activists are celebrating today, after their protests led to the halting of plans to build a massive renewable powerplant which would have supplied clean, green, low-carbon electricity in huge quantities.

    “Today, we celebrate,” Greenpeace chief Matías Asún told reporters, following a decision to withdraw government permission for the Hidroaysén project. The project would have generated as much as 18,430 gigawatt-hours annually – roughly six times as much as the huge offshore London Array windfarm planned for the Thames Estuary.

    Hidroaysén was not planned for the Thames, but rather in the remote and sparsely populated wilderness of Patagonia in southern Chile. The project, which would have seen hydroelectric dams constructed on the region’s rivers and a lengthy high-voltage DC line constructed to carry the power to centres of population and industry, would have met as much as 21 per cent of Chile’s electricity requirements with effectively zero carbon emissions.

    Hidroaysén would have been better than an equivalent set of huge windfarms, too, as the power would have been supplied in a steady and predictable manner. Hydroelectric power isn’t totally reliable, as New Zealanders found out a few years ago, but it is far and away the form of renewable power easiest to use on an electricity grid.

    Chile has no fossil fuels or nuclear power and very little renewable energy. As a result of the Hidroaysén cancellation, more imported fossil fuels will be burned and electricity prices – already the highest in Latin America – will climb still further. This will hit the country’s poorest people especially hard as energy bills are a relatively large part of their outgoings.

    “The big winners here are the environmentalists but the big losers are the consumers,” Chilean Senator Iván Moreira told press including the Santiago Times following the government’s decision on Tuesday. “Currently there are few energy projects in the country so electricity costs will rise and these will affect ordinary people most.” ®


    Report this

    40

  • #
    ROM

    In the 1840′s the Irish Potato famine killed about one in every eight of the Irish population.
    A estimated one million died of starvation.
    Another two million emigrated elsewhere including Australia

    In the Irish famine of the late 1840s, successive blasts of potato blight – or to give it its proper name, the fungus Phytophthora infestans – robbed more than one-third of the population of their usual means of subsistence for four or five years in a row.

    So the question was asked;

    Would You Prevent The 1850 Irish Potato Famine If It Meant GMOs?

    Quoted from Science 2.0

    How effective has the war on science by Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists and their progressive donor base been?

    Very effective. Effective enough that even when reading about the Irish Potato Famine of 1850, which caused millions to suffer and die, an alarming number would let many perish if it meant using science to prevent it.

    If you thought genetically modified potatoes could avert late blight disease, spare a million countrymen from starvation and keep another million from emigrating off the Emerald Isle, would you plant these newfangled spuds? If not, not only do modern demographers know how you vote, they also can made an educated guess about how you feel on vaccines and other life-saving measures. Anti-science beliefs have become so polarized that if someone puts the prefix “Franken-” in front of something, you know a lot about them. Including that they do not know Frankenstein was a hybrid and not a GMO.

    Among 859 U.S. grocery shoppers, half the subjects in an online survey read the story of the 1850s Irish Potato Famine, learning the potential impact of fungal Phytophthora infestans on potato and tomato crops today. The other 400-plus pondered a generic plant disease, with no mention of specific crops or historic famines.

    People who cared more about the environment were less concerned about threats to crops and insuring a secure food supply. People who cared more about keeping people from starving were pro-GMO. Self-assessed familiarity with genetic modification had a positive relationship on the likelihood that genetic modification was viewed favorably. What really stuck out? People against genetic modification were concerned about the ‘fairness’ of decision-making rather than whether or not people ate.

    “Stories of the Irish Potato Famine were no more likely to boost support for disease-resistant genetically modified crops than were our generic crop-disease descriptions,” said Katherine A. McComas, professor and chair of Cornell’s Department of Communication in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. “Preconceived views about risks and benefits of agricultural genetic engineering – and perceptions about the fairness and legitimacy of the decision-making process – these things matter most.

    “If you think genetically modified crops are dangerous ‘frankenfoods’ and/or that crop disease is best controlled with chemicals – if you suspect federal regulators care more about Big Ag’s interests than your family’s, thus the whole game is rigged – plaintive tales of historical famines won’t change your mind about genetic modification for disease resistance.”

    So keep that in mind the next time an environmentalist complains about science – they aren’t concerned about feeding people, they are concerned about forcing policy makers to accept their personal beliefs.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    ROM

    These are the left environmentalism organisations that are part and parcel of the same condescending humanity despising, ideologically and dogma fixated western elitist funded and run organisations that the Institute for Policy Studies is a part of.

    From India via Reuters

    India spy agency says Greenpeace endangers economic security

    [quoted ]

    (Reuters) – India’s domestic spy service has accused Greenpeace and other lobby groups of hurting economic progress by campaigning against power projects, mining and genetically modified food, the most serious charge yet against foreign-funded organisations.

    The leak of the Intelligence Bureau’s report comes as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s new administration seeks way to restore economic growth that has fallen to below 5 percent, choking off investment and jobs for millions of youth entering the workforce.

    Greenpeace denied it was trying to block economic expansion, saying the allegations were an attempt to silence dissent and that it stood for sustainable growth.

    The government report is likely to intensify the debate over whether Asia’s third largest economy will pursue the path of fast growth under the Modi administration or try a more balanced strategy that the previous government sought.

    It has also turned the spotlight on the role of foreign funded organisations, some of whom said they feared a crackdown by the new regime, seen as more friendly to business.

    “A significant number of Indian NGOs funded by donors based in US, UK, Germany and Netherlands have been noticed to be using people-centric issues to create an environment, which lends itself to stalling development projects,” the Intelligence Bureau said.

    These included coal-fired power projects, genetically modified organisms, mega industrial projects including South Korean firm POSCO’s steel plant and Vedanta’s bauxite project both in Odisha, hyro-power projects in Arunachal Pradesh, the strategic state on the border with China.

    Together, the cancellation, disruption or delay to these development projects had clipped gross domestic product growth by 2 to 3 percent a year, according to an excerpt of the report seen by Reuters.

    MODI PROMISES DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS

    Greenpeace alone was leading a “massive effort to take down India’s coal-fired power plant and coal mining activity,” it said.

    Dozens of projects have stalled in recent years because of local opposition, environmental hurdles and land acquisition difficulties. Modi, campaigning on a platform of development, promised to cut red tape and implement projects that have been approved.

    India is desperate for power, and coal is expected to remain at the heart of its energy security for decades. Government-controlled Coal India Ltd has not been able to mine fast enough, forcing power producers to import costly coal from Indonesia, Australia and South Africa to bridge the shortfall.

    Seventy million households – 35-40 percent of the country’s 1.2 billion people – still have no access to electricity. This summer authorities in north India are battling power breakdowns and public anger as the country swelters under the longest heatwave on record.

    The Intelligence Bureau said the foreign NGOs and their Indian arms were serving as tools to advance Western foreign policy interests.

    “Greenpeace aims to fundamentally change the dynamics of India’s energy mix by disrupting and weakening the relationship between key players,” the IB report said.

    Greenpeace said it had asked the government to share with it the intelligence report so it could defend the allegations against the organisation.

    “We have a legitimate right to express our views in what is the world’s largest democracy. We believe that this report is designed to muzzle and silence civil society who raise their voices against injustices to people and the environment by asking uncomfortable questions about the current model of growth,” it said.

    Greenpeace believed that India should embrace renewable energy and improve energy efficiency instead of destroying forests to access the coal underneath.


    Report this

    50

  • #

    I’ve never heard of the IFPS. I suspect you hadn’t either. Quite why you care about its views now, I don’t know.

    Reading http://www.ips-dc.org/blog/the_moment_for_climate_justice it seems clear that the IFPS and CR disagree fundamentally on this point. Perhaps its an important point for the IFPS. In which case, it seems entirely reasonable for them not to want him any more.

    > climate-change data were dubious a decade ago

    That’s all silly too. That kinda just makes him look like a “skeptic”.

    > No dissent over any point allowed

    Anyone can dissent. But if you disagree strongly with an institute over something they care about, they can sever links with you. Why is that unreasonable?

    > masters in Mathematics

    Why are you puffing irrelevant credentials?

    > apostasy

    By all means use such talk if you want to hype an over-emotional debate. But if you care about the actual issues, more measured language is better.


    Report this

    127

    • #
      bullocky

      w.c.:
      ‘> masters in Mathematics

      Why are you puffing irrelevant credentials?’
      -
      -
      Why are you re-puffing them?


      Report this

      110

    • #

      More measured language is better? You mean like saying, “Gosh Caleb, what makes you think that?” instead of saying “your membership is terminated”.

      > climate-change data were dubious a decade ago

      That’s all silly too. That kinda just makes him look like a “skeptic”.

      By 2003 Caillon et al had confirmed the 800 year lag, building on several other studies. Plus the expected hot spot had not been found.

      To any impartial mind it was clear then that things were not going the way the IPCC had planned.


      Report this

      220

      • #

        > instead of

        We don’t know what they said in private. We’re getting only a one-sided view. Shades of LB.

        > Plus the expected hot spot had not been found

        You still don’t understand that stuff (see other thread). In 2003, people were arguing about the satellite record showing an overall negative trend. No-one cared a lot about the hotspot at that point. All the negative trend stuff went away when RSS found the error in S+C’s record. But you won’t want to talk about that :-)

        > By 2003 Caillon et al

        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728 I think you mean, and so on. You still don’t seem to realise that (a) describing it as simplistically as “800 year lag” is too imprecise to be correct (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/13/even-more-tco2-lags/, etc etc), and (b) its not actually a “problem” in any sense (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/12/yet-more-tco2-lags/).


        Report this

        022

        • #
          James Bradley

          Pot to Kettle,

          “We don’t know what they said in private. We’re getting only a one-sided view. Shades of LB”

          One sided view, you complain about a one sided view.

          Your known as ‘The Mirror Man’.

          “All the negative trend stuff went away when RSS found the error in S+C’s record. But you won’t want to talk about that.”

          I’m pretty sure that was covered infinitum, perhaps you were merely ‘reflecting’ on the errors you don’t want to talk about, you know the information that you censor, delete, ignore, cover-up or otherwise misrepresent.


          Report this

          142

        • #
          Backslider

          its not actually a “problem” in any sense

          Why do you have so much difficulty with something so very simple? It’s known as Henry’s Law. When temperature increases, the ocean temperature increases, releasing CO2. This is why CO2 rise follows warming and decreases with cooling.


          Report this

          110

        • #

          William: you say “We don’t know what they said in private. We’re getting only a one-sided view. Shades of LB.”

          1. Prof Rossiter tells us (and the IPS could always speak up if this is wrong couldn’t they?)

          “I have tried to get [IPS] to discuss and explain their rejection of my analysis,’ Rossiter told Climate Depot. “When I countered a claim of ‘rapidly accelerating’ temperature change with the [UN] IPCC’s own data’, showing the nearly 20-year temperature pause — the best response I ever got was ‘Caleb, I don’t have time for this.’”

          2. The hot spot — impartial minds did care about it in 2003 (so did alarmists as they kept trying to find it and publish papers on it). Just because you didn’t care and were fixated on a different point proves nothing except that you can always offer a strawman when cornered.

          3. As usual, your comments appear at a glance to be informative, but when unpacked they offer nothing substantial. My very modest claim was that the ice core lag was one warning sign the models were wrong. In response you say the 800 year lag was “imprecise” — as if that makes any difference at all to my point. It’s a cause and effect question and in the early 1990′s when hype was being whipped about CO2, scientists did not know which came first. Then study after study from 1999-2003 showed that temps almost always rise first, temps almost always fall first, and while CO2 might amplify the warming, the rate is so small that it is immeasurable in ice cores. In 1990 the IPCC cited the ice-cores as one of their main reasons to be worried. By 2003 ice cores offered nothing…


          Report this

          110

          • #
            the Griss

            Not only that, but once the CO2 climbed AFTER the temperatures, then according to CAGW ideals that CO2 must cause extra heating..

            …….but in EVERY CASE, the temperature started to drop.

            VERY HIGH CO2 LEVELS COULD NOT MAINTAIN THOSE PEAK TEMPERATURES


            Report this

            62

          • #

            > claim was that the ice core lag was one warning sign the models were wrong

            But that claim is entirely wrong. Even if there was a clear precise 800 y lag, it wouldn’t show that “the models” were wrong at all. I’m not sure you really know what “the model” for glacial termination is (actually if you read SoD’s latest, you’ll discover there’s far more buried in the subject, but lay that aside for the moment). “The model” is that orbital forcing paces the ice ages: so glacial terminations are in some fundamental way initiated by orbital forcing; ie, insolation variations. Not by CO2 changes. How could it possibly be CO2 changes? No-one thinks there is an intrinsic 100 kyr CO2 cycle. “The model” also says that CO2 amplifies those initial forcings; and the lag is entirely consistent with that. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/12/yet-more-tco2-lags/

            > while CO2 might amplify the warming, the rate is so small that it is immeasurable in ice cores

            Dunno what you mean by that.

            > In 1990 the IPCC cited the ice-cores as one of their main reasons to be worried

            That’s a new one on me, too. Got an exact reference? Its a rather vague claim, uncheckable as it stands.

            > hot spot

            I’m not entirely sure what you think was being said in 2003 on this. Could you provide some refs to what you mean?


            Report this

            14

    • #

      From their founding principles:
      Building alternatives: At least half of the Institute’s work focuses on positive alternatives to current policies and institutions. Some of this work is transformational and visionary, laying out alternative systems and institutions. Some offers steps toward those larger transformations.

      It is quite apparent that positive alternatives mean those the institue approves of, which means they are exactly like every other group. Yes, they can fire anyone—I would be interested to know if every person there, before this happened, agreed with every single doctrine. If so, I think we may have the makings of a huge, mindless cult on our hands. Obviously, thinking is not really allowed.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Backslider

      Why are you puffing irrelevant credentials?

      Are you F***ing stupid or what? Can you even READ. The man spoke about climate models, which as you clearly are ignorant of, are MATHEMATICAL, ie. statistics (which is NOT science).


      Report this

      111

      • #
        vic g gallus

        Considering how bad Climate Scientists are at maths, not to mention IT techs being poor at arithmetic, it really is a stupid thing to bring up.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      markx

      William Connolley June 13, 2014 at 11:52 pm · says:

      > masters in Mathematics
      Why are you puffing irrelevant credentials?

      Perhaps it is rather revealing that Connolley should think mathematics is irrelevant in this debate: With mathematics being the language of physics, and boolean algebra being the foundation of computing.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Walt Allensworth

    It’s very clear that he was let-go because of that hideous tie. :-)

    But in all seriousness, the opposite of Diversity is University.

    The conformists all huddle together.
    It’s more comfy that way.
    However, not much ground breaking works gets done when original thought is stamped out with hobnailed boots that lace up to the top of the ankle.


    Report this

    70

  • #

    It’s taken me a couple of hours to chase all this up, but once you see this, it places into context just what Caleb Rossiter might be trying to point out.

    I live here in Rockhampton. It’s a city with a population of (around) 82,000 people. It’s annual power consumption is (around) 1.4TeraWattHours. (TWH)

    In the whole of Africa, there are 56 Countries.

    Perhaps the closest total power consumption for an African Country to what is consumed here in Rockhampton is The Republic Of The Congo (Brazzaville) and it’s population is 3,700,000, which is 45 times greater than that of Rockhampton. They consume slightly less than we do here in Rocky, around 1.3TWH.

    However, look then at this set of numbers.

    I’ve worked out those numbers for the lowest power consuming Countries in Africa, that add up to the that total of 1.4TWH we consume here in Rocky, and that works out to be 10 Countries, and they are as follows.

    Western Sahara – .09TWH – Population 550,000
    Togo – .14TWH – Population 6,200,000
    Sierra Leone -.15TWH – Population 5,600,000
    Sao Tome and Principe – .06TWH – Population 190,000
    Gambia – .23TWH – Population 1,720,000
    Cormoros – .04TWH – Population 730,000
    Chad – .20TWH – Population 11,300,000
    Central African Republic – .18TWH – Population 5,000,000
    Burundi – .15TWH – Population 8,000,000
    Benin – .15TWH – Population 9,200,000

    That’s TEN COUNTRIES with a total power consumption of just a tad over 1.4TWH with a total population of …..48,700,000 ….. consuming the same power as 82,000 people in Rockhampton, a population ratio of ….. 594:1

    So then, William Connolley, where you mention this at Comment 20: (My bold)

    By all means use such talk if you want to hype an over-emotional debate. But if you care about the actual issues, more measured language is better.

    Tell me, is this data measured language enough for you.

    Tony.


    Report this

    211

  • #
    motvikten

    I have made some comments about Africa here on other posts.

    I have suggested that EU and USA climate change policy should be characterized as Informal Imperialism.

    The following is a comment I made at Financial Times.
    http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2014/06/01/indian-power-mr-modi-must-centralise-it/?

    “Nick Butler is a member of the climate change church. He should first of all leave this church and recognize that coal is important to reduce poverty, not only in China and India, but also in SS Africa, where there was an IMF conference 29-30 May.

    From he keynote address by Christine Lagarde:

    First, build infrastructure—energy, roads, and technology grids. These are the foundations of any strong and durable edifice.

    What does this mean in practice? Closing Africa’s infrastructure gap.

    Over the past three decades, per capita output of electricity in Sub-Saharan Africa remained virtually flat. Only 16 percent of all roads are paved, compared with 58 percent in South Asia. These shortfalls represent huge costs to businesses—and to people.”


    Report this

    40

  • #
  • #
    Ian George

    Climate scientist have often whinged about attacks on them. However, they still have their jobs, while they religiously get rid of any scientists that challenge the mantra.
    Caleb Rossiter joins an ever growing list of those that have been ‘outed’, for example:

    Dr Trevor McDougal – oceanographer (‘let go by CSIRO’);
    Dr Mitchell Taylor – polar bear expert (not wanted by the IPCC);
    Lennart Bengtsson – climatologist (isolated because of move to Global Warming Policy Foundation);
    Professor Murry Salby -atmospheric scientist terminated by Macquarie University;
    Professor Bob Carter – palaeontologist and marine geologist, terminated from James Cook University.

    How many more examples of ‘outing’ incidents will it take until all other scientists just clam up? Then they might have their 97% consensus.


    Report this

    60

    • #

      LB retains his post at Reading. He never “moved to” the GWPF (or at least, not in his version of the story).
      MS believes totally wacky things about CO2 (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/11/09/thrust/). Why would anyone employ him to teach science?
      TMcD, MT – never heard of them. Am I supposed to care?
      Professor Bob Carter – no such person. There’s a Bob Carter, but he’s not a prof, obviously.


      Report this

      014

      • #
        vic g gallus

        William Connolley, an IT tech that f***d up basic arithmetic in his sole note that was still published in a peer-reviewed journal because it was proAGW.

        You have no shame.


        Report this

        61

        • #

          Its pretty hard to know what you mean by that, other than “generic insult”. I have a number of publications, so your “sole note” is wrong. Google scholar will tell you this, if you bother to check. If you’re talking about the JPO thing: that was neither pro or anti AGW; it just corrected an error.

          > You have no shame.

          It seems to me that *you* have no shame: you fling random insults around to no obvious purpose, other than, perhaps, to try to make this forum more unpleasant. Why would you do that?


          Report this

          03

          • #
            vic g gallus

            You gave me a reference for your academic credibility. It was one note that had flaw at the very beginning that was so bad it would have caused a lot of grief in another field.

            You dissed people better than you. Much better than you. Do you need everything explained to you like a child. I would not have brought it up except for your 13 y.o. girl behaviour.


            Report this

            10

            • #
              the Griss

              The WC lost any academic credibility it might once have had, on the day he decide he was God on Wikipedia and was free to edit items he had basically zero understanding of.

              The WC has ZERO credibility.


              Report this

              10

      • #
        vic g gallus

        And Bob Carter was a professor – its in Wikipedia.


        Report this

        60

        • #

          He was. But he isn’t any more. So calling him a prof is wrong. Ditto Salby. You people have an odd attitude to academia and titles: when it suits you, you diss the pillars like peer review. But when you want to puff people you think you can claim, you give them false titles.


          Report this

          04

          • #
            vic g gallus

            Actually, calling someone professor after retirement is polite, even if not granted the title of Emeritus Professor. He was a professor when he retired. His position as adjunct professor was not renewed while his title was still Professor. You were being disrespectful for no good reason.

            You dissed someone who has clearly contributed more to society than yourself. Sorry, but jumping on the Global Warming band wagon will not change that.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Mark D.

            But when you want to puff people you think you can claim, you give them false titles.

            It’s not a “false” title. It is perhaps an out of date title. You seem to be motivated to want the title removed so that a casual observer would not be aware of their esteemed career.

            Now Connolley, which of these is more dishonorable?


            Report this

            10

      • #
        the Griss

        So, The WV, you didn’t understand Salby’s work..

        That’s not at all unsurprising.

        Your knowledge base is pretty woeful, after all.

        And no, I am NOT going to your putrid little site….

        … the very fact that you say, quote, “wacky things”, shows conclusively that you do not understand.


        Report this

        61

      • #
        Ian George

        William
        Just to bring you up to speed.
        ‘Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.’
        ‘Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.
        Dr Mitchell Taylor (leading oceanographer who was one of the lead authors/contributors on the IPCC)
        http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/csiro-management-culture-condemned-20120105-1uctw.html


        Report this

        60

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Apostasy? What apostasy? It’s called honesty. You know, that thing that separates liars from the rest of us because they don’t have it.

    I suspect he’ll be vilified and then vilified again. But in the end he’ll find something more useful to do than be a fellow at some organization that condones lying.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      There are no end of groups hanging around the periphery of the climate change debate like a bunch of barnacles on a boat, doing nothing useful and causing eventual trouble. I have often wondered if they even begin to understand the position they’re pushing. It looks like,

      Me-too. I want on the bandwagon.

      a lot more than understanding.

      When after a decade of examining the data and being unable to find anything that distinguishes the global warming claims from normal weather, someone with Caleb Rossiter’s credentials smells dead barnacles, I would sit up and take notice.

      Wouldn’t you do the same?


      Report this

      40

  • #
    ROM

    Well Caleb Rossiter is now having his say and it’s pretty devastating to the hard left elitist environmental destroyers of progress and lives which although unmentioned in rRssiter’s article, includes the Institute for Policy Studies

    In the context of this following article one should look again at Tony’s figures on electricity production in parts of Africa in his post @ #23.

    And contemplate for yourself what it would mean for your own personal existence to have to live in that African situation knowing that there were powerful and very wealthy elitist western environmental organisations working and scheming to prevent you from ever getting any of the luxuries of cheap and always on energy that they constantly wallow in themselves . For if you were to also enjoy the luxuries of the energy they take for granted, it might damage that mysterious, found only in elitist’s environmental wet dreams, that never fully defined and semi holy “The Environment”.
    And for that holy of holies of the elitist green organisations” The Environment” your hopes and dreams and future as a human being will be sacrificed on the altar of the western elite environmentalism.
    .

    From the Wall Street Journal via the GWPF;

    CALEB S. ROSSITER: SACRIFICING AFRICA FOR CLIMATE
    CHANGE

    [selected quotes ]

    Every year environmental groups celebrate a night when institutions in developed countries (including my own university) turn off their lights as a protest against fossil fuels. They say their goal is to get America and Europe to look from space like Africa: dark, because of minimal energy use.

    But that is the opposite of what’s desired by Africans I know. They want Africa at night to look like the developed world, with lights in every little village and with healthy people, living longer lives, sitting by those lights. Real years added to real lives should trump the minimal impact that African carbon emissions could have on a theoretical catastrophe.
    &

    The left wants to stop industrialization–even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false. John Feffer, my colleague at the Institute for Policy Studies, wrote in the Dec. 8, 2009, Huffington Post that “even if the mercury weren’t rising” we should bring “the developing world into the postindustrial age in a sustainable manner.” He sees the “climate crisis [as] precisely the giant lever with which we can, following Archimedes, move the world in a greener, more equitable direction.”

    I started to suspect that the climate-change data were dubious a decade ago while teaching statistics. Computer models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine the cause of the six-tenths of one degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperature from 1980 to 2000 could not statistically separate fossil-fueled and natural trends.

    Then, as now, the computer models simply built in the assumption that fossil fuels are the culprit when temperatures rise, even though a similar warming took place from 1900 to 1940, before fossil fuels could have caused it. The IPCC also claims that the warming, whatever its cause, has slightly increased the length of droughts, the frequency of floods, the intensity of storms, and the rising of sea levels, projecting that these impacts will accelerate disastrously. Yet even the IPCC acknowledges that the average global temperature today remains unchanged since 2000, and did not rise one degree as the models predicted.

    But it is as an Africanist, rather than a statistician, that I object most strongly to “climate justice.” Where is the justice for Africans when universities divest from energy companies and thus weaken their ability to explore for resources in Africa? Where is the justice when the U.S. discourages World Bank funding for electricity-generation projects in Africa that involve fossil fuels, and when the European Union places a “global warming” tax on cargo flights importing perishable African goods? Even if the wildest claims about the current impact of fossil fuels on the environment and the models predicting the future impact all prove true and accurate, Africa should be exempted from global restraints as it seeks to modernize.

    With 15% of the world’s people, Africa produces less than 5% of carbon-dioxide emissions. With 4% of global population, America produces 25% of these emissions. In other words, each American accounts for 20 times the emissions of each African. We are not rationing our electricity. Why should Africa, which needs electricity for the sort of income-producing enterprises and infrastructure that help improve life expectancy? The average in Africa is 59 years–in America it’s 79. Increased access to electricity was crucial in China’s growth, which raised life expectancy to 75 today from 59 in 1968.

    According to the World Bank, 24% of Africans have access to electricity and the typical business loses power for 56 days each year. Faced with unreliable power, businesses turn to diesel generators, which are three times as expensive as the electricity grid. Diesel also produces black soot, a respiratory health hazard. By comparison, bringing more-reliable electricity to more Africans would power the cleaning of water in villages, where much of the population still lives, and replace wood and dung fires as the source of heat and lighting in shacks and huts, removing major sources of disease and death. In the cities, reliable electricity would encourage businesses to invest and reinvest rather than send their profits abroad.

    [ more ]


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Barbara Streisand strikes again.
      How many people might have been exposed to WSJ op-ed if the green junkies had zipped it? A few.
      Now that it’s a story that is widely distributed, how many will read it?
      Quite a few. And they are all going to say “This bloke makes a lot of sense. Greenp*ss and the WWF can go fly a kite.”


      Report this

      30

  • #
    john robertson

    As the cult implodes, expect many more honest comments like Rossiter’s to resonate.
    The anti humanist sentiments and vile hatred inherent in the Cult of Calamitous Climate will become ever more exposed.
    The deliberate destruction of Africas hopes and dreams is Eugenics reborn.
    The CAGW typical believer is the smug, self righteous do-gooder, sure they know better than Africans how they might live.
    That people in Africa might desire reliable electricity and all that, that boon brings, refrigeration, clean water, reliable communications…
    What we call civilization….To the C.C.C types, it is inconceivable.
    That people might want a better life for their children.
    When the costs, the deaths and the destruction caused by this wave of mass hysteria are totalled up and sink into the average taxpayers psyche, the identified members of “The Cause” may be lucky to keep their lives.
    Nuremberg;”I was just following orders” will once again be no defence.


    Report this

    30

  • #

    Australia currently generates 230TWH of electrical power each year for consumption. Australia has a population of almost 23 Million people.

    The whole of Africa generates 665TWH. Africa has a population of 1.111 Billion people.

    Africa is made up of 56 Countries.

    Okay then, let’s take out just the THREE largest power generating Countries in Africa.

    South Africa – 243TWH – Population 50 Million
    Egypt – 150TWH – Population 81 Million
    Algeria 47TWH – Population 40 Million.

    Now, taking those three Countries generation out of the total power generation leaves us with 225TWH, which is around the total power generation here in Australia.

    So, the same total we generate here in Oz for 23 Million is being generated across 53 Countries in Africa for ….. 940 Million people, a ratio of almost 41:1.

    And here we are in the already Developed World denying all those people access to power that will assist in dragging them out of the most abject poverty.

    Now, admitted this was taken from a survey in 2007, quoted in toto at Wikipedia at this link, but read this last line, where it says this: (My Bolding)

    68.6% think it appropriate for developed countries to demand restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from developing countries.

    Obviously, there are still plenty of people who STILL think this way.

    Tony.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    sophocles

    IPS = Institute for Phallicy Studies …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ROM

    The Hockey Schtick web site concntrates on the newest climate related science and is always a good read and a good source of science based information.

    The first three current articles are all of very considerable interest with a long article by Caleb Rossiter, the figure at the centre of this Jo’s headline post

    1 / The Debate is finally over on “Global Warming” – Because Alarmists Won’t Debate by Caleb Rossiter in which Rossiter vents his spleen against the catastrophists of the global warming cult
    ________________________.

    2 / The second article is highly relevant in view of Jo’s following post and David Evans new paper and research which I gather has a considerable degree of solar influence included as one of the main drivers of the global climate and the manner in which it changes, shifts and evolves and changes.

    It is a paper by Prof Ole Humlun who runs the very good Climate4you site.
    Ole Humlum shows that there is an 11 year delay between the changes in the length of the solar cycle and the changes in temperatures in some locations at least in Europe.
    From the length of the previous long cycle 23 he is predicting a cooling of as much as 1C between 2009 and 2020 for Europe and perhaps most of the northern hemisphere.

    [ quoted from the conclusions.]
    Our forecast indicates an annual average temperature drop of 0.9 °C in the Northern Hemisphere during solar cycle 24. For the measuring stations south of 75N, the temperature decline is of the order 1.0–1.8 °C and may already have already started. For Svalbard a temperature decline of 3.5 °C is forecasted in solar cycle 24 for the yearly average temperature. An even higher temperature drop is forecasted in the winter months
    [ / ]
    ________________________.

    3 / The real reason for this post lays in the third paper. And it is highly relevant to Tony’s post immediately above at # 30

    Dreaming the Impossible Green Dream: 108,000 square miles of wind turbines per year

    [quoted]
    Mr. [ Bill ] McKibben is among the world’s most famous environmentalists. He’s written or edited 15 books and been awarded honorary degrees from 18 colleges and universities. He is also the founder of 350.org, whose goal is to reduce atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels to 350 parts per million from the current level of about 400 parts per million. To achieve that goal, he’s written that “we need to cut our fossil fuel use by a factor of twenty over the next few decades.”

    But what are the actual implications of cutting fossil fuels 20-fold? Let’s “do the math,” as Mr. McKibben is fond of saying.

    Global hydrocarbon consumption is now about 218 million barrels of oil equivalent energy a day, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, which includes 83 million barrels of oil as well as about 75 million barrels of oil equivalent from coal and about 60 million barrels of oil equivalent from natural gas.
    Reducing that by a factor of 20 would cut global hydrocarbon use to the energy equivalent of 11 million barrels of oil a day, roughly the amount of energy now consumed by India, where 400 million people lack access to electricity.

    In 2012, the average resident of planet Earth consumed about 1.3 gallons of oil-equivalent energy a day from hydrocarbons. If Mr. McKibben’s plan were enacted—and we shared those available hydrocarbons equally—-each of us would be allotted about eight fluid ounces of oil-equivalent energy from hydrocarbons a day. Today, the average resident of Bangladesh uses about half a liter of oil equivalent—slightly less than 17 ounces—a day. Under Mr. McKibben’s prescription, the average Bangladeshi would be required to cut his hydrocarbon use by about half.

    Like many others among the green left, Mr. McKibben insists that the prospect of catastrophic climate change means we must rely solely on renewable energy (and no nuclear power, either). What would that mean? Again, let’s “do the math.” And to keep it simple, let’s ignore oil (even though it accounts for about a third of all energy consumption) and focus solely on electricity.

    Over the past three decades, according to the BP Review, global electricity demand has been growing by about 450 terawatt-hours a year. And the International Energy Agency expects power demand will continue growing by about that pace for the next two decades.

    What would be required if we relied on solar energy to keep up with expected growth in electricity demand?

    Let’s look at Germany, which has more solar capacity than any other country, about 33,000 megawatts. [ comment; plated capacity ? not generating capacity in real on ground conditions ] In 2012 those solar facilities produced 28 terawatt-hours of electricity.
    Thus the world would have to install about 16 times as much photovoltaic capacity as Germany’s entire installed base, and it would have to do so every year.

    Wind? Merely to keep pace with the global growth in electricity demand would require the installation of about 280,000 megawatts of new wind-energy capacity every year.
    According to several academic studies, the areal power density of wind energy—that is, the amount of power that can be derived from a given amount of land—is about one watt per square meter. This means that installing the requisite additional wind capacity would require covering about 280,000 square kilometers (108,000 square miles of land)—an area nearly the size of Italy—[ Victoria has an area of 227,000 kms ] with wind turbines, every year.
    [ more ]


    Report this

    10

    • #
      ROM

      Addendum;
      If we followed McKibbens dictate that the Earth has to go entirely to renewable energy ,

      @ 280,000 square kilometres per year increase in the area needed to build each year’s quota of turbines on to keep up with constantly increasing global electrical power requirements, it would take just 27.5 years to cover the entire 7,692,000 sq kilometres of our Australian continent with wind turbines.

      You simply have to shake your head in total awe at the utter rank stupidity of somebody, a rabid green to boot who calls himself “The Science guy”.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        sophocles

        But just think of the electricity you could export!

        Yeah, right.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        @ 280,000 square kilometres per year increase in the area needed to build each year’s quota of turbines on to keep up with constantly increasing global electrical power requirements,

        The problem with your analysis is that McKibben et. al. are not looking to keep up with energy demands, but to eliminate capacity and people.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    [...] It’s climate apostasy again: Institute for Policy Studies terminates skeptic who cares about A… (joannenova.com.au) [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kim

    Yesterday at six o’clock
    I went to Senna Square.
    =============


    Report this

    00