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

Myths about Myths of the climate change debate (as made by the Sydney Morning Herald)

Looking for some mythical myths?

Sydney Morning Herald/Age serves their subscribers up a few. Apart from “Myth 1″ below, Adam Morton avoids answering the most important points skeptics are making, but offers up some secondary bit and pieces. He supplies vague wordy answers announcing definitive conclusions based on irrelevant, motherhood type reasoning, non-sequiteurs, and little research: it’s just what we’ve come to expect from a Fairfax “investigation”.

“Myth 1″: The new climate target will be difficult to meet

Adam’s has four arguments (3 irrelevant, 1 wrong) to convince us it will be easy. I’ve paraphrased the wordy stuff. His arguments are so weak, the marvel here is that our national conversation is so irrational. “Not even trying” as they say.

Lo, behold, it will be “easy” to cut our carbon emissions by 26%, because:

1. The last small target we set for 2020 of a “5%” cut was less than other countries are achieving.

Jo says: There’s a reason our target was smaller.  Australia’s population is growing faster (proportionally), our distances are larger, population density smaller, our largest export earner is “coal”, and some of our other exports have “energy” built in (so the carbon emissions occur in Australia for goods consumed elsewhere, e.g. aluminum). In any case, how does meeting a 5% target suddenly make a 25% target “easy”? We bankrupted farmers to achieve it, and most of those other countries won’t meet their targets.

2. The leap to 25% is really only a leap to 22% if you consider that the baseline years changed.

Jo says: So 25% is not much bigger than 5% (his first point), but 22% is significantly smaller than 25%?  Not only is that not worth mentioning, and contradictory, it’s probably neutralized (and then some) by population growth. Our population has grown 38% since 1990.

3.  Bernie Fraser says that we sort of committed to the 25% target in a subclause to the UN year ago, and “several analyses” reckon that clause was met.

Jo says: So an unrealistic target set yet ago which was never seriously attempted (because it depended on other countries “doing stuff” which they mostly didn’t do) could be said to have been a real target by some analysts in some circumstances, and is not much different to the new commitment. And this makes the reality of 25% “easy” how?

4. Recent evidence says it will be “easier than most people appreciate” because our emissions stopped increasing anyway, manufacturing declined, and people put lots of solar on their roofs.

Jo says: Manufacturing declined. We make less stuff to use and sell, how is that “good”?

Solar had little to do with the decline in emissions. Per capita most of our cuts in emissions came from locking up farmland and stopping land clearing. (That’s 20% of the 28% per capita fall in Australian emissions since 1990.)

5. An activist group called Climate Works says we could cut emissions by 50% by 2030 “easily” and grow the economy too.

Jo says:”Great” — so if existing technology is that good, who needs carbon markets, reduction schemes and legislation? Answer: existing technology is wildly expensive, inefficient, and high maintenance, so no one would use it if government didn’t force them to.

“Myth 2″: Australia is cutting per capita emissions faster than anyone else

His first argument is that this myth might be true, but we’d still have the highest emissions per capita anyhow. (As if we know what 2030 emissions/population will be). When is a myth a myth, and when it is it just clickbait junk journalism?

Adam says this is a myth because other countries (that didn’t meet their last promises) have higher promises for 2030. Notably, to answer his point about “per capita” emissions, for most of his column space, Adams dumps the “per capita” part and just looks at numbers per country. In any case, those other countries are promising things, but cutting their green schemes: The UK is chopping those renewable subsidies, the EU carbon market is only kept alive by government rescue packages. Germany gave up on its renewable target.

It’s all a carbon accounting game anyway.  Australia has a high per capita emissions because we export a lot of energy-intensive goods like aluminum. Those emissions get counted “here” but used overseas. If we changed the carbon accounting to reflect where the product is used, the statistics look very different. If we don’t make it, someone else will. We could lower “our” emissions by exporting these industries (e.g moving aluminum smelters to say the Philippines), but it doesn’t do the planet a whit of goods.

“Myth 3″: Australia is doing more than China [to reduce CO2]

Sure. China burns 46% of global coal production and is planning more coal fired plants than any other country. They are doing “a lot” — see it here on this map from the World Resources Institute. China increases it’s emissions by more than Australia’s total production each year. It is only planning to slow its growth rate when its population rate is also projected to slow (around 2030).
Global planned coal fired plants, China, India, Map,

China is doing a lot to cut emissions? That’s what 500,000 new MW of coal power means for carbon activists….

Notice the vertical line here and the phenomenal rise of Chinese coal use after 2001? Tell yourself that China is reducing emissions. Repeat. Stare at the orange blob. Drink Vodka.*

...

“Myth 4″ Electricity prices won’t go up

Finally Adam gets on the right side of reality, for a sentence. Electricity prices will rise. This is what has to happen if we are to control world temperatures through our power plants. The point skeptics make is that it isn’t worth the price.  Adam says, innumerately, that arguing purely on the grounds that “prices will rise” is like denying there is a problem. Jo says: arguing about national policy on a yes: no basis is like talking to a three year old. “How much will it cost?” Adamikins says “yes”.

Australia produces 1.3% of global human emissions. We spent $15 billion to reduce global emissions by 0.004%. We changed the global climate by 0.0C. How much will it cost to cool the world? An obscene, eye-watering, ridiculous amount. The world bank has visions of $89 Trillion, but even they won’t say how many degrees of cooling this will buy us.

“Myth 5″: Coal plants have a healthy future

There are a thousand new coal fired plants in the planning stage. Sounds healthy to me. See the answer to “Myth 3″. The only threat to coal is if they world goes nuclear. (The Greens are doing all they can to protect coal from that.)

“Myth 6″: Australian coal can lift 100 million poor Indians out of poverty

Adam has exactly zero numbers to suggest why this is not so. Instead it’s wrong, apparently, because it doesn’t take into account the “health and social costs” of coal done by groups that use broken climate models to predict fantasy trends, and also pretend (despite the evidence) that warming kills more people than cold does.  Studies on 74 million people show cold kills 20 times more people. It’s lucky cheap coal can keep houses warm so efficiently. It can not just lift Indians out of poverty, it can save their lives in winter as well.

If Co2 had much warming effect it would be a good thing.

“Myth 7″: Lowest cost is always the answer

See if you can figure out Adam’s point. He says: “…if Australia is paying for the cheapest cuts only, there will be nothing to transform the economy”. I think he is arguing that even if we cut carbon the cheapest way possible, that is “good” but not enough. He says (with God-like omniscience) we also have to “replace energy infrastructure” and “change transport and agriculture” and that “… won’t happen with a low international carbon price alone.” Right, so we must use the deeply flawed, fake free-market to make carbon reduction cheap, then, because he knows that won’t work to actually change “infrastructure” (like a real free market does every day) we need government regulation on top of the government-regulated failure of a market. The answer is always more state control.

Tell us Adam, how is funneling money to Chinese solar panel manufacturers to produce ineffective solar panels going to produce an effective, competitive, solar panel? It will only happen if the profits for the Chinese manufacturers are so large they use a tiny slice of them to spend on research. If our aim is to make a solar panel that sells without a subsidy, isn’t it about 200 times more efficient to just spend the money on research ourselves? Then we own the patents too. Cheaper, faster, better for us.

Or could it be that the real aim is not “better” panels or CO2 reduction, but really to create a large pool of people with a vested interest in the grand climate campaign? People on the solar panel gravy train will defend, lobby and vote for solar subsidies and the man-made climate crisis because they cream some money off it.

The pointlessness of “solar” discovery by funding bad versions on houses fits the second theory, not the first. But hey, what’s empirical evidence against a motherhood-feels-good idea?

“Myth 8″: There is a plan to meet Australia’s target

There are a thousand plans and there are no plans. It’s all hope and change. The Abbott government is doing the cheapest thing possible (which is still mostly a waste of money). The Labor government want to change the whole economy in a grand scheme, despite energy use being inelastic, and most of the players not changing behaviour unless the price gets exorbitant. A forced market is a fixed market. A forced payment is a tax, even if your economic ignorance is so complete you think it’s OK to call it “free”.

——————

*Vodka? There is a Chinese type, and it’s the most consumed distilled spirit in the world according to an unreferenced line in wikipedia. :-) .

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (72 votes cast)
Myths about Myths of the climate change debate (as made by the Sydney Morning Herald), 9.7 out of 10 based on 72 ratings

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

122 comments to Myths about Myths of the climate change debate (as made by the Sydney Morning Herald)

  • #
    TedM

    And why would we bother to do it at all particularly as significant cooling appears to be in our almost immediate future.

    https://youtu.be/w4hbKF5-qUE

    I did post this on weekend unthreaded as well, but hope more people will get to watch it and comment.

    252

    • #
      sophocles

      But thats All The More Reason to rush everything in. It’s got to be completed and in place before the cold arrives. Then, when it does arrive, it can be pointed at and the economic train wreck declared A Low Carbon, World Saving Success.

      Carbon reduction works! See? Global Temperature has been reduced! See? We’ve Saved The World!(tm). See? We’ve gotta Do More [damage].

      110

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        You can always tell when an article is “you WILL believe this” propaganda – they never allow comments for it.

        In a regional F******* rag I know of, they greatly curtailed the environmental editorial eco-propaganda after I spent a lot of time refuting their nonsense….they wheeled out a few die hards, but once you dig in and show them youre not going away, they go quiet.

        Its worth “patrolling” regional papers as well, as they will try every avenue to push the nonsense.

        The pressure seems to be really cranking up now – its a point of no return for both sides…

        100

      • #
        Angry

        When the cold arrives and electricity is unreliable and unaffordable thanks to the policies of the global warming scam, then the mass extermination of humans will begin, which is exactly the goal of these global warming nuts since they see human beings as nothing more than parasites on the face of the Earth (except themselves of course !).

        112

      • #
        gnome

        Boy are you optimistic. When the cold weather comes it will be because of all the cahhhbon we have put into the atmosphere blocking out the sun, and we need to deindustrialise to save the planet.

        50

    • #

      Global cooling won’t happen: solar fluctuations just don’t affect climate that much.

      If you are living in the Eastern states better make sure your a/cs work well, your garden is prepared for a hot dry summer:

      http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/08/climate-change-set-to-fuel-more-monster-el-ni%C3%B1os,-scientists-warn/?utm_content=buffer97177&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

      1997/8 will be nothing compared to what is coming.

      123

      • #
        James Murphy

        It’s ok, wind power will ensure that everyone has ample electricity at times of peak demand…oh wait…

        I’m also wondering about your claim that “1997/8 will be nothing compared to what is coming”, because the article doesn’t go that far, so I am curious as to how you derive such certainty from what was said. Maybe you can explain your inside knowledge to us all?

        According to the article:
        “…many are speculating it could rival the record-breaking El Niño in 1997/8…” – doesnt seem like a big difference.
        and
        “…How El Niño and La Niña events might change in response to climate change is one of the most compelling questions in today’s climate research…” – so, no one really knows what will happen, except you, apparently.
        and
        “…We’ve learned a lot but it continues to surprise us. Nature has a way of humbling you when you assume you know more than you do…” again, only you seem certain about the future…but I imagine you cannot tell us why that is?

        150

      • #
        tom0mason

        Mystic Maxine can see the future!
        Woe, woe, and thrice woe!
        Running about like a dog with two tails predicting a great drought to follow with the evidence from another magic video. That’s hardly science Mystic Maxine.

        At least this time you’re on topic by propagating your myths of understanding the subject of this thread.

        Enjoy!

        91

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘Global cooling won’t happen: solar fluctuations just don’t affect climate that much.’

        That is debatable and highly contentious, but we should know the answer in a couple of years.

        In the meantime Lloyds has raised a warning flag on food security, just in case there is a spike like 1878.

        http://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insight/risk-insight/library/society-and-security/food-system-shock

        30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I see you have been to the pooch parlor, Maxine. I am sorry, but I am not sure that the result is an improvement. I think I preferred it, when you were more fluffy-looking.

        As for your comment, have you not heard of the eleven year solar cycle, that is well known to electrical engineers who are responsible for long range radio communications.

        You see long range radio communications are susceptible to the eleven year variations in cosmic particles, emitted by the sun, which raise and lower the ionosphere. These cosmic particles are the same as those that act as nuclei for the formation of water vapour, lower down in the atmosphere.

        So it is quite wrong to say that, “solar fluctuations just don’t affect climate that much”.

        60

    • #
      mem

      I watched the video link you posted. Many thanks for doing so. Apart from the intro it seemed well presented with nearly every point backed with facts. Of course some will argue that the facts are lies. Certainly there is much to think about. Are there any reviews of the video done by scientists? Perhaps someone might sweet talk Jo into organising a review? I would like to forward it to others but need guidance as to its strengths and weaknesses first.
      Cheers and thanks for letting me participate from time to time.

      42

  • #
    TedM

    Of course that cooling will be pre temperature homogenisation.

    192

  • #
    Dave

    .

    Amazing how simple it is to go to 50% emissions cut?

    5. An activist group called Climate Works says we could cut emissions by 50% by 2030 “easily” and grow the economy too.

    Like the UK WIND?
    They have 13,000 MW of installed wind onshore & offshore!

    It’s cost BILLIONS $’s

    And the last week, virtually lucky to get above 500 MW
    Most days around 100 MW

    Less than 1% capacity?

    Lucky it’s summer, and everyone is still cold!

    Adam Morton is Deputy Editor of The Sunday Age as well?

    I’ve asked him to come here & answer some questions!

    311

    • #
      Rick Bradford

      Climate Works is edging towards the recent mantram that “taking urgent action on climate change is good for the country that does it.”

      To which my answer is “great”, then who needs these massive gabfests such as COP22 in Paris this December with its 50,000 participants? Cancel it.

      Just let every country just get on with their own “urgent action”, seeing as it’s been proved to be so good for them.

      160

      • #
        Mike

        Greece, the home of myths and legends, is a good example of what taking urgent action can achieve. It leads the world in carbon emission reduction and is hardly ever given a mention. A silent achiever.

        90

        • #
          tom0mason

          Mike,
          Greece preceded by Cyprus, with the seashore at Paphos, where it is said was the birthplace of beautiful Aphrodite, also known as Kýpria.

          These days the new EU myth-makers have told the Cyprus government to privatize the power generation market as a precondition of joining the EU’s mythical common market (aka European Banking cartel Union ).
          In this land of ancient myths, conficts, and stories, will Cypriots be gullable to swallow yet more of the new EU myth-maker tales? Time will tell.

          30

          • #
            Mike

            Gday tomOmason

            The oil rig count has gone from 1600 oil rigs one year ago to 672 oil rigs in just one year (-57%). The Baltic dry index used as an indicator of coal consumption also in dramatic decline.

            -57% reduction in oil rigs is humongous. Countries undergoing intense austerity like Greece etc are not getting gold stars for helping collapse the demand for oil/gas/coal.

            Mulla Nassr Eddin: “This is the highest punishment: pull at the tail the mane gets stuck, pull at the mane and the tail gets stuck.”

            00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          The Greeks would broadcast their success over every available media channel, if they could only afford to pay for the electricity.

          50

  • #
    Neville

    But there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about the warming over the last 165 years. End of story.
    This link to the Lloyd study shows that the average deviation per century in temp over the last 8,000 years was 1 degree c. The graphs are drawn from 2 Greenland cores and the 2 Antarctic cores. All end at 1950. Only one Greenland core covers the full 8,000 years and the other the last 4,000 years.

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/276276180_An_Estimate_of_The_Centennial_Variability_of_Global_Temperatures

    And the warming from the IPCC’s preferred data set ( HAD 4) only shows 0.8c since 1850 or last 165 years. So over that time during a warming period you would think the temp increase could be 1.65c? So where is there room for their CAGW?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/offset/trend

    203

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    What is so obvious here is that the use of Electricity to cook with is far more healthy than what occurs currently.

    A very large and significant percentage of the world’s population do not use electricity but cook on open fires fueled by wood and anything else handy that will burn.

    No pollution control measures just straight out dangerous off gases and particulates which are almost non existent now in western suburbia.

    Countries like Vietnam, which in the last forty years has doubled its population to just over 90 million people, was 80% rural but has obviously brought many users onto the grid since then.

    New Guinea was in the 1960s noting the heavy toll paid by highlanders in heating their dwellings with wood fires. Health issues were sure to keep lifespan way down.

    And then we have China and India and Africa. When all the local timber and grass has run out is the use of dried animal feces for cooking really what the UNIPCCC wants?

    There is something crazy about not stating the obvious.

    Electricity is CLEANER than the alternative.

    KK

    302

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      KK tell it like it really is:

      A very large and significant percentage of the world’s population, outside of Europe and the US, do not use electricity at all, but cook on open fires fueled by, animal dung.

      Been there, done that, seen it for myself.

      40

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        RW

        Have also “been there, done that” up in the hills of PNG (Nuku) where my mate Ignas put me up in his village for three weeks.

        No lack of vegetation there for fires but they had hunted out all wildlife for a good distance around the village.

        I hope that everybody understood that by electricity, I did mean coal fired power. We have come a long way in the last 60 years when it comes to containing the pollution which was previously associated with coal fired power.

        Life is not always the urbane sophisticated picture portrayed on TV and the unpleasant reality for warmers is that, as you point out, the rest of the world puts out a hell of a lot of CO2 and more importantly REAL POLLUTION from just warming and feeding themselves in day to day life.

        KK

        20

  • #
    Keith L

    He is SOOOOO concerned about air quality in the third world that he forgot to mention how burning cow dung in small huts is the main problem for peasants. He forgot to mention that coal powered electricity is the obvious solution.
    So his concern for the third world peasants lasts only as long as the peasant can be used as a weapon against coal. After that, meh.

    291

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Sorry Keith L.

      I didn’t mean to preempt you – I should have read ahead.

      10

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Keith

      What we need is a huge TV programme to show this lifestyle in the nitty gritty together with the percentage of the worlds population that lives like that.

      It may be a big eye opener for most westerners to realise how small a part of he overall energy usage we really are.

      There is no limit to the type of graphics which could be presented to illustrate the point.

      There is something cynical in only using electrical power usage as causing CAGW.

      KK.

      10

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Myth 9: The Sydney Morning Herald / Age have anything useful to contribute to the energy / environment debate.

    482

  • #
    Neville

    Interesting study by Concordia Uni in 2013. They showed the temp attribution for the top 20 countries since the start of the Ind revolution. Here they are with OZ at 19 and showing a massive???? 0.006c over the past 200 years. That’s 6 thousandths of 1c. Here’s the link.
    And of course if you also add in a recovery from the LIA , UHIE and endless data adjusting over that time it really is a super hoot and total BS.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/we_were_only_nineteen/
    BTW I think the top 20 countries make up about 80% of the warming and this list adds up to 0.56c. Sounds about right to me.

    171

    • #
      RB

      An honest estimate of how much of the temperature rise last century (and only last century) could be attributed to fossil fuel use would mean dividing those numbers by 4.

      70

    • #

      That world recognised climate scientist Timmeh Blair.

      ROFLMAO!

      (Does this mean you like Jo’s post,since you could not find anything to dispute) CTS
      [Barrel, scraping, bottom of] Fly

      03

  • #
    ianl8888


    Vodka? There is a Chinese type …

    Called moltai (pronounced molt-eye)

    It is absolute EVIL. Even the vague smell of it from a metre or two away causes my sinuses to go on strike

    I once observed a Chinese mining entrepreneur in Indonesia – he had imported cases of moltai in from mainland China and was able to drink a half-bottle in one sitting from those tiny cups they use. My mind still can’t comprehend that even though I witnessed it for several nights in a row …

    121

    • #
      Oksanna

      You mean Maotai. It comes in a white glass bottle packaged like a 1930s art deco motor oil container. There is a trick to drinking the aeroplane-glue smelling white spirits of China. Breath in, knock back a gulp or indeed the contents of the little glass, then breath out. Never imbibe a little sip, and then breathe in normally. Something I noticed is that the white spirits (Baijiu) of China do not generally give one much of a hangover. Folks get as shattered as a newt, and still wake up perky the next day. Not so for their excellent beers or worse still, their shocking brandies, which can deliver miasmic hangovers. I prefer the rice wine (mijiu 米酒) of South China, but the 高粱酒, gāoliángjiǔ, is readily available in North China very cheaply, and has a very high alcohol content, around 50%, making one crave it in very short order. Love the taste but just refuse to go there. Also, you have to hand it to those hill-tribes folks who brew that Drunkard Wine (Jiugui 酒鬼 brand) in central South China. (Just watch out for the phthalates). Reminds me of the excellent Drunkard Soup of Hungary, Korhelyleves, replete with sauerkraut, bacon bones or ham hocks, onions, chilli powder, sour cream and spicy sausage slices. And you don’t have to be drunk to enjoy it.

      120

  • #

    Australia needs a clever communicator like China has, a guy who remembers to mention all the old coal plants closing and forgets to mention all the new coal plants opening. China’s shill is called Malcolm. Wish he was our shill.

    Of course, we don’t have any new coal plants opening. But just in case we ever did…

    261

    • #
      markx

      China’s new coal plants are some 16% more efficient than Australia’s old coal plants.
      And are probably 200% more efficient than the thousands (millions?) of old and creaky and basic coal fired boilers and solves they should replace.

      I think they may be helping the environment with new coal fired power plants.

      20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Why are all shills called Malcolm? I don’t think I have ever met a shill called anything else. Are all Malcolm’s shills, I wonder?

      Good spot there, mosomoso.

      10

      • #
        gary turner

        Maybe Baghdad Bob? He had his moment in the rocket’s red glare and bombs bursting … well you know.

        gary

        00

  • #
    pat

    Fairfax/IPSOS poll is kind of up on the IPSOS website. is this all there is? hardly. no link to any data. only expenses scandal is Bronywyn Bishop, of course. not surprised. i heard ABC News Radio air a promo for who knows what just yesterday which was all Bishop & the helicopter & how damaging it was. it wasn’t relating to the IPSOS poll though:

    17 Aug: IPSOS: Labor lead increases after ‘Choppergate’ scandal – Fairfax Ipsos Poll
    so-called ‘Choppergate’ scandal, which resulted in Speaker of the House Bronwyn Bishop resign amid allegations of extravagant spending, has seen voters turn away from the Coalition, with Labor benefitting,” Ipsos Director Jessica Elgood said…
    Q.AUG1 Who is your preferred Liberal Party Leader and Prime Minister? ALL…etc
    Among those currently saying they will vote for the Coalition, Tony Abbott is the preferred party leader and Prime Minister, with 33% support.
    NO MENTION OF TURNBULL PERCENT AMONG COALITION VOTERS
    CLIMATE CHANGE SECTION DOES NOT STATE THE QUESTION OR SHOW ANY TABLE
    http://ipsos.com.au/labor-lead-increases-after-choppergate-scandal-fairfax-ipsos-poll/

    101

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Green jobs? A progress report upon how the Californian experiment is working -not.
    http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-california-measure-fails-create-green-jobs-050919689.html.

    170

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      I read where a city converted a bus from diesel to electric and then reclassified the job of driver to a green-job. (Saw that about 4 years ago.) More recently some place added electric motors to diesel buses, adding weight, taking up seating space for the batteries, while costing (I think) about $30,000 each. The things never worked right and were disconnected. (About a year ago for that one.) I’ve wondered if those drivers were/are classified as green?

      80

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      “more than half of the $297 million given to schools so far has gone to consultants and energy auditors.”

      And there gentlemen, you have the whole explanation of why green is being pushed by so many, yet nothing gets achieved.

      130

      • #
        David Maddison

        I was a manager at a school a few years ago (despite being a scientist, long story) and all of a sudden all this Gillard provided taxpayer money came in for energy and water efficiency projects. It was very difficult to spend the money in a genuinely useful way, especially as the school was only paying about 5c per kWh for electricity as part of a bulk purchase contract with other schools. A lot of the money was used to replace ageing flourescent light fittings with new ones with electronic starters even though the old ones were fine however the money could only be spent on certain specified things. There was nothing I could identify as truly economically justifiable but the money had to be spent.

        110

        • #

          Commanded waste; that’s what it is.

          I reckon government spending could easily be halved if budgets were independent of previous allocations and “savings” could be accummulated independently for long-term structural investment.

          50

    • #
      toorightmate

      Just give it time. There will be plenty of jobs:

      Burying people who have frozen to death.
      Shovelling snow in Florida.
      Operating ice breakers in Sydney Harbour.
      Collecting dead fruit and vegetables (frost bite).
      Greasing bearings on wind turbines.
      Polishing solar panels.
      The list is endless.

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    The audio hasn’t been put up yet but this was just one so I am expecting it will within aan hour or so. I nearly vomited listening to this.

    FROM THEIR ABC:

    How to survive climate change

    Monday 17 August 2015 7:15PM (view full episode)

    While some are still debating the science of climate change, others are just getting on with the task of preparing for it.

    The Handbook: Surviving and Living with Climate Change aims to provide practical advice for interested folk.

    Jane Rawson and James Whitmore both have a background in environmental journalism and decided to collate into one handy guide, all that they’ve learned about the impact of climate change.

    They join Patricia Karvelas in The Drawing Room.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/podcasts/how-to-survive-climate-change/6702030

    100

    • #
      Dave

      Just listened to this pair
      My summary
      Useless
      Latte sippers

      Just 2 people I would NEVER EVER want to be stranded with

      Answer – to heatwaves “Put in Air cons!”

      [snip]

      [Name calling gets you into moderation. Please avoid doing it.] AZ

      70

    • #
      David Maddison

      Audio is there now!

      30

    • #
      Rick Will

      Anyone can purchase this valuable tome for a mere $29.95 from 1st September.

      The interview makes me wonder whether this pair has been so thoroughly conned into the belief that the temperature will rise that they are acting genuinely or if they are just riding the gravy train; hoping to make a buck from a popular topic.

      I could do with and extra 6C worth of climate change here in Melbourne today although even an extra 2C on top of the 9C at 1pm today would be nice.

      30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Nobody cares what the talking heads believe or not, as the case may be. They are there to present what the tele-prompter says, and the tele-prompter text is written by somebody who wants to keep their job. End of story.

        00

  • #
    Neville

    It’s interesting to look again at the findings from the 2014 McKitrick et al study of the ballon temp data in the troposphere over the equator from 1958 to 2012.
    All the models show a linear trend, but the REAL world reality shows a nearly flat trend before and after the Pacific warm spike of Dec 1977. Therefore the warming over this 55 year period had nothing to do with increasing co2 emissions, but was a once only jump from the PDO change. So why couldn’t they find a Co2 effect? Here’s their bottom line.

    Bottom Line

    Over the 55-years from 1958 to 2012, climate models not only significantly over-predict observed warming in the tropical troposphere, but they represent it in a fundamentally different way than is observed. Models represent the interval as a smooth upward trend with no step-change. The observations, however, assign all the warming to a single step-change in the late 1970s coinciding with a known event (the Pacific Climate Shift), and identify no significant trend before or after. In my opinion the simplest and most likely interpretation of these results is that climate models, on average, fail to replicate whatever process yielded the step-change in the late 1970s and they significantly overstate the overall atmospheric response to rising CO2 levels.

    And here’s the explanation of the study from Climate Audit.

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/07/24/new-paper-by-mckitrick-and-vogelsang-comparing-models-and-observations-in-the-tropical-troposphere/

    101

  • #
    RoHa

    I am given to understand that the Chinese invented distillation of alcohol, as well as a a system for inspection and licensing of distilleries to make sure the product was fit for human consumption.

    Yet another great contribution to civilization.

    90

    • #
      RoHa

      I will add that it is more accurate to say that vodka is a Russian type of baijiu.

      80

      • #
        Oksanna

        I remember in junior high school we had a Russian classmate Boris (who loved tanks by the way) and together we tried to make vodka. We put the grated potato shreds in flagons and added sugar and water, hid them in the photography dark room. Then later when stuff began to happen, and the pungent yeasty smell was going to give us away we commandeered a neglected science lab, and after several hours of distilling produced a cup of the clear stuff – just a cup. A cup of memories.

        80

  • #
    Another Ian

    This probably would annoy the SMH but I doubt that they’d look at Chiefio’s site

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/the-unimportance-of-land-to-farming/#comments

    But note it needs power to be doable

    60

  • #
    David Maddison

    “How the Global Warming Scare Began” https://youtu.be/SyUDGfCNC-k

    61

  • #
    Ceetee

    What’s with Brazil? Are they shy?. So many trees, so much Carbon. Don’t they know that energy grows on trees.

    40

    • #

      They’ve recently commissioned a massive hydropower scheme, flooding large arable, agricultural regions and “jungle”. 1.4 million km² to produce up 14 GW. In theory, they get about 80% of their electricity from hydropower. On paper.

      Unfortunately, periods of drought can cause substantial problems with the supply of electrical power; much more so than with the meagre quantities of water required to operate thermal power plants.

      So it looks like hydroelectric power is just as reliant on Satan’s mercy as is wind power.

      Displaying a glimmer of sanity, Brazil is expanding its domestic nuclear power generation capacity.

      20

  • #
    Ross

    Thanks for the map of the proposed coal fired plants , Jo. It will come in handy to post on other sites to help win the argument.

    40

  • #
    David Maddison

    They treat John Coleman, global warming skeptic and founder of the US Weather Channel, very badly in this interview.

    “CNN Slammed by John Coleman over Climate Change Fraud” https://youtu.be/YQshyqCLYHo

    60

  • #
    • #
      tom0mason

      Richard,

      I have discovered first hand through the art of MC Escher, how ‘climate science’ papers are drafted, and how each country writes evermore restrictive statutes based on them and the UN-IPCC decrees. ««Here»»

      (Somehow it look familiar) :)

      00

  • #
    King Geo

    The Warmist’s Propaganda is based on myths, myths & more myths.

    Their modus of operandi lacks real scientific input e.g. they are incapable of changing the “Y” for an “A” by applying maths, maths & more maths. Put simply the Warmist’s Propaganda doesn’t stand up to Mathematical Scrutiny and for that matter any other forms of Scientific Due Diligence.

    91

  • #
    Ceetee

    You’re saying they suffer from an “SDD”.

    40

  • #
    ROM

    Lets do a few sums and somebody can check these figures if they like to.

    Ref; http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=15

    Australia’s annual tonnage emission of CO2 = 373 million tonnes

    The sydney Morning Heralds Adam Morton’s proposed and claimed as an absolute minimum reduction of 25% of Australia’s emissions of CO2 = 93.25 million tonnes
    ——————
    Australia’s population = about 22.3 million

    Australia’s emissions per per capita = 16.5 tonnes.

    Number of voters @ Australia’s 2013 election = 13.726 million

    Eligible voting age population = 17 million.

    Green vote = 1.117 million = 8.6 % of the primary votes.

    Assuming Greens have dependents and using their voting percentage as a percentage of the total population;

    Greens plus dependents @ 8.6 % of the total population ;= 1.92 million.

    1.92 million greens inc. dependents @ 16.5 tonnes emissions per capita = total emissions from greens voters & dependents= 32 million tonnes.

    —————–

    If the greens and their dependents gave up ALL, every single watt of electricity including solar and turbines as they both take lots of fossil fueled energy to produce, transport and maintain, they gave up ALL fossil fuel powered vehicles, ALL lighting, ALL heating other than wood and dung fires, ALL electronic and paper [ ie; processed timber ] based communications, ALL transport of any nature, ALL health services, ALL sealed and gravelled road use and stuck to and just walked on dirt tracks and trails. grew ALL their own food without exception, made or bought only hand made clothing from the fibre off animals that fed on native pastures without any fertilizers or sprays or fossil fueled harvesting involved, built their houses entirely out of hand milled timber they bought or milled themselves with stone axes, no steel axes or steel knives as that uses fossil fueled energy and produces CO2 in the process to produce the steel plus only using stone or wattle and daub, no glass as that is energy intensive to produce plus forsook every other modern accroutrement of our civilisation.

    If they, the greens and CAGW pushers and pimps did ALL of this plus much more, the entire cohort of Greens voters here in Australia would by demonstrating their total commitment to the reduction of Australia’s CO2 green house emissions by giving up ALL, that is each and every one of those items I listed above plus many CO2 emmitting items, they then collectively would save a magnificent 33 million tonnes of annual CO2 emissions out of the total annual emissions of 373 million tonnes .

    That is they would save about a third of that 93 million tonnes, that 25% of CO2 emission savings that will be so easy to achieve as the opinion writer Adam Morton in the Sydney Morning Herald is claiming is so easy to do and to save.

    Maybe somebody should ask Adam Morton that rather than allowing any doubt to intrude upon his integrity and commitment to the Cause, he personally along with his family and dependents should show his commitment to the CAUSE by being prepared along with his fellow believers in the dangers of global warming and fossil fuels, to give up and totally forsake every single item that is a product of those evil fossil fuels somewhere in its production, transport and use or consumption as I have listed above.

    By doing so along with all the other greens voters he would be saving a third, about 32 million tonnes of those 93 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, that 25% of Australia’s total emissions of 373 million tonnes that he, Adam Morton claims is neccessary for Australia to save to help SAVE the PLANET.

    Meanwhile the rest of us could just get on with our lives using those marvelous life saving and life giving fossil fuels and without a whole herd of interfering hypocritical ignorant busybody greens telling everybody else how they should be living.

    Adam Morton, the Sydney Morning Herald editorial staff and all their fellow greens and planet savers could go away and quietly rot and die an early, often nasty and miserable death along with the billions who still do, as did the those of a time before fossil fuels were readily accessible and cheap enough to benefit so immensely, the common man, his woman and his family.

    150

    • #

      Checking the numbers as suggested

      According to Australian National Greenhouse Accounts for 2013 total emissions MT CO2e was 538 MT with electricity generation contributing less than 200 MT.

      The remaining emissions +/- 338 MT include stationary energy, transport, fugitive emissions from fuel, industrial processes, agriculture, waste and land use.

      Any reductions will have to be made to all sectors not just electricity generation.

      80

      • #
        ianl8888


        … fugitive emissions …

        Another silly phrase, I’m afraid

        What are such emissions actually running away from ?

        It’s this sort of “framing of the dialogue” that pushes the propaganda along

        50

        • #
          ROM

          A few points about my post at # 24

          1/ First and foremost; Very few observations of CO2 and other greenhouse emissions have actually been observed and measured. There are a few coal fired power stations with CO2 monitors installed and from these measurements practically all claims on fossil fuel emissions have been based and MODELLED on.
          I have spent a couple of hours on the net trying to find actual observed and measured CO2 emissions that were actually carried out and recorded in situ , in the actual claimed and directly from the locations of those claimed emission sources.
          I could find nothing in my seeking of that information.

          My very strong suspicion is that CO2 claimed measurements are highly likely to be in a similar state to the very corrupted state of the global temperature measurements except that nobody has the network, in fact any network at any level of CO2 instrumentation to measure the true realities right down at the level of the claimed and localised global CO2 emmission sources.
          Like the now very corrupted and untrustworthy global temperature data, the claimed CO2 sources and their CO2 emissions are also likely to be have been extensively manipulated to provide a spurious modeled increase in CO2 emissions from those localised sources.

          Increasing levels of CO2 and CO2 emissions are after all, suposedly the very source and at the very heart of all this CAGW cultist ideology and supposedly responsible for and leading to an increase in global temperatures which presently are going nowhere for over 18 years now.

          And all that CO2 emission modeling is paid for by the tax payer, exactly the same scenario as is the situation in the global temperature analysis but with no CO2 measuring network. the modelling of CO2 emission sources and their amount of emissions is even less subject to analysis by outside investigators.

          As the modelling of global temperature trends is so corrupted as are the temperature data processing centres , I see no reason why the data and claims relating to the entirely MODELED and localised CO2 emissions sources should not also be very corrupted.

          Globally the half dozen centres measuring “Global CO2 levels” at ground level are probably on the scientific straight and narrow and are as correct as the science will permit.

          As an illustration of the very poor and possibly corrupted modelling of global CO2 emission sources, we only have to look at a recent NASA modelled global CO2 distribution animated map which was, as is now known, based on entirely false assumptions about CO2 sources.
          —————–
          The NASA animated and modeled global CO2 distribution map from the assumed CO2 emission locations. November 2014

          Stunning NASA Visualization Reveals Secret Swirlings of Carbon Dioxide
          The new simulation tracks the invisible gas that’s warming the planet.
          —————–

          Now compare that modeled CO2 Global CO2 distribution map with the CO2 source and global distribution map from the newly launched OCO-2 CO2 observing satellite of Oct – Nov 2014

          Further the Tall Bloke blog does a comparison between the realitiies of global CO2 emission sources as from the OCO-2 satellite compared to the global vegetation.

          As does another blog entry on WUWT but this time comparing the OCO-2 satellite based CO2 observations with tectonic and ocean emissions.;

          NASA’s new Orbiting Carbon Observatory shows potential tectonically-induced CO2 input from the ocean?

          So when I see the huge discrepancies between the CO2 and green house emission data from the global Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center [ CDIAC via The World Bank site per capita emissions ] with its australian CO2 annual tonnages of 373 million tonnes of CO2 emissions and the 16.5 tonnes per capita emissions quoted extensively elsewhere and Australia’s green house emissions from the Australian National Greenhouse Accounts [ and Bureau of Statistics ] of some 542 million tonnes, a rough difference of some 170 million tonnes of Greenhouse emissions or nearly a 50% difference in ESTIMATED and MODELED emissions then the whole of this CO2 emission source numbers is likely extremely corrupted and no better than straight crap .
          ————–

          2 / As a very minor example of the Modelling that goes into estimating the sources of CO2 and greenhouse emissions we can take a look at a very simple example of the American EPA’s model for ESTIMATING the CO2 emissions of a vehicle and the immense range of straight out ESTIMATED assumptions that go into that model which can be run on a small computer.

          Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM) User Guide

          If you take a few minutes to scan through this EPA vehicle emission modelling program and the horrendous list of assumptions that have to be made to get any sort of data out of the model then the whole thing just becomes a exercise in achieving the data output you wanted to get in the first place by entering the neccessary input assumptions.
          And that is basically how ALL of the global CO2 localised source estimates of CO2 emissions has been and is being done.

          —————
          3 / It has taken 30 odd years to finally and very big “maybe” actually finding some checkable proof of the warming of the atmosphere by increasing CO2.
          Again carefully read the assumptions that are being made here.

          NEWS CENTER
          First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface; Feb 2015.

          [quoted ]

          The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

          [ / ]

          In summary, like global temperature manipulation there is every likelihood of a very significant manipulation of the greenhouse gas sources data as well which relies even less on actual observations and real time measurements than does the global temperature data.
          The greenhouse gas increase data is of course at the very heart of the whole of the CAGW’s ethically and morally bankrupt ideology.

          \Much more in the way of carbon sinks such as the little known Phytoliths in the global grass species as well as the sources or claimed sources but in reality low level or non sources of greenhouse emissions could be posted here but enough for this post.

          30

          • #
            David Maddison

            The NASA animated and modeled global CO2 distribution map from the assumed CO2 emission locations. November 2014

            Stunning NASA Visualization Reveals Secret Swirlings of Carbon Dioxide
            The new simulation tracks the invisible gas that’s warming the planet.
            —————–

            Now compare that modeled CO2 Global CO2 distribution map with the CO2 source and global distribution map from the newly launched OCO-2 CO2 observing satellite of Oct – Nov 2014

            I wonder how long it will be before they start “homogenising” their actual CO2 measurements (second URL) to bring them into accord with the simulation (first URL)? (The URL does not copy, you will have to go to the above comment and go to the link from there.)

            00

      • #

        Based on 2013 figures from the National Greenhouse Inventory it seems Australia’s 373 MT CO2 emissions probably include the following sectors -

        Electricity 192 MT – 53%
        Mining 64 MT – 18%
        Manufacturing 71 MT – 19%
        Construction 9 MT – 2%
        Commercial services 29 Mt – 8%

        Total 365 MT in 2013 – 100%

        The SMH probably assumes that all reductions will come from electricity generation which is OK if using the 192 MT base but NOT the 373 MT base.

        These numbers also appear to have been fiddled with over time.

        00

  • #
    Yonniestone

    This an interesting thread by Jo where the argument and counter style of writing uncovers an obvious question of how do myths actually start?

    You’d think that if the general population was personally presented with the above article and given all evidence from both sides to consider their opinion the majority would agree with Jo’s critique, but truth is it would probably be the opposite such is the power of ingrained mythology combined with fear of straying from the flock.

    When discussing CAGW with less informed skeptics I still hear “greenhouse effect” or “hole in the ozone layer” being dragged up without a second thought, perhaps time is the only catalyst to rekindle the enlightenment?

    100

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…perhaps time is the only catalyst to rekindle the enlightenment?’

      The people have been misinformed about the ozone depletion and of course AGW is load of bollocks, so only a nasty change in the weather will bring an end to the madness.

      We must prepare for that day and make sure we have our story right, because the masses will be in a state of shock.

      40

  • #
    Random Comment

    That is a beautiful dissection, Jo. The ‘forced market’ descriptor is quite apt and should be regularly promoted.

    80

  • #
    Dave in the states

    One of the biggest myths is that efforts to cut human co2 emissions, or that any human co2 emissions, matter at all. It is the modern version of building a tower to get to Heaven.

    161

    • #
      Dave in the states

      I should add that costs of the effort (that doesn’t matter to climate) really does matter to the worlds poor and to our children and grandchildren. We are taking food out of their mouths to feed the elites profiting from this folly. It’s not just the money costs either, we are paying a huge price in freedom. That’s the real morality of the issue.

      160

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        Well said Dave. We have paid a heavy price in America. Loss of freedom, loss of economic output, betrayal of our nation, millions of jobs, our national security, energy security, and on and on.
        All this because political correctness and the lemming mentality to vote for Obama. Our electricity prices are already increasing, food prices seem to have doubled in the last few years, murder rates are rising in our cities because of the politically fueled police killing of a few black people leading to reduction of law enforcement,(up to a dozen or more may be murdered in Chicago on a holiday weekend and no one cares; that is blacks killing blacks).
        Except for the lost and ruined lives of the leftist regime in the US for the last few years, our biggest danger is nuclear attack by radical jihadists, the loss of our agriculture through ethanol production, and onerous EPA regulations which treat a trickle of water on farms and ranched or a small pond which fills up during storms and is gone dry in a few days as “Navigable Waters of the US” and thus beyond the land owner’s use or control. Agriculture in under attack and that too has long-term negative consequences.

        70

        • #
          David Maddison

          It is tragic how Obama is doing his best to destroy America and the rest of the West along with her. Energy policy is but one of his weapons he is using to do this. Obama is by far the greatest threat America faces.

          40

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    One of the things I love about this site is that one can get an international perspective without being preached to by pedantic ivory tower editorial experts who somehow make a good living telling people they neither know nor understand what is good for them.
    It is both comforting and distressing that AUS has politicians as venally stupid or self-indulgently conniving as the US, and the EU, and, heck, everywhere else.
    It’s so easy to be low information, hate [certain groups, snip] and see Aussies as warm, open, friendly and sensible. Which is actually of every one of y’all I’ve had the pleasure of meeting personally.
    But you seem to have the same illness we do on the political side, with and alternation between bunnies and unicorns, and gloom and doom, managed without even elementary maths skills and no regard for the purse of the workingman nor the idea that work of the individual should benefit him or her more than the state.
    There are differences — in the states there’s no problem finding businesses open on Sunday.
    But by and large we in the western world, as revealed mostly through the comments threads, share the same problem of governance that more resembles a malignant tumor that a public service.
    It is a credit to JO that this can be a sidebar discussed civilly, as this seems impossible to me on most overtly political sites.

    I live downwind from a large coal-fired electric plant. 40 years ago the cars was covered with soot when the wind was from the north; today this plant, at which orange barrels and construction entrances have been a constant feature, is state-of-the-art and as clean as one would wish. It operates with especial efficiency because it owns a coal mine, and has a 100 car unit train that cycles several times a week. Our rates our lower that all but a few government-blessed hydro areas.

    In addition to economy, the coal is domestic, providing in-country jobs. The ash is fed to a drywall plant virtually co-located. Energy security is obvious. The cooling water outflow is a manatee habitat in the winter playing a major role in the preservation of that species.

    Therefore, the government deems it absolutely necessary that this plant be shut down.

    It appears that the most universal of human conditions is that progressive governance is a mental disorder.

    (asking forgiveness in advance for an expression I may be misusing:)
    Put another shrimp on the barbe for me, if you are allow to light it in this enlightened age…..

    —-
    Forgive the small edit Richard. Some words will take the thread off tangent. Thanks for your comment, though I wish the spread of Bunnies and Unicorns was not so advanced too. :- ( Well said. — Jo

    160

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Indeed the mythology of unicorns lead to visions of magic and nobility but they could just be more dumb bunnies in another form, I’ll call this the “Unicorn deception theory” where the public are dazzled by the overall picture but misses the danger of the horn in plain sight.

      In Oz we do have plenty of ‘green’ ideas that have hares on them.

      70

    • #

      Richard,

      Now it becomes a little more obvious why some coal mine operators actually constructed those huge power plants close to the actual site where the coal was being mined, thus eliminating the middle man, in most cases the train which has to deliver the coal.

      You mentioned those 100 car (coal hoppers) trains. They can be around a mile or more long and when hauling the coal, they are usually pulled by anything up to 5 Locomotives, three at the front and the other two in the middle. Each hopper holds around 85 tonnes of coal, so with 100 hoppers, that’s 8,500 tonnes of coal per train load. (85 Tonnes is around 95 U.S. short tons, 2000 Pounds)

      The average large scale (4 units and 2000MW+ Nameplate) coal fired power plant will burn anything up to and even beyond 6 Million tons (U.S. tons here) of coal a year, and that equates to around 15,000 tons a day. So, some of those large plants have deliveries of coal by one or more train loads a day, hence the advice to construct them at the actual mine site itself.

      To the West of Rockhampton we have the humungous Galilee Basin with some of the best burning black coal on Planet Earth.

      Those coal trains come from the West, passing just to the South of Rockhampton, on their way to the loading port at Gladstone.

      One train every 40 to 60 minutes, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, around 200,000 tonnes a day, and 75 to 80 million tonnes a year.

      Aurizon recently (March 2015, as at this link) set a new record with a 136 car coal train, 11,000 tonnes, and it was 2.4 Km long. (a mile and a half)

      Oh and you also mentioned rabbits in there as well. There’s a great article at the ABC site at this link about how Australia had a monumentally huge problem with rabbits in the early days, at one stage, an estimated 600 million plus of them.

      Think rabbits, think Akubra, the best hats in the World.

      Tony.

      PostScript – It’s not an easy task addressing both the U.S. and Australia when it comes to differentiating between Tonnes and Tons.

      80

  • #
    Ruairi

    More snake oil ‘science’ for sale,
    To promote their mythical tale,
    With a foolhardy goal,
    Of Earth climate control,
    In which warmists are destined to fail.

    170

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    I do not live in OZ so can’t help with the following plan. Sorry.

    ~~~ All the OZ folks that read here could help Mr. Morton understand air pollution and other aspects of living on the edge. Collect, say, 100 Kg. of dried dung and deliver it to his home. Then put a sign beside it saying he intends to walk-the-walk and turn off all energy to his home. The family can cook, heat water, heat the house, read, and so on by the burning of said dung. Three days to a week would be a good goal. If more is needed than the supply, the he can collected more. The family may want to cancel social engagements during this period.

    60

  • #
    Manfred

    High time the Australian eco-marxists came out of the closet.
    The UN and Christiana Figueres have done so.
    Hiding behind myths broadcasts weakness and fear. On the other hand, the IPCC, UNEP and the UNFCCC are not democracies

    This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”

    Meanwhile, back in the Real World, Obama’s Coal Expropriation: George Soros Buys Up Cheap Coal Shares.

    Soros Buys Coal Stock Amid Obama Climate Crackdown

    100

  • #
  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    Here is a nice wind power graph that the SMH could use

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2015/08/we-dont-need-no-533.html

    40

  • #
    Another Ian

    And if the SMH were tempted to quote California as a model to follow they could add this

    “Three years after California voters passed a ballot measure to raise taxes on corporations and generate clean energy jobs by funding energy-efficiency projects in schools, barely one-tenth of the promised jobs have been created, and the state has no comprehensive list to show how much work has been done or how much energy has been saved.

    Money is trickling in at a slower-than-anticipated rate, and more than half of the $297 million given to schools so far has gone to consultants and energy auditors. The board created to oversee the project and submit annual progress reports to the Legislature has never met, according to a review by The Associated Press.”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2015/08/y2kyoto-state-o-57.html

    70

    • #
      Manfred

      The Green ‘success’ story that is California imports approx 30% of its electricity requirement.

      Meanwhile, California produces just 38% of its oil needs – and production is falling steadily, as the state ignores its vast onshore and offshore deposits, which are fully accessible via conventional and hydraulic fracturing technologies. Instead, the state imports 12% of its oil from Alaska and another 50% from foreign nations, especially Canada, notes Sacramento area energy consultant Tom Tanton.

      Its record on electricity is even worse. California imports about 29% of its total electricity from out of state, getting it from the Palo Verde nuclear power plant in Phoenix, coal-fired generators in the Four Corners area, and hydroelectric dams in the Southwest and Pacific Northwest, Tanton says.

      Another 50% of its electricity is generated using natural gas that is also brought in from sources outside California, while the state blockades its own enormous gas potential. Its gas is imported via pipelines from Canada, the Rockies and the American Southwest, to power its gas-fired turbines. Those turbines and out-of-state sources also back up its numerous unreliable, bird-killing wind turbines.

      50

  • #
    David Maddison

    Just thinking about my steam engine ride last Sunday (previously mentioned), if you were ambivalent about coal before, you would love it after a steam train ride! Perhaps all warmists should ride a steam train? Coal should be honoured as one of the important substances that made our Western Civilisation great.

    100

  • #
    David Maddison

    Does anyone know where I can buy a bag of coal in Melbourne? I want coal straight out of the ground, not coke (which can be purchased). Or is there any roadside cuttings where I could collect some?

    50

    • #
      King Geo

      Sorry old chap – the Victorian brown coal measures are all underground. Maybe fly or drive to Wollongong. Lots of coal (Illawarra Coal Measures) exposed along the coastal cliffs north of Wollongong including near Stanwell Park – you could go hang gliding to make the trip worthwhile. These are higher grade Permian bituminous coals than the considerably younger Victorian Tertiary brown lignitic coals.

      40

      • #
        Annie

        King Geo….where can you obtain such coal (the good quality black stuff)…that is the question?! I don’t want lignite.

        20

    • #
      Annie

      We wanted to know that too David Maddison. We have a newly installed stove, made in Albury, that will stay in better overnight according to the manufacturer, if we use coal. We had a small stove in England that very efficiently used Welsh Anthracite as well as being able to burn wood. It was brilliant with the coal. We’d be willing to buy a fairly large amount in one go, if only we could find it to buy!

      40

  • #
    pat

    surprised PBS Newshour has this!

    17 Aug: PBS Newshour: Michelle Harven: Old Farmer’s Almanac predicts cold and snowy winter
    Don’t say we didn’t warn you. The 2016 Old Farmer’s Almanac forecasts an unusually harsh winter this year for most of the nation.
    The almanac, which is published annually and uses a secret forecasting formula it says is traditionally 80 percent accurate, has been in use since 1792 and remains one of the oldest and one of the most popular reference guides in the U.S.
    The 2016 almanac, out today, warns the U.S. should prepare for extremely cold temperatures and lots of snow this winter. It says the Northeast can expect below-normal temperatures, the South will have above-average snowfall, and the Midwest will have less snowfall, but temperatures will be below-normal…
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/old-farmers-almanac-predicts-cold-snowy-winter/

    50

  • #

    This applies to the main topic here because that main article spreads the false idea that renewables are somehow a good idea to replace coal fired power.

    I have been struggling to find a way to better explain how useless wind power really is to the average person who has no electrical engineering knowledge. They just believe that electrical power generation is the same, no matter what method is being used to generate that power.

    I can explain intermittency, and that wind power cannot supply on the 24 hour basis needed. I can also explain Capacity Factor as well, but in both of these cases, it’s not an easy thing to grasp.

    So then I think I may have actually come up with something, and while I am just one small voice, all of you who read here at Joanne’s site can use this with confidence that it is actually a correct statement.

    There is currently around 4,000MW of wind power across the whole of Australia, not just locally, or in one State but spread across the length and breadth of all Australia.

    That’s 4,000MW. Again, that might not be an easy thing to grasp, the definition of Nameplate power and then, from that, actual power output.

    So, you can further distill that Nameplate down to a total number of individual wind towers, and that total comes in at close to around 2300 wind towers from around 60 wind farms plants.

    The total power delivered from all those towers comes in at around 9800GWH of power across a whole year, and that’s around 4.5% of Australia’s total power consumption.

    Bayswater power plant delivers 17,500GWH of power each year.

    So, next time you want to explain how ineffective wind power is, use this analogy.

    Australia currently has around 2300 individual wind towers spread across the Continent. The total power delivered from those 2300 wind towers is delivered by Bayswater coal fired power plant in 200 days, just from this ONE power plant.

    So, while wind power is thought to be making an impact, a furphy spread by people who really do not have a clue, and will not bother to find out, wind power still hasn’t reached the stage where it can replace just ONE of those large scale coal fired power plants in actual power delivery.

    I wanted to make it as simple as possible without have too much technical engineering detail terms in there. This way, the average person can see the truth in terms they can actually understand.

    Tony.

    100

    • #
      David Maddison

      Good post Tony. It might also be instructive to mention the land area used by wind towers compared to a coal fired power station with its associated coal mine. The warm-mongers might say, however, that land around wind towers is not wasted because it is used as farm land. Nevertheless, wind towers are a huge eyesore, noise source, generate flickering shadows and are a hazard for birds. And it defies logic how thousands of towers coud possibly be cost competitive with a single fossil fuel plant either for building costs or running costs.

      60

      • #
        ROM

        Tony from Oz @ # 38

        I have been struggling to find a way to better explain how useless wind power really is to the average person who has no electrical engineering knowledge. They just believe that electrical power generation is the same, no matter what method is being used to generate that power.

        Regretfully I think we will all struggle even more in the future to find a better way of explaining how useless wind power is, how and where the city’s food and fruit and milk is produced, grown and comes from, where it gets its water that always just flows out of a tap , where it gets all those petroleum products it pours into its vehicles every few days and etc and etc.

        The urbanisation of Australia’s population is according to the 2011 census, running at 88.9% and obviously now higher some 4 years on in 2015.

        From ;
        ID, the population experts

        Urbanisation is listed by the ABS as ;
        The ABS loosely defines an urban area as a centre with a population of at least 1,000, and a population density at least 200 people per square kilometre contiguous with this centre. This is a very brief paraphrasing of the main criteria which are applied to the smallest geographic units from the Census (SA1s in 2011) to define cities and towns by the extent of their spread.
        —————
        I know from my own personal experience how after some years, a decade and a half away from the farm and rural areas how even an old farm boy like myself can lose touch with the local environmental factors such as rain and wind and temperatures when one has been living in a relatively sheltered environment of a mass of housing and are always surrounded by concrete and asphalt and in the shelter of the neighbouring structures.
        And this in what we call a city but in reality is a glorified country town sitting in the middle of a vast open area surrounded by grain and livestock farming enterprises.

        The life long completely urbanised city dweller of today in nearly every case has almost no personal knowledge or long term experience at all as to what the weather and climate really is like outside of the city environment and in the wide open spaces of the “Bush”

        They rarely have a range of knowledge on a whole gamut of the interactions between machines, man, animals, plants and trees and the weather and climate and rainfall and wind and how these all interact and how the combination of the whole enables the cities to survive and a civilisation based entirely on energy in vast amounts can flourish.
        They are almost totally ignorant of how any one factor relies entirely on a number of other factors all interacting to produce the crops and animals that feed the cities and in the case of the turbines the wind and its strength and the energy turbines produce or don’t produce and the role the likes of even the local terrain plays in the whole shooting match.

        Rural people mostly do have most of that deeply personal knowledge as do a few of the more practical citified/ urbanised folk.

        And it won’t change at all and will only get worse as the political power shifts to the cities and the city based power barons in their complete ignorance, demand actions and impose totally irrelevant strictures and policies on the rural food and agricultural sectors as they are now doing in their total ignorance and hubris laden arrogance on the energy sectors today, that will ultimately go a long way towards wiping out both local food and energy production for a hopefully only a very short period.
        Only then after a full scale breakdown in energy supplies and its accompanying food shortages will some sanity and sense and recognition of the differences finally prevail and a recognition of the vast differences between city and country and the role that the real climate and real open air weather plays, not the artificial trending weather felt and experienced inside of the city environments , will finally be acknowledged and recognised in legislation and in real terms by the city based power brokers.

        40

    • #
      John Watt

      Tony you make a good point…a lot of power generating capacity for a relatively small output of “useful” energy.
      Wind produces random amounts of energy at random times. There is no regard for users’ needs…how much energy is needed for daily life and when is it needed? Wind alone even with battery back-up cannot meet users’ needs.
      At best wind is a “supplementary” source of energy. A conventional power generation system can be controlled(at a cost) to vary its output to accommodate the randomness of the wind energy. The question is whether or not the cost of the wind infrastructure plus the extra control cost of the conventional system offsets the fuel saving in the conventional system.

      40

      • #
        AndyG55

        Wind can be useful when reliability is not an issue.

        Problem is, there are not many places where reliability is not an issue.

        60

  • #
    pat

    the myth of CAGW:

    Steven Goddard threads 16-17 Aug:

    The Majority Of NOAA Land Temperature Data Is Fake
    The animation below flashes between the land portion of NOAA’s global temperature map, and their actual measured regions of temperature…ETC

    Hiding The Decline In North Carolina
    Maximum temperatures in North Carolina have plummeted almost two degrees over the past century. This wrecks their theory, so the fraudsters at NOAA simply made the decline disappear. They accomplished this through a spectacular hockey stick which cools the past…ETC

    Frequency Of Hot Days In Wisconsin Has Plummeted Since The 19th Century
    As I showed in my previous post, the fraudsters at NOAA have turned a cooling trend in Wisconsin into a strong warming trend. What they are hiding is that Wisconsin is getting cooler…ETC

    Mind Blowing Fraud By NOAA In Wisconsin
    Afternoon temperatures in Wisconsin have been declining since the 19th century. That didn’t suit NOAA’s agenda, so they cooled the past by 2.5 degrees…
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/author/stevengoddard/

    17 Aug: Moscow Times: Moscow Could Set Records for Cold This Week
    This week’s temperatures are predicted to beat long-standing records for cold at this time of year by 5-6 degrees, head of meteorological agency Gidrometcentr Roman Wilfand told news agency Interfax…
    However, residents of the Russian capital, who have already suffered through a rather cold summer, may get a respite before fall truly sets in…
    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/528071.html
    http://ipsos.com.au/labor-lead-increases-after-choppergate-scandal-fairfax-ipsos-poll/

    70

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘This week’s temperatures are predicted to beat long-standing records for cold at this time of year by 5-6 degrees…’

      Apparently there is an ‘expansive area of low pressure extending from south of Iceland to Western Russia has brought cool temperatures to Northern Europe and Western Russia.’

      50

  • #
    pat

    17 Aug: RTCC: Ed King: Climate vulnerable Philippines plans huge bet on coal
    According to the Global Coal Plant Tracker, 52 new coal power units are in the process of being constructed across the country, each with an estimated lifetime of 35 years…
    In an article for RTCC, Philippines climate commissioner Heherson Alvarez said he feared the energy department was already planning for a high carbon energy future.
    “One tell-tale sign is that Philippine emissions per capita, according to the DOE, is projected to rise by over 31% over a 20-year period, from 1.6 tons in 2010 to 2.1 tons in 2030,” he wrote.
    “At the moment, a major difficulty is that many of our policymakers appear to be swayed by conventional macroeconomic goals dependent on coal and fossil fuels.” …
    Still, the government faces a considerable dilemma, with an estimated 30 million citizens, around 30% of the population, lacking grid access to electricity.
    Even those with good connections face erratic supplies, some relying on diesel generators to fill the gaps, while others are paid by the government to reduce peak demand…
    The Philippines is the fifth largest recipient of export credit agency finance for coal power plants, receiving just under $35 billion from 2007-2014.
    Only Vietnam, India and South Africa receive more, according to a report from the US-based NDRC…
    Officials RTCC contacted did not respond…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/08/17/climate-vulnerable-philippines-plans-huge-bet-on-coal/

    ***myths about the IPCC chair!

    14 Aug: RTCC: Megan Darby: IPCC chair election: 5 candidates, 8 weeks to go
    Who will take ***the most prestigious climate science job in the world***?
    A source close to the race, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the three European candidates might split the vote.
    “I can see them knocking each other out in the first round,” the source said. “I would not be surprised if the second round was between Chris and Hoesung.”Is it like Eurovision, a song contest in which people tend to vote for their countries’ regional allies?
    Frank McGovern, an official representing Ireland (a popular EU country and frequent winner of Eurovision), laughingly dismisses the idea.
    “I actually don’t think that is that important,” he tells RTCC.
    ***“The candidate has to be respected by the scientific community, manage the IPCC process, really good communication skills and understanding of policy issues.”…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/08/14/ipcc-chair-election-5-candidates-8-weeks-to-go/

    40

  • #
    pat

    how many CAGW protesters does it take to get widespread MSM coverage? a mere FIFTEEN, in this particular case.
    BP has sponsored the Festival in Scotland for 34 years.

    according to Govt websites: “On an internationally comparable basis Scotland is estimated to have the largest oil reserves in the European Union, accounting for nearly 60 per cent of total EU reserves.” imagine Scotland’s economy without the oil revenues?

    18 Aug: Scotsman: Brian Ferguson: Edinburgh Festival hit by protest over BP backing
    PROTESTERS against the Edinburgh International Festival’s sponsorship deal with oil giants BP invaded the event’s headquarters and ripped up official programmes.
    A ***15-strong group from activist theatre group “BP or not BP?” also staged a performance inside the Hub, the administrative headquarters of the festival…
    The group won the backing of a number of festival performers, including theatre-maker Simon McBurney…
    A number of leading cultural institutions have been targeted by campaigners over “unethical” sponsorship deals with BP, described as an “official partner” in the festival programme.
    Mr McBurney, who is appearing in The Encounter at the EICC, said: “Of course, it is hypocritical of me, because I am in the festival, and being paid by the festival, to be standing here.
    “The reason why I have come along is about raising consciousness”…etc
    A spokeswoman for the EIF said: “We are grateful to all of the public and private sector organisations who support the Festival and make it possible for us to present world-class work to the widest possible audience. We also support free speech and the right to peaceful protest.”…
    http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts/news/edinburgh-festival-hit-by-protest-over-bp-backing-1-3860396

    60

  • #
    pat

    the thought police will not be called?

    Flinders University staff ‘free to ally’ with Bjorn Lomborg
    The Australian (blog)-12 hours ago
    Flinders University vice-chancellor Colin Stirling will not prevent staff from collaborating with academic Bjorn Lomborg, and says a push to …

    excerpt from Bolt Blog -
    Flinders University vice-chancellor Colin Stirling will not prevent staff from collaborating with academic Bjorn Lomborg, and says a push to prohibit a proposal for a so-called Australian Consensus Centre being put to the federal government is contrary to academic freedom.
    Professor Stirling said the issue “cut to the heart of the principle of academic freedom and he would defend the right of any of the Adelaide-based university’s academics to pursue work with Dr Lomborg”.

    50

    • #

      Flinders University staff ‘free to ally’ with Bjorn Lomborg

      Of course that is what they are going to say, to make it seem like they are actually being conciliatory towards Bjorn Lomborg, giving the University hierarchy somewhat of a softer image, giving the impression that they can ‘get along’ with even the other side.

      But, can you see here how the love of the free Government money in the form of the big grant has brought out the greed in them.

      Bjorn can do what he wants, but the University itself has, umm, access to those funds as well, and could also end up putting in some of their own people.

      Please pardon my cynicism here.

      Tony.

      90

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    “The myth about having an industrial revolution in China without fossil fuels “

    great article Jo :D lots to think about..
    The thing that caught my attention was the implication that China is doing more than Australia to reduce CO2 emissions… :o

    Morton forgets that the Chinese are building and buying lots of cars (amongst other things) that most definitely will need to run on fossil fuels.
    The Chinese will need to build new asphalt roads for these of course.. lots of them ..

    The true myth is that China will have completed its energy growth requirements by 2030

    70

  • #
  • #
    pat

    google has about 500 results for “climate change” in just the past 24 hours, but methinks the media are speaking to themselves these days, as there are less & less comments, it seems &, even on alarmist sites such as The Guardian, there will as likely be mocking from the readers who do comment.

    today, there is everything from NYT & Grist declaring the “adorable”, “most popular” animal on the internet, the red panda, is doomed, to Sydney Morning Herald’s Daily Doomster, Peter Hannam’s mathematical headline “Global warming to drive quadrupling of extreme weather trifecta, study finds” & even a headline on some website, asking “Can Vanilla Ice Make People Care About Climate Change?”

    after a dozen or so pages of such rubbish, i found:

    17 Aug: Phys.org: Tomasz Nowakowski: Solar activity is declining—what to expect?
    Is Earth slowly heading for a new ice age? Looking at the decreasing number of sunspots, it may seem that we are entering a nearly spotless solar cycle which could result in lower temperatures for decades. “The solar cycle is starting to decline. Now we have less active regions visible on the sun’s disk,” Yaireska M. Collado-Vega, a space weather forecaster at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, told Phys.org.
    But does it really mean a colder climate for our planet in the near future?…
    Helen Popova, a Lomonosov Moscow State University researcher predicts that if the existing theories about the impact of solar activity on the climate are true, then this minimum will lead to a significant cooling, similar to the one during the Maunder Minimum period…
    But according to Collado-Vega, the current minimum in the number of sunspots ***doesn’t mean that the sun won’t show us its violent nature in the coming years…
    http://phys.org/news/2015-08-solar-decliningwhat.html

    ***.”doesn’t mean that the sun won’t show us its violent nature in the coming years” – not sure why this emotive language had to be attributed to Collado-Vega, but hey, it was worth the search for the rest of the piece.

    30

  • #
    pat

    18 Aug: The Conversation: Clive Hamilton: Damned Lies, Minister Hunt and Climate Models
    (Disclosure: Clive Hamilton is a Member of the Climate Change Authority. The views expressed here are his personal views and do not represent those of the Authority)
    And so last week the Murdoch tabloid took a bunch of numbers concocted in Environment Minister Greg Hunt’s office and turned them into the screaming headline “ALP’s $600B Carbon Bill”…
    One of the most egregious beat-ups you’ll ever read, the story was ***chock full of terrifying predictions about what will happen if Australia joins global efforts to limit global warming. The story was full of “shocking predictions”: “Economic growth shattered”, “Thousand of jobs lost”, and “a devastating blow to the economy, slashing thousands of jobs”…
    Mr Hunt’s confabulations and the Telegraph’s beat-up add to the sorry history of climate scare campaigns. The journalist who accepted uncritically this steaming pile of horse manure from Minister Hunt and spread it thickly over the pages of the Daily Telegraph was the tabloid’s national political editor Simon Benson.
    http://theconversation.com/damned-lies-minister-hunt-and-climate-models-46255

    ***terrifying predictions? talk about the pot calling the kettle.

    btw someone might be able to access this:

    The fate of the Earth and population growth
    The Times (subscription)-12 hours ago
    … dealing with climate change, and polls show a declining concern about the topic as the short-term predictions of the climate models have not been borne out.

    30

  • #
    KenW

    Hey guys!

    you’re expecting company down there!

    roll out the red carpet :)

    30

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Where that frontier narrative is strongest is where denialism is strongest.’

      The Denialati reject such simplistic ideas.

      40

  • #
    JPM

    This may be a little off topic but I thought that it might be of interest: the recently released “Select Committee on Wind Turbines”, the report of which can be down loaded from the following link :
    http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Final_Report
    “Chapter 7 The effect of wind power on retail electricity prices”, is the section that I was particularly interested in and I have a few comments which I list below.
    My submission is number 13, it seems they ignored it entirely. It is located here : http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Submissions
    My comments about the report follow and are in BOLD!

    7.22 If the marginal cost for a wind farm company to produce 1 MWh of energy is
    around $80, the RET at current prices offers a significant subsidy ($50 of the $80). In
    other words, at current REC prices, wind companies have only to raise $30 per MWh
    from the electricity itself.
    7.27 In Australia, future energy generation is offered to the market by generators to
    AEMO in five minute intervals. The bids of generators are then accepted starting with
    the lowest cost generator and finishing with the highest cost. This is called the ‘merit
    order effect’. This effect essentially reflects that the low marginal cost generation of
    renewables can underbid coal and gas-fired generators. The extent to which
    renewables outbid thermal sources will determine who bears the financial cost of the
    RET. The committee asked Frontier Economics who pays for the large-scale
    renewable energy subsidy. It responded: ‘It is the retail electricity customers via a levy
    on their electricity bills’.20
    7.28 As part of the 2014 review of the RET, ACIL Allen found that in most cases,
    scenarios modelled with a higher RET resulted in lower annual residential bills by
    2030. This is largely explained by the downward pressure that large generators such as
    windfarms would exert on the wholesale price of electricity. In terms of the wholesale
    price over the next decade, the report stated:
    They are conveniently forgetting about the $50 per MWh of RECs.
    The wholesale cost of wind is between $80 & $100 per MWh (7.22) while black-coal-fired is around $40 and lignite–fired is between $30 and $35 per MWh and they claim that the lower wholesale price for WT is going to drive the retail cost down. Looks like the shell and pea game to me! They are ignoring the fact that the costs of the RECs is included in the retail cost of electricity.

    7.33 The AEMC report also noted that in jurisdictions where the share of wind as a
    proportion of total energy generation is higher, the impact of the RET is likely to be
    less given greater reductions in the wholesale price.
    South Australia’s experience seems to show this as a lie. They have the greatest proportion of wind and the highest retail price for electricity! I believe that the transmission infrastructure costs are met by the state whereas the REC’s are funded on a national basis and spread evenly across the nation. My guess is that is what is causing the price to be so high in SA.
    They do like to dwell on the wholesale price of electricity as it is forced down by wind. Also they like to ignore the additional transmission costs. The .25 capacity factor (Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)) for wind will mean that close to four times as much generating capacity is required to produce the same amount of electricity as a fossil-fuelled generator over a period such as year or two. That must affect the cost per unit for electricity generated by the wind turbines.

    7.37 The ACIL Allen report, on which the final report to Government was based,
    noted that the RET causes wealth transfers from existing generators to both renewable
    proponents and consumers.
    I can’t see how they come to that decision. Can I have some of whatever it is they are smoking? If you add the REC cost and wholesale electricity cost for WTs it adds up to at least twice the wholesale unit cost of coal fired electricity!

    7.44 The South Australian Government noted in its submission the ACIL Allen
    analysis showing that the effect of removing the RET would be to increase power
    prices in the longer-term:
    The subsequent modelling showed the removal of the RET would initially
    lead to lower retail electricity prices, but in the longer term, as a result of
    additional low marginal cost renewable energy generation, retail prices
    would be on average 3.1% higher for residential, commercial and industrial
    customers.
    This statement is surely nonsense. Having less high priced generation will result in the price of electricity remaining lower. More of it will drive up the price. If they rescind the RET entirely the retail price will reduce but they don’t wish to consider that. They are relying models and we know what that means.

    I am also commenting Bill Shorten’s 50% renewables policy, very poorly thought out!

    Bill Shorten may have shot himself in the foot with his 50% renewables in 15 years policy, CT 22/07/15 P1 “”Shorten moves on green energy”. Possibly his advisors didn’t do their homework?
    Australia’s wind generation has a capacity factor of 25% (Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)) and solar about 15% to 20%. Wind generation is about 2 to 2.5 times the cost per KWh and solar about 4.5 times that of Coal-fired electricity according to a Canberra Times article.
    Say we look at using wind only for this example as it is cheaper and has a higher capacity factor. That means that we would require twice as much wind generating capacity as if we used only fossil fuelled generators just to make up the 50% renewables. Think about that. In a very windy period we would be producing twice as much electricity as we need. Well, lets consider storing the excess even though such storage is not presently available. So for one day you would need as much storage capacity as our total electricity use for a day and that is only for one day. What happens if the wind generators produce like that for a week or two. The requirement for storage is increasing exponentially.
    This storage will not come cheap. By this time, as you can, see the price per KWh for electricity is spiralling out of sight and we haven’t considered the huge costs of transmission infrastructure. Also shutting down and re-starting base load fossil-fuelled generators comes with it’s own problems and expenses. These proponents of renewables do not wish to consider the costs of their proposed solutions.
    There are a great many other factors to be considered and all  add to the cost.
    On top of that three studies, one in the Netherlands, one in Texas and one in Colorado, found that once wind generated electricity backed by open cycle gas turbines exceeded 3% on the grid, more CO2 was emitted than using just combined cycle gas turbine powered generators. All that expense and no reduction in emissions! Well, who would have believed it?
    Maybe, Bill should go back to the drawing board?

    John

    60

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘The weather will determine the evolution of US public policy. All we can do is learn what went wrong so we can do better next time, and wait to see the price we pay for our folly.’

    Larry Krummer (guest post at WUWT)

    80

  • #
    PeterS

    The information contained in the link below, which is based on factual and observed data, is so serious that any global warming threat is nothing in comparison. Earth’s magnetic field is weakening and we are becoming more vulnerable to solar storms, even the weak ones. Too bad the media is stuck on the AGW crap and won’t wake up on this real issue.
    See half way through https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAsOwktjbBg

    30

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    This is a great little article on wind power, my apologies if it duplicates some of the information already published in previous posts, but it is fun to read :o

    http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

    I especially liked

    Bugs and dirt can reduce power output by 25%
    The towers require illuminating at night
    We only need 142,000 of these towers
    The wind is not blowing when it should (duh !)
    As the wind slows, electricity output falls off exponentially (double duh !)

    you will be interested to hear that last Tuesday .. the four wind towers outside the NSA building here in Utah , were turning fast enough and employees were able to make coffee from the power generated.

    Unfortunately Monday morning was when the coffee was badly needed and so several employees (spies) from the breakfast shift at McDonalds were detained for questioning.
    They were released Wednesday “before” the breakfast shift.

    30