It’s a bit costly trying to control the weather:
“Germany has been paying over $26 billion per year for electricity that has a wholesale market value of just $5 billion (see here).”
That’s $21 billion that could have been spent on health or education that was used instead to feed the Green Machine.
A few handy facts to memorize. The cost of electricity per kilowatt-hour:
Denmark, 42c; Germany 40c, and the USA, 12.5c. ( — Forbes)
Wind and solar power supplies 28% of electricity in Germany (is it really that high?) This is what Australia is aiming for?
Graph from Forbes (link below)
Europe is a “green energy” basket case. Washington Post
“Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good.” — Der Spiegel
Europe’s Energy and Electricity Policies are a Bad Model, Jude Clement, Forbes
Watch the pea. What does it mean to have a non-binding non-treaty, at the same time as a real “commitment”? It’s all semantics, and, as usual, word games are the weapons of big-bureaucrats. Don’t be fooled into thinking Paris was no threat to the free West.
As I keep saying, the climate conference in Paris was not trying to reduce CO2 or change the climate. The real aim is an endless free lunch for freeloaders. The Politicites didn’t get the legally binding agreement they dream of, but what they got may turn out to be almost as good. Marlo Lewis explains it may yet be politically binding on the target rich Western nations, which is all that really matters. It’s the best strategic review I’ve seen of what happened in Paris.
It was no accident that it was “non-binding”. That was part of the plan.
They were never going to get a legal treaty through the US Congress, so the aim became a deal that was “non-binding” and not a “treaty” because things that are overtly legal have to go through Congress. Instead, the bureaucrat class want to go around the voters. By simply declaring that Obama’s promises mean [...]
Bit by bit, smart and influential thinkers are shifting. We’re seeing more and more of this type of exposition from people who are becoming skeptical. How much longer can the big bluff be maintained in the face of this kind of deep, considered and independent analysis?
Mike Van Biezen is a physics, maths and astronomy lecturer in the US. Until seven years ago, he accepted the premise that adding massive amounts of CO2 to the air would cause temperatures to rise. Then he noticed the slip in global temperatures from 1940-1980 and “could not ignore this subtle hint”. He did a lot of investigating over the ensuing years and has condensed that into ten very well written points. Like point 9: “It was so warm 4000 years ago that many of the glaciers around the world didn’t exist.” But things got so cold 150 years ago, people were afraid of glaciers and were asking “local bishops and even the Pope in Rome to come and pray in front of these glaciers in the hope of stopping their unrelenting advance.”
I also found point 7, and 10 particularly worth discussing. Point 10 is the one that he says captures the attention [...]
According to Nicholas Stern, the climate industry is set to rival the Industrial Revolution. Graham Lloyd of The Australian asked the obvious question that nobody at the COP 21 Flop thought to ask in Paris: “if [the] $650 billion a year being promised by US banking institutions will ever be expected to make a profit and, if so, will it need public support to do so.”
“US Secretary of State John Kerry sees it as “the most extraordinary market opportunity in the history of humankind”
Michael Kile expands on the little conflict of interest in the UN’s decarbonisation mission
It seems the UN is co-founding groups for money managers to get large funds to “decarbonize”. That’s code for chiseling investments out of coal and forcing them into the pointless, inefficient and uncompetitive “renewables”. But of course, renewables are only worth investing in if governments keep demanding people use them. If the darn voters vote muck it up, by voting for leaders who will stop wasting their money, the renewables industry is a dead dog. So the UN project (which is probably funded by taxpayers) aims to remove the risk for investors by lobbying governments to keep the regulations [...]
To you, your friends and family, wishing you all the best, wherever you.
The clock is turning, and it’s Christmas in New Zealand… Australia, Japan, China, …
A house around the corner generating some CO2 for Christmas.
For the incoming ABC boss, the first priority is to keep up the pretense that the public broadcaster is “independent”.
Independent of what, you may ask? It’s independent of public accountability. We can’t vote for programs or presenters; we can’t choose not to pay for it. We can’t choose to sell it, or even to send our tax funds to a different broadcaster.
The organization that depends on big-government for funds wants you to believe it’s in-dependent of big-gov.
When BP sponsors art, it’s an outrageous reputational risk (stage a sit in!). In that case the offensive BP donations to Tate were a mere one fortieth of the membership income. When Big-Gov provides almost all the income for the national broadcaster we’re supposed to laud it’s independence?
SMH: ABC boss defends independence of public broadcaster
Ms Guthrie was officially announced on Monday morning as the replacement for outgoing managing director Mr Scott. She will begin the role in May after a month-long handover period with Mr Scott.
In an interview with ABC 24 she said the essence of the ABC as an institution was its independence.
Watch Guthrie turn truth upside down:
“The important [...]
In less than 24 hours The Guardian can turn personal disasters into political advertising:
Climate change and the Victorian bushfires: this is not a coincidence
Klose tells us climate change is too complicated for stupid people:
“The issue of bushfires can’t be divorced from climate change. For too many people climate change remains an esoteric concept – something that may happen to someone else in the hazy, far-off future.”
Luckily gifted people, like Cambell Klose (political adviser) can “feel” the causes of climate change.
“Clearly this isn’t the case. The effects of climate change are being felt right now and it is having real impacts on Australians and people all across the world.”
Who needs computer models? (Or for that matter, thermometers?)
What not to do when faced with infernos:
“Yackandandah is trying to do something about this. The community has committed to powering themselves entirely by renewable energy by 2022.”
Some people reduce fuel-loads, others fight off the flames with a solar panel.
Wind farms may reduce bush fires if we have to chop down large tracts of forest to install them. Otherwise they make expensive fire-breaks.
What could make climate change more real for the kiddies than to get rid of Santa and drown the deer. No more presents, little ones!
Inspiration from Tim Blair. who writes: If you enjoy making small children cry – and who doesn’t? – then Fairfax has the perfect Christmas gift idea.
An Australian scientist has written a new children’s book, just in time for Christmas, that weaves the impacts of climate change into a story about Santa Claus, his reindeers and an evil billionaire.
Because billionaires are always evil. It’s important to teach kids that only nasty people get rich.
Author Dr Ian Irvine, who has been a scientist for over three decades, first came up with the idea of marrying Christmas and climate change together for his eBook The Last Christmas, The North Pole is melting! two years ago.
Dr Ian Irvine is a specialist in the management of sediments, which may explain why he doesn’t seem up to date with sea ice trends.
“The ice at the North Pole isn’t very thick and over the last 30 years or so it has been getting a lot thinner, it is shrinking.
Apparently we want to set Earth’s climate control knob at 1.5C above the Little Ice Age. If the IPCC is right, we can use cars, hairdryers and air-conditioners to do it. All we need to know is equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and then we can work out the right atmospheric level of CO2 to aim at. Easy, right?
Now I don’t believe the IPCC claims, but the IPCC believes the IPCC, and therefore they’ve done this calculation. It’s what the whole Paris convention was for, eh? But something doesn’t add up. If the climate modelers are right, and equilibrium climate sensitivity is 3C, the CO2 concentration we need to aim for is … wait… 400 ppm. How many years have we got to change the whole “human emissions” equilibrium and discover 100% clean energy? Answer: No years.
If CO2 is the dominant climate driver, we are already at the “max” set point that 40,000 people in Paris just decided was the holy grail new ambitious target. Turn off the lights, stop the planes, get on your bike. The warming is in the can already.
Bear in mind that it is “equilibrium” climate sensitivity, so the warming is not all here [...]
21 contributors have published
2570 posts that generated