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

Where is the due diligence on 600 billion dollars invested in “decarbonisation”?

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 friendly to green investors (and not so much to taxpayers).

For the Green Machine, “due diligence” means putting the risks onto the taxpayer and citizen. For the free market, “due diligence” means assessing the scientific credibility of those who say they can control the weather. What are the odds that the debate can be kept out of the mainstream media, and this bizarre meme (man-made global warming) will still be running in a few decades? The risk is that voters will get sick of being called names for asking good questions, and they chuck out the gullible fools and parasites. How long has the Golden Gravy Train got?

As Michael Kile notes, the UN’s Portfolio Decarbonisation Initiative talk about Fiduciary Duty, but…

“…there was no mention that changes in outlook could arise due, say, to a decline in scientific ‘consensus’ about climate theory; the continuing lack of empirical validation for climate-model ‘predictions’; doubts about public statements claiming quantifiable links between atmospheric carbon dioxide, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and future global temperatures; more revelations about the accuracy of agency data collection over time, and so on.”

The regulatory climate is what matters:

Oliver Bäte [Allianz’s CEO,]: “FD is not the real issue (24min.) The real issue in Allianz’s mind is often the legal frameworks for investing in RE infrastructure that are spanning decades – so you need to commit money for several decades – are not properly protecting long-term investors.”

“We are very often at the mercy of the public mainstream [voters] and courts that in hindsight declare some of these contracts invalid and therefore make it very difficult for long-term investors to justify committing money for decades.”

“So let me summarise. It is not a problem of financiers not wanting to put the money in, or a lack of liquidity. It is the wrong incentives from the public [voters] – and the wrong legal frameworks for funding infrastructure – that make it very difficult in practice.” (25min.)

Of course, if only renewables were really cheaper than coal, everyone would want them, they’d be a great investment, and who cares about voters?

It’s big bucks:

“Allianz is one of the leading private investors in renewable energy, with more than EUR 2.5
billion committed and plans to at least double these investments.”

Not big bucks, it’s  massive bucks:

“Mr Steiner’s closing remarks.

Financial assets of the global banking sector alone amount to USD135 trillion. Institutional investors represent somewhere in excess of another USD100 trillion – just to give you a sense of the magnitude here. This is why what Allianz and the other PDC members are trying to get others to recognise that you can invest public finance in an alternative pathway.

But if the mainstream financial system – which is 1,000 times more significant in terms of volume and scale is investing in the other direction, you are not going to see the kind of shifts [that UNEP and the UN want]. This is why what we are now seeing in the financial and insurance world is so significant – because it reinforces what Paris COP21 is trying to do with public policy and international co-operative instruments”.  (23.50min.)

According to the panel, annual global investment of USD1 trillion in RE infrastructure was ‘doable’.  In calendar 2014 it was USD270 billion. China claims it alone will be investing USD300 billion annually from 2016.

These are the big groups to watch:

“Consider now the UN’s Portfolio Decarbonisation Initiative. … it was co-founded by UNEP FI*, the fourth National pension fund of Sweden, AP4, Europe’s largest asset manager Amundi, and CDP, an international not-for-profit organization reportedly holding the ‘largest global collection of corporate environmental data.’

There is not just an “initiative”: there is a “Portfolio Decarbonisation Coalition“  (PDC) too, also founded by the UNEP F1. Giant  groups like Allianz and APB joined the PDC on Dec 7th 2015, when the total funds under management which are being “decarbonized” reached $600 billion:

“With Allianz and ABP, the PDC now convenes 25 investors overseeing the gradual decarbonization of a total of USD 600 billion in Assets under Management (AUM), dramatically surpassing the PDC’s target of USD 100 billion. By joining the coalition, the two organizations are sending a strong signal to world governments gathered in Paris to negotiate a new global treaty on climate change.

Read it all at Onlineopinion.

We are indeed looking at investment opportunities and doing due diligence ourselves (the proper kind), and will be talking about that exciting development very soon.

_________________________

*UNEP F1 — the UNEP Finance Intiative.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.3/10 (76 votes cast)
Where is the due diligence on 600 billion dollars invested in "decarbonisation"?, 8.3 out of 10 based on 76 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/gsyf57t

142 comments to Where is the due diligence on 600 billion dollars invested in “decarbonisation”?

  • #
    handjive

    Only in Oz would a mob of kangaroos in the shade of a tree out-number the workers in a green utopia of clean energy …

    “700 miles west of Sydney, a solar farm the size of London’s Hyde Park shimmers like an oasis – its panels sending enough electricity to the national grid to power 17,000 homes a year.

    Kangaroos occasionally outnumber the two or three people needed to run the plant.

    The Australian government aims to get almost a quarter of the nation’s power from clean energy sources by 2020.

    The $440 million solar farms in Broken Hill and Nyngan, about 590 kilometers east, received $232 million in grants from the New South Wales state and federal governments, and new ventures are likely to need their support.

    The Australian government has committed $350 million more for utility-scale solar projects and is reviewing applications for funding.

    For now though, solar power in Australia is more expensive than wind, and AGL says an over-supply of aging coal-fired power stations needs to be rationalised to encourage investment in clean-energy sources.

    SMH, 22 December, 2015: How Broken Hill became a solar power trailblazer
    . . .
    > The “Oasis” of green jobs is just one mirage in the green utopia of PM Talkbull as this will never supply a city like Sydney 24/7, 700 mies away.

    > Not even if you cut down trees & covered an area the size of 100 Hyde Parks with solar farms by 2020.
    . . .
    UPDATE:

    Getting rid of the hot air by Donna Laframboise (mercatornet)

    “Four years ago, environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr calculated that, in order to meet its 2020 emissions targets, Australia would need to replace its coal-generated electricity supply with 56 nuclear power plants – or open dozens of new solar power facilities every month.

    Eager to be seen to be fighting climate change, Australia’s leaders had embraced a timetable Pielke describes as “fanciful at best”.

    520

    • #
      Robert O

      That’s a lot of nuclear plants, say 1000-1500 MW each, or 702,800 MW Capacity: according to Tony we are only using somewhere between 16,000 MW and 30,000 MW capacity on a daily basis at the present for the Eastern states.

      100

      • #
        Robert O

        Sorry, the capacity is 70,000 MW not 702,800 MW. Still its about twice of what we are currently using.

        90

        • #
          TdeF

          My reading of the power stations is that a single nuclear reactor is 1,000Megawatt.
          The total Australian power requirement is 210 Terawatt hours which corresponds to 210 million megawatt Hours. Divide by 8766 hours in a year and you require 23,956 megawatts. While arithmetically this is only 24 nuclear power stations, this is not peak load. We could use fast gas and hydro to fill in the gaps, even pumping the water back uphill at night. No wind required and they work at night.

          However the Greens want a nuclear free, dam free, CO2 free, coal free, oil free, mining free, manufacturing free, farmer free, fisherman free Australia. I think they need to live somewhere else like PNG or Africa where they can dig for yams.

          220

    • #
      ghl

      Hi Handjive
      “The Australian government has committed $350 million more for utility-scale solar projects ”
      A lot of the money is made at time of build, from grants and financing fees. What is created is a barely profitable company with a large debt, relying largely in high legislated tariffs. Bear in mind that interest rates are at long term lows, and will likely rise.Recently I saw a report of an interview with the CEO of a solar farm blaming poor profits on less sunlight than predicted. Another, with the CEO of a wind farm, blamed lack of wind.
      “Decarbonisation” and “Divestment” are PR campaigns designed to create a climate of public opinion which will allow poor investments to be buried in investor and superannuation funds.Worker’s money removed from their pockets by legislation, given into the care of those nice union men we’ve been reading about lately. What can go wrong?
      When the full cost of alternative energy becomes known, investment will stop. The green gravy train will last longest under a veil.Every year is vital. Hence, also the meaningless Paris accord.Smoke and mirrors.

      210

      • #

        ghl mentions this: (my bolding)

        I saw a report of an interview with the CEO of a solar farm blaming poor profits on less sunlight than predicted. Another, with the CEO of a wind farm, blamed lack of wind.

        It’ nothing of the sort.

        This is a failure experienced by every solar plant, and every wind plant.

        It can be directly sheeted home to the belief in modelling, and the absolute failure of said modelling.

        Solar PV plants are typically rated at a Capacity Factor (CF) of between 18 and 32% with some higher, not that any solar PV plant has ever even got close to a yearly CF of 32% and I have actually seen one quoted at 42%. ALL the modelling for solar PV is generic, for directly under the SUN, like here in Rockhampton in Summer, or to Hobart in Winter. They will NEVER get a yearly CF of 28%, let alone 32%. The REAL average yearly CF (which by the way is the Industry Standard measurement for Solar is 13% to a high of perhaps 17/18%, depending upon latitude) So from that you can see already that the plant generates considerably less total power, hence less income. Nothing to do with less sunlight. It’s the Models they base them on in the first place.

        The same applies for Wind Power. ALL wind plants are modelled at a CF of 38% minimum, and it varies upward from there, usually in the range of 38 t0 42% and here also I have seen some quoted as high as 55%.

        The harsh reality is that the average is really closer to 30%, and for some whole COUNTRIES, their total wind delivery is as low as 15 to 25%. Again it’s the modelling and to illustrate how much money we are talking about here, let’s do a wind Plant of 200 towers, and 600MW Nameplate. At that modelled yearly CF of 38%, the plant will deliver to the grid, a total power of 1,998,648MWH.

        The calculation for the actual delivery , and here I’ll be generous and quote a CF of 30%. That power delivery is 1,577,880MWH.

        I have deliberately left it at MWH, because that is how the power is sold.

        So, here we have lower delivery of 420,768MWH, and (hey, aren’t we told that wind power is dirt cheap)at (an also modelled price) of even as low as $50/MWH, there’s a YEARLY loss of income from power generation of $21 MILLION dollars PLUS.

        The lack of wind and the lack of sunlight has nothing at all to do with it.

        This is the failure of modelling, and their willingness to keep using them, and believing them when similar plants in the same area are losing money hand over fist, when the REAL CF is closer to 25 to 30%, and not their also modelled 38%.

        Do not ever believe ANY of the information at any website for a renewable power plant. It’s all a mendacious pile of steaming bovine waste product.

        Tony.

        440

        • #
          spangled drongo

          Tony, a few years ago Ergon, for the Queensland govt, built a concentrated solar power plant in Windorah.

          Prior to that Windorah had only a diesel generator using about 100,000 litres of fuel a year.

          They spent about 4.3 million which is the equivalent of around $170,000 per house [25 houses?] yet I understand they still use about the same amount of diesel and I have been trying to find out if a cost/benefits analysis or any audit has ever been done to evaluate this bit of RE.

          Have you ever come across any analysis of this plant? It would give a very good picture of the real “benefits” of RE if one was done. And it would not be hard to do.

          But I suspect that not only has nothing been done but nothing will ever be done because they simply don’t want to know what an economic fiasco it really is.

          280

          • #
            Dave

            Spangled

            Two of the five are now useless
            Hydraulic problems (repairing now)
            The rest are covered in dead bird carcasses & garbage
            But no one will tell you that as it is a locked site

            The cleaners come once a 1/4 year and clean the rubbish off

            And don’t mention dust storms to the owners

            Diesel usage is the same as they can’t afford the constant restarts with personnel!

            It’s a joke really – and they’re getting paid mega bucks for this scam!

            150

            • #
              spangled drongo

              Thanks for that, Dave. I suspected it might have problems [apart from the disastrous initial concept, that is].

              There are many similar RE plants spread around the country and an audit is sorely needed to bring the taxpayer up to date on the total state of dysfunction of these follies.

              But not only are we not doing this, we are churning out more of these fiascos on a regular basis particularly in remote areas where they escape serious scrutiny.

              100

              • #
                Dave

                .

                The biggest problem is the BIRD deaths
                No recording
                No accountability
                No RET environmental reports
                Just $ come in

                Place looks like a pig sty!
                Contractors get paid heaps just to dispose of carcasses % go away!

                80

        • #
          Manfred

          The vast majority don’t begin to appreciate this Tony – even those that purchase roof top solar arrays appear quite oblivious, possibly to the extent of delusion, thinking now have ‘free’ power, and this despite the fact the installation has cost them $k’s.
          I don’t get it, I just don’t.

          130

          • #
            James Murphy

            the delusion continues with battery power too, with people somehow thinking that they will have ‘free’ power, forgetting the quite enormous upfront cost, and the need for replacement batteries – I struggle to see how a $300-$500 a year expense (assuming it lasts its guaranteed 10 years, and i doubt they will do so) is ‘free’.

            I’ve nothing against the technology per se, just very annoyed at the hype, and the delusion regarding its efficacy and cost savings.

            210

            • #
              bobl

              It can work at that scale, given 50c feed in tariff if you use diesel backup and batteries. Basically you can sell your Solar power at 50c a kWh to the government to pay for the fuel to run your generator and get economics better than grid power even taking into account the up-front costs.

              This is just because the feed in tariff at 50c is nearly twice the cost of diesel at 285g/kWh of around 30c per kWh less with the fuel rebate. The average house consumes around 30kWh a day so with a 5kW solar system feed-in you can pay for around 41 KWh of diesel. 11kWh (or around $4 a day) can be used to pay back the equipment cost in around 10 years – IE a system like this after 10 years costs nothing.

              With diesel charging your battery system can be very small because you can recharge it multiple times a day.

              80

              • #
                James Murphy

                sounds logical enough. Unfortunately I don’t live in an area where I can install any of that, so I’m totally reliant on “evil” nuclear and hydro power – until France completely replaces nuclear with wind and solar – scheduled to happen shortly before the 2nd french revolution…

                80

              • #
                Lawrie Ayres

                Where do you get 50 cents feed in tariff? It used to be 60 cents in NSW when Carr introduced it but it is now down to 8 cents, the same as paid to the power generators. At that rate your repayment time will be far longer than the useful life of the system. I’m in country NSW paying 22 cents per kWh with a 12% discount for payment on time (effectively 19.36 cents per kWh) so I cannot find any justification for RE.

                30

            • #
              TedM

              bobl: The problem with your hypothesis/explanation is that the charger being powered by the generator will almost never be charging at maximum capacity. Only in the bulk mode will it even come close, and in absorption mode most of the energy produced by the generator will effectively be only potential as the charger will be using a fraction of it.

              00

        • #
          ThomasJ

          Tony, merry X-mas (little late..) As to the CF of wind power, the gigant Swedish el-producer “Vattenfall” – state owned and w huge ‘assets’ of brown coal in Germany, plus a lot of other, totally catastrophic investements, ie. Nuon – puts their average wind-power-CF over a life time at only 6%(!) per unit.

          The by far most devastating ‘tendancy’ of Swedish politics is ruled/determined by the green talibans here (MP = ‘miljöpartiet’ = “the environmental party”) who gathered a whoppy app. 6,3% of the votes in the last election we had in 2014. MP is in coalition with the social democrats, which is ‘manned’ by the least competent persons one can imagine – or not… I’ve labelled the ‘gang in power’, that deFacto is doing their ‘best’ to push our society back towards a kind of amish-living style/order, the “DonaldDuckGang” (pardon me DD). The AP4, pension fund, is ‘governed’ by the so called “finansmarknadsministern” = ‘finance market minister’, at present a green taliban by name Bylund. However, he has ‘only’ inherited his predecessors (Norrman) ‘concept’ of throwing our pension funds over board. Norrman, as a matter of fact, invited Al Gore, á 100 kUS$, two years ago, to hold a ‘lecture’ on what to invest in, within the oxymoronic “renewable energy” sector AND forced all high ranked personell in state owned companies to attend the 2-day halleluja-gathering, of course there were not a single letter from this meeting mentioned in the MSM nor the so called ‘public service’, nada. As Sweden has, proportionally, a huge amount of state owned companies, think it’s amongst the ‘leading’ countries in the world of state owned companies, there are most certainly more scares and ‘actions’, lethal ones, ahead. At present these brainless persons are forcing a pre-timed closure of four nuclear reactors, Ringhals 1 & 2 and Oskarshamn 1 & 2 – all of them 2-gen reactor types. Nuclear power covers appr. 42-44% of the demand, hydro a bit more. Ringhals and Oskarshamn are located in the southern parts of the country where a majority of the population lives. We have appr. 25% of the total living areas here heated by electricity only… One has to ask, how the @§x&%-en h**l can ANYONE force such a major (lethal) threat upon a large part of my and/or any country??

          Sweden is a northern country – my ‘home’ town, Skellefteå, is on the same latitude as Fairbanks in Alaska. Thus, we normally have rather harsh/cold winters and when so, our neighbours also have the same conditions, ergo there are very scarce energy-importing possibilities. Just this morning it’s snowing here at the W(B)estcoast where I now live – forcing us to cancel our planned lobster fishing today.. sic – and very strong winds added, 18-25 mtrs/sec. and together it is darned cold outside.

          We have appr. 4.500 tonnes of so called ‘burnt-out-nuclear-waste’. This amount would be sufficient to power ALL of Europes demand for electric energy, over a period of more than 500 years, at a cost/KWH of appr. 0,18 SEK, incl. a margin of appr. 0.03 SEK/KWH – providing the usage of 4-gen nuclear technology. Sweden could, easily and cleverly become ‘the power house of Europe’. But, as long as the green talibans hold the saying, this will take some long time before coming true. Compare this w what’s happening in Russia, India, China and other countries, Or, for that matter, w Norway and their huge wealth from their North Sea oil resources. Norway has, btw, started up their test reactor in Halden (near Oslo) and one has to wonder why? Well, certainly one factor is, that Norway has vast deposits of Thorium, which is used as fuel in (some) 4-gen reactors. Up to the Chernobyl disaster, Sweden was a leading country in nuclear and research. However, a brainless, at the time, member of the governement, Birgitta Dahl, pushed a LAW forbidding any form of prospecting, research, planning etc. of any nuclear energy. Within less than a year, 95%+ of the very skilled ‘nuclear people’ all over left the country for other, high-ranked positions in other parts of the world. Here one can truly speak of a total brain drain! That law was lifted/cancelled only three years ago, but it’ll take many years before we can start crawling out of the knowledge vaccum hole BD caused.

          Cheap and 100% reliable electric energy is and has been the back bone of all of the industrial progress we’ve had over centuries and will also so remain. It is also the major, by far, basic for our so called ‘well fare state’ being. This, however, is crumbling at a pace of yet never been speed, and counting. Apart from our devastating, really non-existent, ‘energy politics/policy’ Sweden faces huge, extremely huge society problems, due to the vast, extremely vast (appr. 6x Germanys) amounts of so called refugees, pouring over the borders. That’s another ‘story’ though.

          Please keep up the very good work – all of you! – it’s most interesting to read/learn from your expertise. Thanks!

          Brgds from the Bestcoast of Sweden.
          //TJ

          90

    • #
      David Maddison

      I think the Government will be happy that Australian homes will have battery packs and enough energy to supply LED lights, one TV, an Internet connection and some power to recharge some phones and tablets. Forget about heating and cooling. We will have limited natural gas for hot water and cooking.

      80

      • #
        James Murphy

        if the government was sensible, it would provide the power for a TV which never switches off, with only 1 channel, and with video conferencing capabilities – for your own protection, of course.

        The Two Minutes Hate will be directed towards deniers and fossil fuel sympathisers. Hate week will be run concurrently with the next COP conference.

        101

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      This thread turned into a TonyFromOz baiting session with all those pro-solar quotes.
      Well two can play at that game. Let’s see if he bites.

      Developer of $20 million Australian-first solar thermal pilot plant predicts sunny future under Turnbull

      The Jemalong pilot plant will be ready for commissioning in mid-January and is designed to prove the technology works.
      [...]
      “So the big advantage with solar thermal is the storage. Our storage costs around $25 a kilowatt an hour, compared to lithium ion batteries which cost about $300 a kilowatt hour,” Mr Fisher said.

      He said the system meant power production could happen whenever it was needed and until now, that role of maintaining a steady electricity grid had mainly been provided by coal power.

      “We can run 24 hours a day and providing base load is really the key to solar thermal,” he said.

      Mr Fisher said commercial solar thermal plants could be producing power at seven cents per kilowatt hour, which was cheaper than the most up-to-date coal-fired plants.

      “I think we’ll look back in 50 years and think, ‘wow, what were we doing building coal mines to power a plant that has to run 24-hours a day when the sunshine’s free?’”

      :-)

      P.S. – The interview happened on an overcast day, an irony not lost on the reporter who nonetheless spins it into a positive for the story. And absolutely no mention of how many full power hours of storage capacity they have, which is highly relevant. If storage is less than 18 hours then one overcast day like that one shoots down Fisher’s “We can run 24 hours a day” claim. Even on large USA Nevada/Arizona projects I’ve only seen 16 hours max of on-site storage. Jemalong doesn’t look much larger than a chicken shed!

      30

      • #

        Andrew,

        Haven’t been back here for a while. Got a stomach bug and was horrendously ill for 24 hours or so. Feeling a little better now, but not much.

        As to this Jemalong solar plant, I did mention it here a couple of days back (at this link) and also at the following comment. At that comment is a link to the ABC article and scroll down to the last image to see their, umm, turbine room???

        1.1MW total Nameplate.

        24 hours power, well, not really.

        When totalled out across as many CSP plants as I can find, their average Capacity Factor is around 28%, which is slightly worse than for Wind power.

        The only plants which have so far managed 24 hours of power delivery, and there’s only two of them are all a lower Nameplate than 20MW, and that has only been for a maximum of 38 days in Mid Summer, and even both of those plants have to close down for three Months around mid Winter. (for anaysis on all of Spain’s CSP plants, the main user of this technology see my Post at this link)

        What is hardly ever mentioned about these CSP plants is that all those plants with heat diversion capability ranging from 4 hours up to a couple who quote 16 hours of heat diversion is that they all use Natural Gas (NG) fired means to start the units and run them until there is enough heat to make the compound used to be hot enough to make enough steam to take over the running of the steam turbine, and then they (occasionally) turn off that NG turbine.

        The problem they have is that by diverting the heat, there’s not enough heat to actually fire up the unit in the first place.

        So, renewable, well not really.

        They run 50MW units at best, because that’s all the heat they can make to make the steam to drive the turbine.

        That one in the Mojave Desert, Ivanpah has specially designed turbines at enormous cost to run a 125MW generator, but they can just barely turn that over, the plant has consistently under delivered, way way less than the modelling predicted, and they have applied for, and been granted extra hours running of the NG element so they CAN actually be able to deliver any power at all.

        CSP has proved as big a flop as every other one of the supposed renewables of recent choice.

        Tony.

        CSP – Concentrating Solar Power or Solar Thermal.

        40

  • #
    Peter C

    According to Nicholas Stern, the climate industry is set to rival the Industrial Revolution

    The Industrial Revolution was implemented by individuals taking risks with their own money with the expectation of personal gain. It brought huge benefits and catapulted the western democracies ahead of other societies based on socialism and communism.

    The Climate Industry, as it exists now, requires Government subsidies funded by taxation. That is the Communist system again. The experiment has been done and it failed, time and again.

    How Nicholas Stern can see any public benefit from this is beyond me.

    612

    • #
      ianl8888


      How Nicholas Stern can see any public benefit from this is beyond me

      He doesn’t care, Peter; saving the planet by pretence at our cost suits him way better

      We’ve been here before … Noble Cause Corruption, aka hubris, vanity

      261

    • #

      The industrial revolution went from about 1760 to 1840. Tell me, what “other societies based on socialism and communism” were in existence during that period?.

      416

      • #
        James Murphy

        Mr numbers person,
        As far as I know, technology has continued to develop at an impressive pace since 1840. The fact I am typing this on a computer, and not having it sent via telegraph is probably evidence enough for this, is it not?

        I can’t tell if you’re being pedantic, or deliberately dim-witted.

        173

      • #
        James Bradley

        2468,

        Hmmm, the Industrial Revolution commenced in 1760 – that’d at about the middle of the Little Ice Age – so tell me, why is it we use the Little Ice Age as the climate optimum again?

        133

      • #
        Dariusz

        Hero teacher again.
        1840 end of industrial revolution? before invention of electricity, advancements in chemistry, physics? What are you teacher of? Not history.
        Do you even know what communism is? Have you gone to any of the communist countries during the 70 and 80-ties you we were just smoking weed?
        Go to North Korea to catch on the pre-industrialised society.

        114

    • #
      Ted O'Brien

      If that was the Industrial Revolution, this must be the Industrial Derevolution.

      141

    • #
      Manfred

      Professor Stern, IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government, Chairman of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, aka. Baron Stern of Brentford, will not, cannot say anything else.

      It has been written of The Dark Lord that,

      Lord Stern does not just tilt at windmills, he worships them, and regards those who don’t as infidels.

      The ‘industrial revolution’ sound bite sounds impressive, but a moment of thought will highlight the fallacy. The industrial revolution harnessed water and coal to produce mechanical energy. Machines did complex hard work, gradually replacing individual time consuming, crushing physical labour courtesy of dense energy, wood first, then coal. Ultimately it enriched societies and produced enormous wealth and health. It was huge progress, a massive step forward, built on the broad and solid shoulders of inventors and scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs.

      The Climate “Industry” is paper edict, a totalitarian bureaucratically orchestrated pantomime arising by direction, neither by need nor native market force. Here the shoulders are far from broad or muscular or accustomed to hard work. They are narrow, weak and bereft of a supporting spine and they rely on subterfuge and manipulation. Their ‘climate revolution’ will continue to fail, as it does recurrently because it breaks its own rules. It is economically unsustainable, socially unsustainable, environmentally unsustainable.

      In short, it appears unsustainable without brute edict…just as The Looters eventually learned in ‘Atlas Shrugged’.

      It takes seconds to learn this, here for example,

      Inconvenient timing: On eve of Paris Climate Conference, Spain’s Abengoa Solar goes bankrupt

      and here for example,

      Rest in Peace: The List of Deceased Solar Companies

      and here for example,

      Solar Eclipse: 112 Solar Companies Have Closed Their Doors In 5 Years

      The ‘climate revolution’ nothing more than a UN ideologically imposed perpetual motion delusion. The money will run out. It always does.

      171

  • #

    Er, an “industry” is where you make stuff people need or want. And when you come up with a scheme to shuffle money and skim it as it goes, that is not a “product”. Just so Nicholas Stern knows.

    By their Orwellian language you will know them.

    553

    • #
      RoHa

      Now, now. Don’t be rude about the horny-handed, soot and oil begrimed, noble, Stakhanovite, workers in the banking “industry”.

      Apparently I have spent most of my life working in the education “industry”. SWMBO labours in the dark, Satanic, mills of the child care “industry”.

      And some people work in the horse racing “industry”.

      50

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    Statements and claims without evidence.

    470

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Sounds like a blue print for the Global Warming scam.

      ” Statements and claims without evidence ”

      KK

      543

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        And on the basis of that you deserve another green thumb.

        Now Harry has joined the fold so please reward it.

        KK

        203

    • #
      James Murphy

      Thank you for describing your own contributions on this blog, Harry. I couldn’t have put it better myself.

      Merry Christmas.

      285

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Statements and claims without evidence.”

      Sounds like the normal Harry Twatter post.

      225

    • #
      James Bradley

      You really must have two otters, Harry – you couldn’t be that stupid playing with just one.

      224

      • #
      • #
        Yonniestone

        Yep James, one for each pocket…..AndyG55 quite the imagination there.

        113

      • #
        James Murphy

        James, the problem is that the Twinotter was, and is a fantastic aeroplane – at least coming from someone who survived many a hair-raising take-off and landing on inexplicably located, and impossibly short runways in Papua New Guinea.

        This person calling themselves Harry Twinotter besmirches the good name of that highly reliable, well designed and engineered machine.

        132

        • #
          James Bradley

          Agreed, although I’m also a fan of the DHC-2 Beaver.

          60

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi James

          Once spent New Years Eve in Nuku, inland from Aitape and Wewak.

          Hairy landing and t/o mainly because of the steep slope of the strip.

          Flew in a Btittain Norman Islander, a Fokker Friendship, which lost wheel lock confirmation lights and did an emergency landing at Lae and probably a Twotter but also saw something called a Helo land , may have been at Fomin (Tele). Very STOL.

          Long ago.

          KK

          30

          • #
            James Murphy

            The best for me was at a village called Wabo – the plane seemed to drop out of the sky at a fantastic rate of knots, until it’s below the fog layer, followed a relatively straight bit of river for a while, not much above tree-top level, and then the pilot manages to put the plane down smoothly on a postage stamp between bends in the river.

            People say PNG air safety is bad (and maybe it’s not the best), but these pilots are just astonishingly brilliant at what they do. I can see why some do not want to work for large international airlines on long-haul flights, it must be quite tedious by comparison.

            Also had a charter flight (in Australia) where the pilot managed to lock themselves out of the cockpit before getting off the ground… but this is even more off-topic.

            30

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Jo has eight (8) links in the post, as well as eight (8) quoted extracts from those documents.

      What would constitute “evidence” in your mind Twinotter?

      205

      • #
        Winston

        I can answer that Greg.

        Evidence is defined as those statements that confirm Harry Twinotter’s preconceived, and often ill-conceived notions of reality. Note, truth has little or nothing to do with it, given that any “truth” that doesn’t conform with his notions, is by definition, lacking in evidence.

        Therein lies the central conundrum of the climate alarmist, where no fact can dissuade, no reality need be considered, no consequences need to be planned for nor taken ownership of, no opportunity cost need be entertained. All that matters is one’s prejudices be confirmed in the name of the “cause”, whose mere existence in the mind of moral arbiters justifies the harshest and most draconian of means.

        Have I got that about right, Harry?

        103

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Winston.

          ‘Have I got that about right, Harry?’

          Do you really want a serious answer to a rant followed by a rhetorical question? No.

          Nice try attempting to twist the burden of evidence to me. It is JoNova who should be providing the evidence to back her claims.

          29

          • #
            Winston

            Harry,

            You ignore the fact that you ignored the evidence Jo actually presented as her evidence without any attempt at refutation. You just pretended she didn’t present any evidentiary support when she plainly did, then made a blanket assertion, again without evidence, in response. That is some damn fine cognitive dissonance there buddy.

            You understand nothing about evidence, Harry, so I deduce, after my recent personal experience, that you must be a lawyer.

            62

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              Winston.

              No, you are wrong. And you don’t know much about holding a discussion, but I do see you understand the use of ad hominems just fine.

              16

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Greg Cavanagh.

        “What would constitute “evidence” in your mind Twinotter?”

        No. Speculation is not evidence.

        27

        • #
          Winston

          Not only do you define evidence as those facts or assertions that agree with you, but you alsodefine speculation as anything that disagrees with you. Amazing.

          Just admit it, Harry, it wouldn’t matter what evidence Jo presented, no matter how compelling, no matter how supported, no matter how logical, you would disagree with it.

          I have yet to see any response of yours that suggests you read what Jo writes, that you consider any supportive evidence she presents, or that you attempt to engage logically with any opinion she might put forth.That makes you a drone.

          62

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Winston.

            “Just admit it, Harry, it wouldn’t matter what evidence Jo presented, no matter how compelling, no matter how supported, no matter how logical, you would disagree with it. ”

            A lot of words based on… nothing. I was not discussing any of those things, so why try and put words in my mouth?

            My point still stands – speculation is not evidence. If anyone disagrees, let’s have a discussion about why JoNova’s speculation is evidence.

            17

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Harry, do you ever return to read the thread, do you even read the thread before knee-jerk posting.

      You sure as hell don’t respond.

      73

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Greg Cavanagh.

        “You sure as hell don’t respond.”

        Nice attempt to turn the discussion on me, instead of what I am saying. But no cigar, I know about that cheap trick.

        06

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          You also don’t answer the question, or any other question put to you. What would constitute evidence Harry?

          You want evidence but you don’t bother looking at the links provided.

          I’m not turning anything on you, I’ve personally had it up to here with you. Out of exasperation I asked what “would” be evidence. You haven’t answered, instead you try to throw the blame back to those who ask YOU for some feedback.

          11

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    “Due diligence” as seen by politicians involves the following scientific method:

    1. determine what you want and who is to profit.

    2. Construct a “Public Survey” which will herd the sheeple into the chute.

    3. hire, at taxpayers cost, a “reputable” survey company to test the public opinion and

    4. Regardless of survey outcome declare the needed action to have been publicly endorsed.

    Winners’

    Not necessarily in order of profit.

    a. The politicians and or friends, relatives and other “investors” in the scheme.

    b. Survey company: thank you for the work.

    c. designated construction, planning and design companies ( none of which are owned by relatives or acquaintances of the politicians.

    Losers.

    Voters and taxpayers who want real Due Diligence done for ALL government spending.

    KK

    282

  • #

    I wouldn’t touch Allianz with a ten foot barge pole, as the saying goes. A major investor in a 50,000 acre Kimberley Irrigation venture, they pulled the pin just as the first crop was being sown, and, despite warnings of what a looming wet season, left all their machinery on the laser-leveled plains at Camballin to rot. They lost a large number of Steiger tractors, combine seeders and more in the big flood that followed. Full details can be found in the book by Jack Fletcher, “Dam or Be Damned”.
    As for their investments in Renewable Energy, this agenda of theirs makes them responsible for keeping much of the third world in poverty.

    330

  • #
  • #

    It’s a simple matter of fact that those countries stupid enough to go along with these climate “peacock’s feathers” will massively fall behind the rest of the globe and very soon the global leaders will be those who don’t believe in the claptrap.

    Likewise political parties.

    291

    • #

      those countries stupid enough to go along with these climate “peacock’s feathers” will massively fall behind the rest of the globe

      “those countries” signing up in Paris include, Germany, China, India and the USA.
      What “rest of the globe” are you referring to?

      16

      • #

        Bob, most countries promised and failed to deliver in past climate agreements. In any case, almost no one was bothering to audit or measure the emissions properly. Carbon accounting is a joke. The UK and Australia are some of the most honest – the UK audited 5% of its projects to start with, which fell to 1% lately. In other words, no one really cares if emissions are reduced. What matters is the mere appearance of reducing emissions. China and India have promised nothing substantially new — they are doing what they were going to do anyway. Chinese population growth was always going to level off in 2030. Hence, the rest of the world is the “rest of the world”. But the countries who will do badly are Germany, the UK, Australia, for starters…

        131

  • #
    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Frederick Colbourne:

      Curiously I have just been re-reading about that bubble, and the Mississippi one in France which the South Sea fraudsters (MOD: they were convicted and punished) tried to copy. There were differences between the two.
      The current situation seems more related to the French experience. Someone with a novel theory and the best of intentions set out to boost the economy, aided by government approval and legislative advantages. The scheme was initially a success buoyed by a flood of “quantitive easing” with 6 businesses printing bank notes 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for months. While people felt better off at the start, the resulting inflation was disastrous and the bubble burst.
      The aftermath was a reverse of previous procedures. Bank notes were abandoned and enormous quantities burnt, laws and decrees were reversed, contracts were reversed except in the case of “winning” ones by the aristocracy who were allowed to keep any gains (“losing” contracts by the aristocracy were reversed). This left the French economy struggling for many years and the residual loss of respect and resentment to the authorities fed into the French Revolution.

      The South Sea bubble was much more an attempt by some financial types to gain wealth from the general population by “doing down” those who had leant money to the government. The government was enthusiastic as it believed the scheme would generate much wealth and wipe out public debt. The bubble was generated by enormous sums being lent at very low interest rates. When this bubble collapsed the public anger forced retribution. All the Directors of The South Sea Co. were heavily fined – up to 98.5% of their assets – and some suffered a period in prison. Several members of the Government were convicted of taking bribes, and after a spell in the Tower fined and expelled from the House of Commons, never to hold office again. The government wound up having to accept responsibility for the debt anyway.
      The few who were sceptical of the scheme were not affected, or in the case of some astute ones like the Duchess of Marlborough made money by getting out early.

      I was particularly taken by the notion of politicians being punished for “breach of public trust” and even if not fined, losing office – for the rest of their lifetime in practically all cases.

      [...politicians being punished for breach of public trust... Oh, if only! How many there must be who wish it could happen. Sorry for editorializing but you raise an important issue with that.] AZ

      140

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        AZ:

        Of the Ministry 2 died (stroke from stress, smallpox) 1 committed suicide, at least 5 minor ones were dismissed and were never employed again, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer spent time in the Tower before being heavily fined and booted into retirement. Two guilty ones were acquitted because they were involved with transactions by the Royal Family ( & mistresses) which were almost covered up. Neither lasted in office much after the final report was made, one indeed never became a Minister despite trying for the next 39 years.
        Nearly half the directors were jailed at one stage, were not allowed to remain directors and were fined according to their perceived guilt. The less guilty ones were fined anything from 30 to 82% of their net wealth. The guiltiest ones were fined anything from 85 to 98.5% of their net worth. All of them lost any positions with the government even honorary Officerships in Regiments.
        The officials of the Company were also heavily fined (Secretary, Treasurer (Cashier), deputy Cashier, Accountant).
        One minor snippet is when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sent to the Tower Lord Coningsby, who was there for contempt of the Lords, made a formal complaint about having to endure “such low company” .
        Overall the disgraced politicians didn’t suffer much financially, it was the loss of office and influence that would have hurt. The ex-Chancellor was fined £45,000 but left with nearly £120,000. The Post Master (suicide) had his estate cut by £70,000 out of considerably more. Multiply those numbers by roughly 100 to get modern values.

        110

  • #

    Lord Stern’s 2006 review had the right concept about climate policy. The summary stated

    Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.

    That is mitigation policy, although costly is a fraction of the likely costs of CAGW.
    But this justification fails on three fronts.
    First there is not sign of the warming (i.e. massive warming from GHGs with random & catastrophic consequences that cannot be adapted to.)
    Second, there is no sign of the low cost and feasible technological policies that countries could adopt to eliminate GHG emissions.
    Third, there is no recognition that most countries – particularly the emerging economies where the majority of the world’s population live – have far more important priorities that conflict with emission constraint policies. These include is economic growth and political stability.
    The climate alarmists cannot link the real world to the abstract models.

    231

  • #
    James

    Want to put your own money into ‘green’ investments, then look no further, than Hunter Hall Deep greet trust.

    Looking at the returns, you can safely say that it will not make you much money, but it will make some people feel good. Here is a link to the performance figures:

    http://www.hunterhall.com.au/managed_funds_GDG_performance.php

    60

    • #
      James Murphy

      Why would any ‘true believers’ need to worry about investment performance when they are likely to:
      a) never have a job which pays enough to allow them to invest in anything like this
      or
      b) have a wonderful indexed pension scheme via their employer – for public service/public broadcaster/university people
      or
      c) earn so much money that investments like this are considered an astroturf solution, and losses are probably tax deductible anyway.

      Besides which, their modus operandi is not to personally invest in such schemes, but to guilt others into losing their own hard-earned money.

      180

      • #
        James Bradley

        As Turnbull said in his speech on Incentivation – “You can now invest in startups, now some of them may go broke and some people may lose all their money, but regardless of that Australia will still benefit… ” WTF?

        60

  • #
    James Murphy

    in my line of work, ‘PDC’ means Polycrystalline Diamond Compact, and they are far more useful, and less destructive to society than the PDC mentioned here.

    Yet again, I am stunned by the complacency, and compliance displayed by so many people. So willing to denounce and ridicule anyone who may have ever been associated with ‘fossil fuels’, yet are themselves completely unable, or unwilling to see the reality of these numerous UN-sponsored activities.

    200

    • #
      el gordo

      A lot of people, including those who are university educated, cannot think independently on the issue of climate change because they have been brainwashed.

      161

      • #
        James Murphy

        I agree. I was surprised at some of my colleagues who genuinely believed that COP21 was a good thing.

        Then, to make matters more strange, these same people have a solid grasp of the scientific method, and with regards to their own field of expertise, often complain bitterly about those few who manipulate and distort data to achieve a desired result – but do not resort to this tactic themselves.

        180

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one’s mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.’

          wiki

          30

  • #
    Robber

    Is John Kerry Al Gore’s puppet?
    How can replacing a reliable energy supply with intermittent supplies be “an extraordinary market opportunity”?
    In Australia with electricity prices continuing to rise thanks to Greg Hunt’s RET we are leading the way (NOT) by driving industry offshore (with contributions from the CFMEU and Labor state governments)

    240

    • #
      Eddie

      Opportunity is corporate speak for a problem. Not that that’s what Kerry had in mind, but any excuse to spend other people’s money is an opportunity to a lefty.

      100

  • #
    • #
      The Backslider

      Question for Elon: How are you going to carry the power from Utah to Massacheusetts?

      I know! You can pump it into your new fangled batteries and truck it across!…..because you sure won’t do it with power lines…..

      60

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      The Backslider:

      Elon Musk is a little deceptive (as in Mt. Everest is a small hill). He’s got the wrong figure for solar radiation, is claiming an advanced CF for solar cells and ignoring the spacing needed so the cells don’t shadow each other.
      He also says that the plant will need atteries to store power and BY A PECULIAR COINCIDENCE he is building a huge factory to make lithium batteries.

      30

      • #
        Peter C

        Best of luck to Elon Musk!

        BY A PECULIAR COINCIDENCE he is building a huge factory to make lithium batteries.

        A123 used up heaps of USA taxpayers dollars to develop Lithium FePo4 batteries. The batteries are quite good. However they Used to cost $60 each. Two years ago I noticed that the price had dropped to $20 each and I ordered some from China. At the time A123 had just gone broke but the battery cells I received were fully branded as A123 cells. A123 claimed that all their cells were made in the USA, yet somehow identical cells were coming from China.

        The A123 cells are still available from China, but there are also many other offerings which are getting better and better. There has been no new battery technology so Elon Musk is taking on Chinese manufacturers in their main area of expertise.

        40

  • #
    Another Ian

    O/T but economic

    “Larry Ledwick says:
    26 December 2015 at 5:55 pm

    I also tend to watch certain high demand products to gauge real inflation, things like the cost of a loaf of sandwich bread, a gallon of milk, price of a set of new tires. The sort of expenses which people tend not to defer in tight times but buy regardless of circumstances because like tires you just can’t do without them.

    Found these items which mention an interesting way of looking at likelihood of a major financial down turn using the equity Q ratio. Points out exact timing is pretty much unknowable but the trend of how likely a down turn can be predicted with some success, and right now those numbers are not confidence inspiring.

    All the below links are related and just give slightly different discussions of the same concept.

    http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/whens-the-crash-happening-right-about-now/
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/tyler-durden/crash-going-happen/
    http://greenbackd.com/2013/04/08/the-equity-q-ratio-how-overvaluation-leads-to-low-returns-and-extreme-losses/

    From https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/tips-december-2015/#comments

    60

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Decarbonization… Now there’s an oxymoron if ever there was one. Getting rid of carbon in a world based on the stuff has got to be the ultimate fools errand.

    Is there no one left who understands basic biology, basic organic chemistry and basic common sense? How about a little natural history which would quickly dispel the myth of mortal danger from higher atmospheric CO2 if it was understood? Or has blindness taken over?

    Tragically it appears to be the latter. And the longer this goes on the worse it gets. I could almost wish they will quickly get their way and fail. And but for the sake of all those who would suffer I would give up fighting and encourage everyone to do the same. But too much is at stake.

    How do you hold back a soon to be majority held opinion that there’s a problem and something must be done? How do you hold back an organization like the UN that is virtually worshipped by the left? I know of no way.

    160

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And under the heading of things you always wanted to know but were afraid to ask, I found this little tidbit on the Internet.

      The U.S. uses 6.6 billion kilowatt hours to power Christmas lights each year. Countries like El Salvador and Honduras use less than that in a year.

      Implication — well it seems clearly to blame us for our extravagance, doesn’t it?

      And so what? Compare what the U.S. contributes to the world economy with the contributions of El Salvador and Honduras and ask yourself this question. What is really out of balance here? Is it U.S. extravagance in Christmas decoration or is it something else? El Salvador and Honduras may just be the ones with the problem, not the U.S.

      I haven’t said what I did to put down either nation but rather to put the complaint in its proper perspective. When you do that I think the complaint disappears. I would rather El Salvador and Honduras, along with many others could boost their standard of living and contribution to the world. But while the problem is viewed through the lense that blames the rich nations for having stolen from the poor, it can never happen. And I’m only one voice with no audience among those who could do so much to improve the situation if they only would change their approach to it.

      141

    • #
      Alice Thermopolis

      Agreed.

      Worse still, UN has legal ‘immunity’. How convenient.
      https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl

      50

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    According to Nicholas Stern, the climate industry is set to rival the Industrial Revolution

    The flaw in his comparison is that at least with the Industrial Revolution people were actually manufacturing goods which people wanted.

    There is nothing sexy or prestigious about saying the electricity coming out of your socket is now generated from a “big ass” wind mill. ( wind permitting of course )

    2016 will be a most interesting year :o

    130

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      There is a difference between producing wealth and producing politically correct status, isn’t there?

      I fear that 2016 will be too interesting. :-(

      80

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        And electrons not only don’t know the difference, they don’t even care. :-)

        80

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          So rejoice all you electrons. You at least will remain untouched by whatever 2016 may bring to the world of electricity and those who depend on it.

          The rest of us… …not so much.

          50

  • #
    David Charles

    Tulip Futures Two, anyone?

    110

    • #
      scaper...

      You might be on to something there. I wonder if renewable energy contracts are being traded on the derivatives market?

      I have been informed that there are hundreds of trillions of dollars of shady trades in the market and suspect climate scamming is involved.

      I expect a crash to occur in the not too distant future.

      110

  • #
    handjive

    James Lovelock: ‘enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan’ (theguardian)

    “Working alone since the age of 40, he invented a device that detected CFCs, which helped detect the growing hole in the ozone layer, and introduced the Gaia hypothesis, a revolutionary theory that the Earth is a self-regulating super-organism.

    Initially ridiculed by many scientists as new age nonsense, today that theory forms the basis of almost all climate science.

    “Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.”

    He saves his thunder for what he considers the emptiest false promise of all – renewable energy.

    “You’re never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours,” he says.
    “Windmills!
    Oh no.
    No way of doing it.
    You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them.
    Waste of time.”

    At moments I wonder about Lovelock’s credentials as a prophet.”
    . . .
    “Moments” of lucidness amongst delusion it would seem.

    130

    • #
      • #
        Eddie

        The average leftist excused for being wrong:-

        ‘I like the fact he’s provocative and provokes people to think about these things,’

        Peter Stott of Uk Hadley Centre , Lovelock’s admission

        120

    • #
      handjive

      Dec 17, 2015: There is a new form of climate denialism to look out for – so don’t celebrate yet – Naomi Oreskes

      “There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.”

      120

      • #
        bobl

        Orskes is clearly innumerate then. Should be stripped of her academic credentials because she is
        ….

        Orskes, not that you will ever read this but as an Electrical Engineer I can tell you in unequivocal scientific terms that the idea of powering the world with breezes and sunbeams is a complete folly. It’s impossible. The problem dear madam is that the world needs near perfect reliability of electricity. You in your comfortable western house gets something like 99.96% reliability of supply. When an EE like myself designs a proper solar supply to get this sort of reliability we need to cater for around 5 days of cloud, put another way we can only assume that the panels generate 1/5th of nameplate over the 5 hours a day that they work. With that we can get roughly grid equivalent reliability but will still need an autostart diesel backup. What this means dear madam is that you can only get a grid equivalent of around 4-5 watts per square meter of ground that you cover in solar panels, worse in Tasmania. Put yet another way Naomi, to power just your comfortable western house’s 30kWh a day at that 99.96% reliability with solar requires around 350 square meters tiled with solar panels and batteries costing about $140,000 (every ten years). Of course on your salary I am sure that’s pocket change but can your grandmother afford that? But lets scale that…

        Australias 7.5 million households needs 2625 square km TILED with solar panels just to power houses at 99.96% reliability. That’s an area 50 km x 50 km TILED with panels JUST TO POWER HOUSES. Industry needs an area 5 times that a square 126km on each side TILED with around 16 trillion 1 square meter solar panels. All 16 Trillion of which need to be replaced every 10 years, 1.6 Trillion of them each year at a cost of around 50 Trillion per annum.

        Yup, you are Sooooo environmentally sensitive Naomi (NOT).

        What about China where 1.4 Billion people will need a square 404 km a side JUST TO POWER THE HOUSES and 1000 km a side for a total of around a quadrillion 1 square meter solar panels and batteries being replaced at a rate greater that 100 Trillion panels a year at a cost of $40 Quadrillion per annum. India, that’s another 900 Billion panels and batteries plus 90 Trillion a year as replacements at a maintenance cost of $36 Quadrillion dollars per annum.

        Perhaps dear madam you want to conquer the world with Solar to a level to alleviate poverty and give the whole world a western existence. That’s an area tiled with Solar panels 950 km per side for just houses or 2300 km a side to incorporate industry, a total of around 5.2 quadrillion panels and batteries, replacement rate of 520 Trillion panels a year, and infrastructure cost of over $2800 Quadrillion and a maintenance cost of over $280 Quadrillion per annum (Plus labour).

        Too many media tarts spout such rubbish about Solar it’s hard to address with the real facts.

        133

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Did you allow for spacing to eliminate shadows and for access for maintenance?
          ( A lot of “green jobs” would seem to be people cleaning solar cells with squeejees ).

          60

          • #
            bobl

            See the bit right at the end that says “Plus Labour”.

            Even the 10% overbuild needed to allow for maintenance would cost $28 Quadrillion dollars per annum. Inverter conversion losses would amount to $14-$25 Quadrillion.

            I missed noting that World GDP (2013) Was $75 Trillion so the Inverter conversion loss of say $14 Quadrillion would cost 200 x World GDP.

            51

        • #
          bobl

          Ok Red thumbers, ante up, where is my math or engineering wrong, c’mon? Orskes? You there, wanna public debate?

          40

  • #

    “The risk is that voters will get sick of being called names for asking good questions, and they chuck out the gullible fools and parasites.” Speaking of parasites, we just, very unfortunately, saw Malcolm Turnbull take over leadership of the Liberal Party, which had previously been the Best Hope for Sanity.

    150

  • #
    Dennis

    I believe that we need to demand an answer to this from our elected representatives, if they are not willing participants in forcing major changes to our economic prosperity they should be fighting against the UN agendas;

    conomic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
    At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
    “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,” she said.
    Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

    Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3vT6m8H7O
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

    20

    • #
      Dennis

      When he was the Prime Minister Tony Abbott said that he would not stand for socialism masquerading as environmentalism. After the BoM was required to investigate why their climate change department was putting out media releases about hottest days/weeks/months/years that did not line up with BoM historical data and they admitted to errors and omissions PM Abbott apparently tried to gain Cabinet approval for due diligence to be carried out by independent auditors at the BoM but he was out voted.

      Obviously there are cabinet ministers who are intent on pushing the man-made global warming climate change UN agenda fraud, but they cannot therefore claim to be acting in the best interests of their constituency, or in the national interest. So they too are guilty of fraud.

      The more I think about the admission by Christiana Figueres and how our parliamentary representatives are apparently willing to go along with this plot the more angry I become. And knowing that the new PM is also on the dark side angers me even more.

      50

  • #
    handjive

    (UN tweet) Compared to other low carbon investments, energy efficiency investments are less visible & largely untapped.

    Mobilising 100 Financial Institutions for Energy Efficiency

    “This month’s COP 21 in Paris concluded with a universal agreement to keep the global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius, and to aim to further reduce it to below 1.5 degrees.
    To achieve this, the world needs to shift to carbon neutral economies within this century – with a downward carbon trend required well before 2050.”

    read more: http://energy-l.iisd.org/guest-articles/mobilising-100-financial-institutions-for-energy-efficiency/
    . . .
    Energy efficiency is a meaningless term.

    “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can ONLY be CHANGED from one FORM to another” ~ 1st law of thermodynamics (1850) Albert Einstein

    80

  • #
    Robert O

    The current means of producing green energy are solar and wind, which only operate around 16% and 25% of the time respectively, and require large areas of land (or sea) to set-up, something of the order of 50 ha. for wind and 10 ha. for solar per MW equivalent of a coal station.

    Without government subsidy there is no way that these could ever be economically viable. On top of this there is the large unanswered problem what you do for back-up production when the sun isn’t shining and it’s calm, about 80% of the time? Shouldn’t this be put into the economic case as well?

    90

    • #
      Steve Richards

      Government subsidy!

      You mean tax payer funded subsidy…..

      Meaning the little people pay via the tax system to fund PV and wind systems owned by the wealthy…….

      00

  • #
    pat

    there are things that can be done.

    last week, while negotiating a new electricity plan, I told my supplier I didn’t want them investing in “green” energy to fulfil their RET obligations. the guy told me everyone is saying that, so he wouldn’t ask me if I wanted the “green energy” option blah blah.

    if you have money in a Super Fund (or similar), you can write to the Manager, requesting that none of your funds be invested in renewables.
    best to put it in writing.

    if you are with one of the banks listed at the UNEPFI members link provided by Michael Kile in his excellent article (which should be published in The Australian or similar), you can write to them expressing your objection to them participating in any scheme to decarbonise the economy, or their refusal to fund coal projects.

    complaining amongst ourselves is not enough.

    180

  • #
    pat

    re side event at COP21:

    3 Dec: Forbes: Jeff McMahon: UN Climate Strategists Have A Powerful New Ally: Money
    Here, in the words of Al Gore, is why:
    “The business community—investors, technology developers, researchers and others—have brought the technologies of solar voltaics and wind power and efficiency and battery storage and sustainable forests and sustainable agriculture to the point where these new approaches are extremely competitive with the legacy approaches we are quite used to.”
    And the business community has a new prominence in the summit as well. Institutional investors and fund managers are collaborating with strategists here to reform the world’s financial markets to protect them from the “stranded assets” of fossil fuels…
    Disruptive innovation has energized the Paris Climate Conference, but disruptive innovation has also presented negotiators with a difficult problem—how to steer the world to a low-carbon future without bursting an estimated $6 trillion fossil-fuels bubble.
    Accordingly, big capital has emerged here not only as a target for reform, but also as a driver of change and an adviser on strategy…
    “We’ve kind of had enough and we’re saying it’s really simple: we are the asset owners, our members are the asset owners, we don’t like what asset managers have done traditionally over the last 20 or 30 years by simply following the leader,” said ITUC General Secretary Sharan Burrow…
    “What’s your plan for decarbonization and jobs? What’s your time frame? And we will stay the distance with you only if you in fact are serious about it, and you can show us results here.”…
    The French energy company Total claims to have such a plan…
    “We believe strongly that emission of CO2 will have a cost, and it must have a cost,” Moutet (Total) said…
    The company has shifted assets from coal to natural gas because of the lighter carbon profile of gas and has invested heavily in solar energy, including a 60 percent stake in the U.S. company Sunpower…
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/12/03/institutional-investors-fund-managers-come-to-paris-to-deflate-carbon-bubble/

    ***videos of 302 events are linked from the following. very easy to navigate. also note the events listed at this page, especially those following the one excerpted, e.g. LPAA Press Conference on Private Finance, Carbon Pricing, Bloomberg/Carney event which i’ve posted previously, Investor Actions on Climate Change etc:

    COP21: Climate Action Arena: A Stage to Highlight Ambitious Climate Action
    ***The live webcast can be viewed here: http://unfccc6.meta-fusion.com/cop21/channels/press-room-1-1
    Thursday 3 December
    Investing for the Long Term: addressing carbon asset risk
    Moderator: Stephanie Pfeifer, CEO IIGCC
    Speakers:
    •Al Gore, Founder, Climate Reality Project
    •Nick Nuttall, Head of Communication & Outreach and UNFCCC Spokesperson
    •Anthony Hobley, CEO, Carbon Tracker
    •Mindy Lubber, CEO, Ceres
    •Dr. Timur Gul, Senior Energy Analyst, IEA
    •Zoe Knight, Managing Director HSBC
    •Saker Nusseibeh, CEO, Hermes
    •Jack Ehnes, CEO, CalSTRS
    •Sharan Burrow, General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation ITUC
    •Gerard Moutet, Vice-­President, Climate-­Energy, Total
    http://newsroom.unfccc.int/paris/cop21-climate-action-arena-a-stage-to-highlight-ambitious-climate-action/

    20

  • #
    handjive

    blogs, wsj Recap: The May 2015 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting

    Buffett/Munger: a free-market system wouldn’t produce solar under today’s economics

    2:03 am Renewable energy:

    The two top Berkshire dogs on the stage, Buffett and Munger, say that wind and solar at present are dependent on tax credits because a free-market system wouldn’t produce solar under today’s economics.

    70

  • #
    TdeF

    It’s not the immense and useless waste of money which is the real problem, it’s the lack of funding and development of real alternatives like hydro and nuclear, which are starting to look really cheap and efficient. Where is the storage without which sustainables are just unusables. The focus of ‘sustainables’ is still only solar and wind. After twenty years of massive investment, solar and wind amount to 2% of all power and mostly in countries which do not need them, so no one is better off. It is a total failure. At the end of another 20 years, will we have 4%?

    What a huge waste of the seventy years of peace after WW2 and the waste of precious fossil fuel resources to power a planet while science ignorant Green politicians refuse to build dams or nuclear or fund research. We have gone back in time and have to follow the modern science ignorant druid priests like Gore and Flannery and build totems to the gods, giant useless windmills for the rich, when the oil runs out. Sustainability is another Armageddon cult for self indulgent middle classes, a shamanist religion as sensible as pyramid building or Easter Island statues. What a waste. Return on investment? What return? What investment? These are nonsense words like Carbon Trading. It is all utter waste.

    What a boon it would be to mankind if even half this money was spent on fusion, Thorium, making and burning metals other than carbon, low temperature differential power from the oceans, storage of power not CO2 or even building dams for the fresh water which is in such short supply around the world? Why isn’t the UN declaring this a criminal waste of the Earth’s resources and demanding at least that the windmills are built in Africa and the desalination plants in deserts or on desert islands. As for the Human Right commissions and the anti carbon activists, why do they always attack only Democratic governments and not the 75% of countries which are military dictatorships? UN representatives should be elected and accountable, not appointed by their friends as an overpaid retirement home for rich politicians. Either that or strip the UN down to the essentials. The UN and their absurd IPCC are making Malcolm’s ABC look reasonable and balanced. The UN has become windmill central. The plague blew into Paris like blowflies to a picnic.

    Stop this nonsense. Stop building windmills. The money should be going into energy research. What about Aluminum? It has a comparable kw/kg and cost to oil and is totally recyclable where oil is gone for ever. It does not pollute, cannot blow up in normal circumstances, can be stored indefinitely and traded and shipped and stored. You could power steam engines with aluminium and as alumina, is 100% recoverable and in cost 95% pure electrical energy, the wonder metal of the 20th century but to talk sense to the windmill people is a waste of breath. When the oil runs out, society will collapse.

    I am amazed that people think electric cars solve the problem or that solar ever could. No, we need action now not a romantic medieval solution. If it wasn’t for fracking, the crisis would already have hit but at least the people in rich countries will have their windmills.

    110

    • #
      TdeF

      It is infuriating to think of the $100Bn in three new giant desalination plants just built in Australia before the drought ended which are not turned on and probably never will be. We will be paying off the debt for another 25 years because former Chief Climate Commissioner and dead kangaroo expert Tim Flannery said even the rains which come will not fill the dams. Turn them on. Use the water for the power stations and free up the 30% of fresh water in Victoria alone which goes up in steam (what Greens call smoke). Use the fresh water to grow food or swim or green the country, attracting rain and creating a new wetter climate. No, we are not even allowed turn them on. More Armageddon cult stuff , built for a rainy day when there is no rain. In a word, nuts.

      102

      • #
        Dennis

        Don’t forget the tens of millions of dollars a year that maintaining the desalination plants is costing us.

        51

        • #
          TdeF

          Yes, but the hidden cost is the repayment with interest of the debt, billions of dollars a year while we are paying $1.5Billion only interest a month on borrowings, this with more borrowed money. Now what happens when the coal and iron ore stops? You can forget buying iphones and pcs and cars and even bicycles. We make nothing, thanks to the Unions and the Greens who fly overseas for their holidays. Fewer than half of Australians actually pay for anything, given they are not nett tax payers. Thanks to Malcolm, even the coalition is pushing up the debt because they want to be elected. What was built after WW2 from car manufacturing to aluminium smelting to oil refineries is being shut down. We will have fruit, which would not even be picked without boat people.

          61

          • #
            Brian H

            Oil runs out? Wake me when reserves and resources decline. Won’t happen in several lifetimes. Even with increasing longevity.

            20

            • #
              TdeF

              Wakey wakey. We in Victoria were totally self sufficient in petrol for most of the last 60 years. We even paid OPEC prices despite our today self sufficiency! Now we have run out and it is 50%. That is why the refineries are closing, as at Point Henry. Gas is next.

              20

        • #
          Ava Plaint

          What are they maintaining it for ?

          20

          • #
            TdeF

            Until we finish paying for it, in 25 years. In Victoria, one plant means 50 full time people at a cost around $5Million a year, still small against the $1Bn a year in repayments but of course an utter waste.

            10

  • #
    Robert O

    Science ignorant green politicans; well of our 150 federal members only a couple have a degree in science, the rest are lawyers, ex unionists and economists by profession aren’t they?

    70

    • #
      TdeF

      Yes, only 1% of people have tertiary science training anyway, but you can be sure that Greens have none and they are the ones who bang on about ‘The Science’ and demand your money. Scientology with General Zenu blowing up Thetans with atom bombs in Volcanoes makes more science sense than the Greens. The seas are not acid and never can be. They are slightly more neutral, which only an extremist could call more acid. No scientist would use the phrase ‘The Science’ as in ‘The Bible’ or ‘The Koran’, but we are giving $1,400,000,000 of borrowed money to help countries cope with ‘climate change’ without even knowing what it means? That’s Green political science. Impoverish the democracies.

      120

  • #
    TdeF

    Possibly the complete lack about debate on alternative sources of energy is the key to understanding that this climate nonsense is all a fake scare, a political device. It is certainly not a problem the UN actually wants fixed, even if CO2 was the problem and COP FLOP 21 was not about fixing the shortage of power or reducing CO2 but about getting cash. It was unbelievable that the great destroyer of a whole country, a man banned from entering Europe, Robert Mugabe was there as a leader of Africa with his hand out?

    The imminent loss of fossil fuels will cripple the incredible development of quality of life and societies since the industrial revolution. Trust the UN to aim to cripple developed countries. At the current loss of fossil fuels, we have a very serious problem but with the rapid expansion of huge countries like China and India, the problem is going to get worse rapidly. So what does the UN talk about? Sending cash, to them and through them of course. The UN appears to be the problem, not the solution. Strip it back to its peace and health roles, the only ones which make any sense. What the unelected and communist and opportunist UN is doing in weather is beyond logic. It is the problem.

    100

    • #
      TdeF

      Wouldn’t it be great if the government actually had a crisis debate about sources of energy? It won’t happen though, because we have plenty of coal and used to be the world’s biggest coal exporter, until hamstrung by the Greens. Now Indonesia has passed us, so the Green fantasy party has succeeded in crippling the Australian economy while handing our exports to others. Great result. Get rid of the miners and then the farmers. Especially mendicant Green Senate state of South Australia which is utterly reliant on Victorian coal power and will close their last coal fired electricity plant and mines but keep their public service jobs, doing something else apparently. Keep building those windmills. According to the SMH, there is no future in fossil fuels, so what else is there? Maybe SA can go to hydro without any mountains or water?

      60

      • #
        • #
          Dennis

          One of the Abbott led Coalition policies was to construct dams all around Australia for water security purposes and irrigation farming. And to open up vast areas of Northern Australia with dams on the so called wild rivers to supply water for irrigation harvested from the wet season rains, and hydro electricity.

          The Newman Qld Government removed the wild rivers national park classification as a first step, the earlier Labor Qld Governments had legislated to lock up those rivers.

          60

          • #
            TdeF

            As well as an unused desalination plant, Victorian Labor built an $800 million North South pipeline through Victoria despite massive protest. It was used to create flooding in the Goulburn river during a rainstorm because the water had been booked six months before. It has not been used since.

            21

  • #
    John Robertson

    Every generation has a new scheme for ripping off the poor to enrich the well connected.
    CAGW is just the latest and greatest.
    Human nature has not changed, parasites will steal all they can get away with.
    The question with the “alternate energy “is; Will they get away with it?

    Retribution could be easily imposed.
    Imagine the fools and bandits who have undermined our electrical supply and distribution systems, for their personal profit, being forced to make good the unavailable base loads.
    When the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine, its time for the well fed fools and bandits to run on the wheels of retribution.
    Human hamster wheels set up above alligator pits, works for me.

    50

  • #
    John Robertson

    Sure each person is only good for about 50Watts for a few hours, but the supporters of the “environ-mental” forces seem to indicate no shortage of fools and bandits.
    All of h whom seem to believe they can organize your life and energies better than you can.
    Alligators are too good for them.

    20

  • #
    pat

    TdeF wrote -

    “Possibly the complete lack about debate on alternative sources of energy is the key to understanding that this climate nonsense is all a fake scare, a political device”

    it’s worse than that, e.g. Azuri pay-as-you-go solar made a presentation at COP21 with a sign behind them, mentioning that 600 million Africans live without electricity. it’s very difficult to find out how many customers they have, but in Nov 2013, it was reported:

    Nov 2013: Scientific American: David Wogan: Pay-As-You-Go Solar Energy Finds Success in Africa
    So far, PAYG has shown notable levels of success. Azuri counts over ***21,000 customers in 10 countries (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Ghana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and South Sudan). M-KOPA already has 30,000 customers…
    Yet challenges remain. Many PAYG start-ups are running into limits of working capital; companies front the initial cost of these solar kits and are not fully reimbursed for 18 months. This leads to cash flow constraints that intensify when customers default. “The financial models don’t yet exist to provide debt capital, and companies can only fund operations out of their equity for so long. So there is a need for debt instruments to enable this to be funded at scale”, Bransfield-Garth says…
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pay-as-you-go-solar-energy/

    doubt if Azuri’s sales to date are more than M-KOPA’s, which allegedly has 250,000 customers:

    26 Oct: Devex: Adva Saldinger: Off-grid solar power is gathering steam in Africa, what’s next?
    And this growth is being driven by private companies who look at the 600 million people in Africa, or the 1.3 billion people in the world who lack access to power and see the vast market opportunity…
    Companies like M-KOPA Solar, which installs home solar systems and hit 250,000 sales in September, uses a pay-as-you-go system integrated with the M-pesa mobile money platform…

    but how is Azuri’s business reported?
    wow, they’re enabling ALL 600 million people etc etc to access affordable electricity!

    12 Dec: InternatinalBusinessTimes: Mary-Ann Russon: Tech for Good: Here are the top 10 UK innovations that are helping people and making a difference
    Azuri Technologies’ PayGo Energy service is enabling ***600 million people in rural areas of 11 countries in sub-Saharan Africa who are currently living without electricity in their homes to access affordable, pay-as-you-go electricity for lighting and device charging, which helps them to save money, reduce CO2 emissions, improve air quality and be more productive.
    “Some of the world’s poorest people are paying as much as 80 times more for their energy. By combining mobile and solar technology, Azuri enables rural off-grid households to access more energy for less, with all the added benefits that clean energy brings,” said Azuri CEO Simon Bransfield-Garth.
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tech-good-here-are-top-10-uk-innovations-that-are-helping-people-making-difference-1532991

    this deceptive Independent headline is, in fact, about an IDEA a singer has, not even funded as yet!

    2 June: UK Independent: Helen Nianias: Akon is bringing electricity to 600 million people in Africa
    The singer has decided to seriously diversify and set up charity Akon Lighting Africa in 2014.
    The singer, who is of Senegalese-American descent, has recently opened a Solar Academy as part of his effort to bring electricity to 600 million people in rural communities across Africa…

    40

  • #
    Phil sawyer

    Obama and Bill Gates made a big splash in Paris about lots of money for research into carbon free energy. Google up ” terrapower.” Gates just happens to be flogging generation four IFR reactors!
    But never mentioned in the MSM gush.

    70

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    The biggest swindle in the history of the world.

    50

  • #
    pat

    where is due diligence in the MSM?

    from google summary of the following: “The Christmas Day fire that destroyed more than 50 homes in Great Ocean Road holiday towns had been burning for six days, SPARKED BY LIGHTNING in deep-seated thick Otway Ranges”…yet any reference to the LIGHTNING has been removed from the actual article, which is now strictly about extreme temperatures. El Nino not mentioned either:

    26 Dec: Age: Richard Willingham: Long, hot summer to continue to pose high risk of bushfires in Victoria
    As early as September Victorians were urged to brace for an “above normal”, earlier and longer fire season that could bring about 4500 to 5000 bushfires and grassfires (LINK)…
    Last weekend’s extreme heat sparked fires that destroyed homes at Scotsburn, near Ballarat and at Barnawartha in the state’s north-east…
    Last weekend’s extreme heat sparked fires that destroyed homes at Scotsburn, near Ballarat and at Barnawartha in the state’s north-east…
    Some of Victoria’s deadliest bushfires in recent times – Black Saturday in 2009, Ash Wednesday in 1983 – have occurred in February when summer is at its most ferocious…
    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/long-hot-summer-to-continue-to-pose-high-risk-of-bushfires-in-victoria-20151226-glv4wj.html

    the above LINKS to the following piece about “climate forecasts” – El Nino not mentioned!

    2 Sept: Age: Darren Gray: Victoria faces an earlier and longer bushfire season with thousands of fires
    Asked if Victoria could have serious bushfires earlier than last summer, when houses were lost in north-east Victoria in mid-December and thousands of hectares were burnt, Mr Lapsley (Emergency Management Commissioner Craig Lapsley) said: “I think so. The forecast that was put on the table yesterday clearly shows that we will have an earlier, longer season.”
    Mr Lapsley said ***CLIMATE FORECASTS suggested Victoria could experience summer heat earlier than normal. “The summer will start early, so the fire season in Victoria could be [here] in the late part of November,” he said.,,
    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-faces-an-earlier-and-longer-bushfire-season-with-thousands-of-fires-20150902-gjdnwf.html

    yet the MSM knows:

    26 Dec: Herald Sun: Tom Minear: Great Ocean Road fires: How a bushfire burnt Christmas Day
    IT STARTED with a bolt from the sky. As the mercury soared beyond 40C last Saturday, thunderstorms raged over the Great Otway National Park.
    Jolts of lightning battered the area, including a single strike on the Jamieson Track — about 8km west of Lorne — that sparked a bushfire.
    Initially, the flames did not spread too far. By Christmas Eve, the fire had razed just 250ha of forest, a small area compared to many bushfires…
    Fire authorities now believe it’s a bushfire that could still be burning in February…

    20 Dec: Daily Mail: Fast moving and out-of-control bushfires rip though Victoria
    By Leith Huffadine and Rachel Eddie and Daniel Peters
    Authorities believe the Scotsburn fire was sparked by farm machinery, while the other three were ignited by lightning…

    26 Dec: Sky News: Victoria bushfire destroys 116 homes
    Deputy incident controller, CFA, Mark Gunning: “It’s been an exceptionally dry year with the El Nino event, and the worst fire conditions will probably be seen in January and February, and that’s why we’re working really hard to consolidate this fire now.”…

    23 Dec: SBS: AAP: El Nino cooling, but Australia faces increased chance of bushfires: BOM
    Large parts of southeastern Australia received record temperatures in December, and the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) warns the continued El Nino conditions this summer mean heightened chances of bushfires
    this festive season…
    Earlier this month, the BOM warned of increased bushfire risk in their January-March Climate and Water Outlook (LINK).
    “Heatwave and bushfire risks are raised in any El Nino summer,” the BOM’s outlook said…
    The Bureau of Meteorology says the El Nino, a warming of sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific that tends to bring drier weather to Australia, remains strong and is near its peak…

    40

    • #
      TdeF

      El Nino, record temperatures, farmer’s tractors. Will someone please explain that bushfires are not anyone’s fault. Australian gum trees are the entire problem as they, like pine trees, love fire, encourage fire and reproduce by fire. It is what the world’s fastest growing trees do. This is not the fault of CO2, global warming or farmers who would rather clear the trees because people cannot eat trees. Still, it seems far more important to blame someone or some arbitrary collective phenomenon like El nino. It would be far simpler to blame Tony Abbott.

      51

  • #
    pat

    for those who are unable to benefit from the various solar tariff schemes, make sure you add your voice to the complaints electricity retailers are getting:

    27 Dec: Courier Mail: Sarah Vogler: Electricity retailer cautions Government on rebate which disadvantages non-solar users
    A MAJOR energy retailer is calling on the Palaszczuk Government to pay for the cost of any new solar rebate scheme out of its own coffers.
    AGL, which has about 380,000 customers in Queensland, is one of several retailers to caution the State Government against implementing another scheme that will re-regulate solar feed-in tariffs and disadvantage non-solar users as it pushes ahead with its election target of having solar on one million rooftops by 2020…
    The Queensland Competition Authority has estimated the cost will add about $89 to the average Queenslander’s annual electricity bill in 2015-16.
    “The cost to electricity customers over the life of the scheme (until 2028) is estimated at $4.28 billion,” the QPC’s solar pricing issues paper states…
    AGL has told the QPC it believes it would be more “economically efficient” not to include the cost of the solar bonus in network charges, but rather fund it through the State Budget.
    It also recommended any future scheme be funded by the Government as well.
    “AGL recognises that funding of the SBS through the distribution network service providers, has led to higher electricity prices particularly for energy users who are unwilling or unable to invest in solar PV installations,” its submission states…
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/electricity-retailer-cautions-government-on-rebate-which-disadvantages-nonsolar-users/news-story/e237cc11605dde94b63724d13e602c46

    30

  • #
    ROM

    As my life is rather full of close family heath problems and various assorted projects I just haven’t had the time to participate in Jo’s blog commentary of recent times.
    And then there is my tendency to try and think through a number of alternative scenarios that each of Jo’s headline posts, all of which tends to take time to intellectually digest.
    So almost invariably I only come late into a blog comment stream or I just shut up and let the post go by which is probably a relief to quite a lot of lurkers and blog commenters.

    Of course my pet palsied red thumbed Lurch might be bit disappointed not to be able to lurch from out behind his palisades to grab another chance to unsteadily stab his palsied thumb into the little red box so obligingly supplied by Jo by each post.
    I do have a suspicion that maybe Lurch could be of the alternative sex,[ make of that what you will! ] and should more correctly be labeled “Lurchalotta”.

    Anyway a small thought on that $600 billion dollars for or already spent on the utterly irrational decarbonisation Jo has highlighted above.

    Irrationality in extremis best sums up the “decarbonisation” demanded by the green and scientific alarmist elite as we are all carbon based life forms without exception at any conceivable level.
    From the very lowest of the replicable genetic prions, whether they are classed as Life forms or not , to the most complex creatures and biological structures in existence.
    We and they are carbon based.
    No ifs.
    No buts!
    Stupidity, naivete, ignorance at an unparalleled level, mendacity, greed, you name it and it is a feature of those who demand we “decarbonise” this planet.

    They literally seem to have no concept at any level, intellectually, morally, ethically , scientifically, biologically or any other categories you might like to name as to exactly what they are demanding and the utter impossibility of ever meeting those demands unless mankind as a species is destroyed back to stone age levels.

    Now $600 billion dollars is the monetary value of quite a lot of wealth.

    We all only think of the Money but Wealth as measured by monetary values, has to be created by people who do so by working, creating and prividing goods and services that others are willing to pay for.
    The wealth of society and the individuals in it appears in standards and sophistication and utter reliability of the public and private infrastructure and the reliability of power and water and sewerage and rubbish collection and street sweepers and supermarkets and fuel availability and health facilities and the care of both the non productive youngest and oldest generations.
    Wealth accumulation is a function of a creative society where most individuals through labour or ideas generates something others are prepared to pay for from the wealth they have accumulated by their endeavours.
    And the governing body of a nation uses a part of that monetary wealth accessed through the imposition of taxes to provide services and infrastructure that is beyond the realms and interests of private individuals or corporations to build and create.

    But wealth creation on any level of significant scale can only occur in a society that has the laws and culture and governing apparatus thart encourages the ceativity of its peoples and therefore encourages wealth creation.

    The World Bank gives Australia’s 2014 GDP [ ranked as 14th in the world and a population size ranked at 53 rd from the 214 countries listed by the World Bank ] as $1,454,675,000,000.

    Now $600 billion is roughly 40% of Australia’s current annual GDP, ie 40% of sum total of every dollar that changes hands in Australia over the year.

    Australians, every single one of our 23,5 million citizens would have to work and create, basically as pure slaves for nearly five months without ever having a single cent to pay for anything at all, food, water, power, taxes, nothing, just nothing to create this $600 billions of wealth to cover this so called “decarbonisation” sum.

    Of course if you are Indonesian your 255 millions of citizens in your economy of $888 billions, about 60% the size of Australia’s GDP, would have to be the equivalent of total slave labour for some 8 months of the year to generate the wealth demanded by the salubrious living green and scientific and bureacratic and political elites to “decarbonise” the planet.

    So if any greens and alarmists who read this and who are intellectually capable of a level of some rational thought, consider yourself being nothing but slaves in the purest sense of the word for five months [ and still having to provide and find the resources to pay for every single item such as water and food required to continue your own existence ] just to generate the wealth required to meet this so called “decarbonisation” sum of $600 billion.

    61

  • #
    pat

    27 Dec: Greensboro News & Record: Herbert M. Eckerlin: Solar farms are overrated
    (Herbert M. Eckerlin, Ph.D., is a professor of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering and N.C. State University)
    Rating solar farm capacity in terms of megawatts is inaccurate and misleading. Consider the recent announcement by Duke Energy that it will build a 60-megawatt solar array on 400 acres near Monroe. How much energy will this 60-megawatt array produce?…
    The 60-megawatt capacity rating of a solar farm is determined by measuring the megawatt-hours generated during one hour at solar noon…
    The 60-megawatt capacity rating of a solar farm is determined by measuring the megawatt-hours generated during one hour at solar noon. This is the point at which the solar array is generating maximum output. Production is less before and after solar noon. It is thus reasonable to ask: Considering weather and time limitations, how much solar electricity is generated during a typical year?
    Actual 2013 solar generation data tell us that solar arrays in North Carolina operated the equivalent of 1,036 hours at full load, or 12 percent of the year. And, 12 percent of 60 megawatts gives an equivalent megawatt rating of 7 megawatts. This means that the “claimed” 60-megawatt solar array only generates as much energy during a typical year as a conventional gas-fired 7-megawatt generator operating continuously.
    This raises the next obvious question: Why is 60 megawatts used to describe the capacity of a solar array that has an equivalent annual generating capacity of only a 7-megawatt system?
    In terms of reducing our carbon footprint, 60 megawatts certainly sounds better than 7 megawatts. Unfortunately, the former claim is not true. The solar industry has long used maximum hourly capacity to describe the size of solar farms, knowing that it was an inappropriate measure for systems that operate intermittently. It would appear that some apologies are in order to the American people…
    This comparison raises other issues, as well. Should we, as a state, be using 400 acres of valuable land to house a 7-megawatt solar generator? How can this be justified? This is the antithesis of sustainability…etc
    http://www.greensboro.com/opinion/columns/herbert-m-eckerlin-solar-farms-are-overrated/article_f58319c9-c5dc-5ea2-a9db-dcbb31a13fb1.html

    40

  • #
    Reed Coray

    In addition to the waste/loss of government subsidies, why do I get the feeling that the inevitable losses from government bailouts of public green-energy investment in the amount that John Kerry wants just might make the 1980/1990 USA Savings and Loan scandal look like small change?

    50

  • #
    Mervyn

    Where is the due diligence? There’s no need for due diligence when you have AGENDA 21. The UN’s Maurice Strong and his cohorts drafted AGENDA 21 and carefully crafted Principle 15:

    Principle 15: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

    In other words, don’t let facts get in the way of policy. You don’t need evidence… just “threats” are adequate reason to act against climate change.

    20

  • #
    Uncle Fred

    Pew Research finds that Australians are the most savy of the Greates Hoax.
    Follow the link to the bottom and put your two cents worth in.

    10