JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Unthreaded Weekend

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.2/10 (26 votes cast)
Unthreaded Weekend, 8.2 out of 10 based on 26 ratings

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

292 comments to Unthreaded Weekend

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    T I M B E R!!! The fall of our economic system…
    Watch the 3rd largest economy (Japan) try to stop their currency from crashing which then is tied to the US and the rest of the west that uses the reserve currency, the US dollar.
    Stock markets are highly inflated and the companies have huge losses as they have borrowed cheap money to the max.

    111

    • #
      Mari C

      As long as it goes back up in 5 years, I am not worried. Even 6 years. In fact, a short crash right now will greatly enhance my portfolio once it begins to climb back up, leaving me with a good solid hunk of monies when I roll it all into low-risk savings.

      30

      • #
        Joe Lalonde

        That will not be happening as all your investments will be confiscated to keep the banks alive.
        They have been playing the stock market casino game where everyones a loser as many defaults of debts crash the system and housing prices tumble as investors change to a new system that is no longer US based currency.
        When this depression is over…the big winner will be China with their massive gold reserves and brand new infrastructure as in ghost cities. They played the borrowing game well and what will the US have after…broken down factories and aged infrastructure.

        142

        • #
          toorightmate

          Donald Trump stated that USA was headed for a severe recession and the leftist media lambasted him,
          Christine Lagarde stated that the western world was heading into recession and the leftist media lauded her for being a wise woman.
          I am a bit like Malcolm Turnbull – I haven’t a bloody clue.

          Work that out.

          230

        • #

          Joe, you obviously know nothing about the stock market. Best keep your mouth shut so we only “think” you are dumb.

          36

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            Stan, you seem not to have noticed that the Marxists have almost gained full control, and may have it before this year is out. What of your stock and land portfolio then?

            91

          • #
            el gordo

            Ahh … to be rich and fatuous.

            ‘What’s more, the Chinese manufacturing sector, which has been over-investing in additional production for years now, has but one option: slash prices as it fights over a shrinking pie of global trade. And that’s going to lead to deflation. “The western manufacturing sector will choke under this imported deflationary tourniquet,” says Albert Edwards. And even though manufacturing makes up just a fraction of the United States economy, the struggles of the manufacturing sector will eventually infect the services industries as well.’

            Fortune

            60

            • #
              Joe Lalonde

              el gordo, it already has.
              With manufacturing almost totally gone, the stores are all starting to close and lay off along with the service sector jobs too. Many cities and States are in bankruptcy stage.
              http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/

              30

            • #
              Bulldust

              Let alone the pension funds which are completely unsustainable and require 6-8%+ growth just to make ends meet. Anyone got that kind of yield on AAA-rated paper? Backed by Aussie low doc mortgages you say? Sign me up! LOL

              I have been waiting for the proper recession for several years. Much like the glaciation it is overdue. At least CO2 emissions may prevent the glaciation. This time around Australia will feel it.

              40

        • #
          • #
            Bulldust

            China has plenty of its own problems, which will take the attention off being number one. Their dodgy banking shuffle puts Wall Street to shame. The explosion of credit in China the last couple of years WILL end in tears. How it all falls apart is anyone’s guess.

            30

      • #
        Alexander

        Yeah, “low-risk savings” at negative interest rates and no cash alternative. And you will be made investors in the banks, not depositors, so the banks will have no fiduciary duty to you and your “money.”

        The best investment advice I have seen is, “Don’t believe anything the system tells you, for in whatever political or economic game you’re playing, if you don’t know exactly who the mark is, and why and how, then you’re the mark.”

        And there’s no free lunch (just in case you’ve forgotten): if you’re not paying for something (in one way or another), you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold.

        100

        • #
          ianl8888

          Yeah, “low-risk savings” at negative interest rates and no cash alternative. And you will be made investors in the banks, not depositors, so the banks will have no fiduciary duty to you and your “money.”

          I agree that there is an undercurrent of this threat going on. How serious it is, impossible to know.

          There are several coutries using the negative interest rate ploy (eg. Japan, and I’ve read some of the EU countries slip quietly in and out of it). So far, they haven’t tried to ban cash – I suspect that any country with a decent population size will quickly land itself in uncontrollable civil strife if it tries to ban cash.

          Having said that, I’m still aware and appalled by the treatment of ordinary Cyprus people a few years back. Their banks had benn playing around on the side (with no input from, or knowledge of, ordinary citizens). The EU decided to expropriate savings deposits, including pension funds or as we call them, superannuation funds, to recapitalise the banks. So people on the brink of retiring, or in actual retirement, were suddenly bankrupted overnight. I see now the PR spiel is that Cyprus is recovering ncely, thank you, with no recognition of those whose lives were arbitrarily destroyed at the very point where they were most vulnerable.

          So yes, I do think it is at least possible.

          120

        • #
          el gordo

          With interest rates negative it appears Sharia Banking has become the norm.

          10

    • #
      doubtingdave

      Well said Joe , I have been trying to warn Australians about TPP for a while now , TPP is supposed to be a ” free trade agreement ” that’s what it says on the tin , but how do you know whats in the tin if they will not take off the lid to show what is inside , you Australians are getting a trade agreement imposed on you , that is a deal being done behind closed doors , and even when ratified you will not get to see the details for at least five years , at least when us British got taken into a trade agreement known as the common market , back in 1975 , we actually got a vote on it , are you Australians getting a vote on TPP ?

      130

      • #
        Joe Lalonde

        Dave,
        Many people really don’t know what is really happening other then what the media has allowed them to see.
        Here are a few great videos to understand how this system of economics is such a farce.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySnk-f2ThpE
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fbvquHSPJU
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjb4is33rVQ
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpkPon9A1Vo
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI3lckqaSk0

        40

        • #
          Analitik

          We should clarify that the farce is NOT due to capitalism.

          The problems have been caused by crony capitalism where governments intervene, King Canute style, to boost (emerging green technologies) or prop up (too big to fail) unprofitable businesses. Helped by stupidly artificial economic entities like 2nd (and higher) order derivatives, which should never have been legal, the economies have been distorted to a point where no one can predict what is likely to happen long term because valuations have been totally corrupted.

          My favorite example is Tesla Motors – it has NEVER made a profit, loses money on every vehicle sold, has negative earnings per share, consistently fails to meet announced deadlines, has produced under 114,000 vehicles as of the start of this quarter and yet has a market valuation that is 50% of GM (which produced about 10 million vehicles last year vs just over 50 thousand)
          Political connections (and a charismatic sales engine in the form of the CEO) have led to the subsidies and hype that have created this zone of unreality

          http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Financials?s=TSLA:NSQ
          http://www.ibtimes.com/tesla-motors-tsla-1q-2016-sales-14820-model-s-model-x-cars-were-delivered-first-three-2348000
          http://247wallst.com/autos/2015/06/22/tesla-market-cap-hits-half-of-gms/

          190

          • #
            ianl8888

            Not to mention that those cars it does produce are hopelessly expensive and totally useless.

            Yep, a great innovative, agile enterprise. Lord Wafflw is proud of it, coming soon to Aus.

            100

          • #
            Greebo

            Did you notice how Tesla “sold” nearly 200,000 of a car that will not be in production for 18 months or so, if ever? Somehow this puts Tesla on equal footing with Apple? Apparently Lincolnl was right about fooling some of the people.

            30

            • #
              Analitik

              Yep, and the stock boosters and fanbois continue to show that they can’t do maths as they gush about this U$200 million cash injection while ignoring the losses plus the capital investment needed to actually build those Model 3′s.

              eg this piece of fantasy from our friends at RenewEconomy – Tesla Motors’ Elon Musk just killed the petrol car

              Elon Musk is a genius – at manipulation.

              20

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        In the early days of the National Farmers’ Federation (early 1980s), they employed two supposedly bright young fellows, Andrew Robb and Andy Stoeckel, telling us that these lads would be the architects of our salvation. Since that time Australian agriculture has rarely deviated from the road to Hell. Andrew Robb is a leading scholar of the Current Conventional Wisdom in Economics. That “Wisdom” is badly flawed.

        Cambridge educated NFF President Ian McLachlan told us: “Our biggest problem in Australian agriculture is interference in our markets by foreign governments”. True, very true. I thought most of us already knew that, but it was good to hear this coming from a Cambridge background. At last the academies had noticed! He further declared: “What we need is free markets. All the world needs free markets. If we show the way, all the world will follow our example.”

        So the NFF took us on a jaunt into a new policy they later named Unilateral Trade Reform. We would do away with what little government assistance we had, with the promise that the rest of the world would follow suit and abolish government subsidisation of agriculture, whereupon we, being the most efficient producers, would be on top of the pile.

        This was a very brave policy, founded in Free Market Theory. But it took no more than two years to show that it was beyond brave, it was suicidal lunacy. The rest of the world had no interest in following us onto the moral high ground in economics, but was ever ready to take advantage of our foolishness.

        Yet this has remained in the face of failure as NFF policy to the present day. Despite massive growth in the national economy the number of small business capitalists engaged in farming in Australia has been halved, and is diminishing rapidly. This, you should understand, brings the Marxists half way home, gathering pace.

        Until somebody convinces me otherwise, I see Andrew Robb as an architect of that policy, applying “Free Market Theory” through Unilateral Trade Reform. Andrew Robb is now Trade Minister, managing the TPP business for Australia.

        So who wrote the Free Market Theory textbooks? I can’t help thinking of the other thing that Cambridge was famous for. Communist spies.

        110

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Poor Fella My Country.

          That governments can governments so badly is heartbreaking.

          30

        • #
          Joe Lalonde

          I feel for you Ted. Canada has done the “free-trade” route too and seen massive companies leave for cheaper countries. The US decimated our cattle industry due to a couple contained cases of “mad cow” disease which were quarantined and destroyed but the US was not satisfied until the whole of Canada had to replace their cattle.
          Governments for decades now have followed the US policies, no matter who you vote in…The lesser of two evils voting still didn’t help who was in office to bring Canada to economic destruction.

          90

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Joe, I’ve just about given up on politics and can’t stand either side really.

            Have almost exclusively voted independent but on two occasions only have voted Liberal and got rid of the Labor guy on both occasions.

            In the end it seems we are always Trumped.

            And perhaps he and his kind are the new protest vote.

            KK

            60

          • #
            Annie

            Don’t get me started on what happened in England thanks to the Labour heap (re mad cow).

            10

            • #
              Annie

              Perhaps I have holiday brain and mixed up dates and therefore governments but there was gross mishandling of the business and huge numbers of livestock were slaughtered quite unnecessarily.

              20

        • #
          Greebo

          It’s all rather like Australia ‘leading the way’ on Climate Change isn’t it? You can only be said to be leading if others are following. Brave new wold indeed.

          30

    • #
      Lewis P Buckingham

      One wonders where it will all end.
      Its just not only commodities like oil gas and iron ore/coal, its housing in China, Europe and soon Australia. Asset deflation is being matched by effective devaluation of currency where increasingly interest rates fall, unless you run a bank in Australia as Joe points out.
      We may have to work harder, smarter and longer to get through.
      Not sure about these Japanese Subs now.How stable will the Japanese companies building them be for the long haul? Will they even exist in ten years time before the first sub gets off the drawing board and concept plan?

      100

    • #

      There’s a reason for “Gold Standard”. Not just that it’s standard, but also that it’s Gold.

      Anything short of Latinum won’t beat it.

      100

      • #
        Joe Lalonde

        Canada just sold off the last of it’s gold reserves. The government feels that if we do have to go on a gold standard, then they can mine for it…Not too bright running the Canadian government…but He certainly is getting the “movie-star” treatment.

        60

  • #
    John West

    Six Steps to Climate Alarm Skepticism

    Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate.org and NASA offers us “The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps” here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

    Gavin’s original post and quotes from other sources are in italics while my comments are normal font.

    Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect.
    The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the Earth’s surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium. This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around (~390 W/m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1-a)S/4 (~240 W/m2). Thus there is a large amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2) – a number that would be zero in the absence of any greenhouse substances.

    Yes, the greenhouse effect (GHE) is an important feature of the planet for life. Without the greenhouse effect the average temperature of the earth would be around -15°C instead of 15°C based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and observations of bodies within our solar system like the moon. The downwelling radiation (~333 W/m2) from the atmosphere reduces the amount of NET radiation leaving the surface thus slowing the cooling of the surface. This downwelling IR is observable and measurable and its existence is a fact. Natural variations in the GHE are easily recognizable in our daily lives for example a cloudy winter night generally stays warmer than a clear winter night and the nighttime temperature drop in the desert is vastly greater than locations with greater humidity. Clouds and water vapor are responsible for the bulk of the GHE.

    Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.
    The fact that different absorbers contribute to the net LW absorption is clear from IR spectra taken from space which show characteristic gaps associated with water vapour, CO2, CH4, O3 etc (Harries et al, 2001; HITRAN). The only question is how much energy is blocked by each. This cannot be calculated by hand (the number of absorption lines and the effects of pressure broadening etc. preclude that), but it can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. The earliest calculations (reviewed by Ramanathan and Coakley, 1979) give very similar results to more modern calculations (Clough and Iacono, 1995), and demonstrate that removing the effect of CO2 reduces the net LW absorbed by ~14%, or around 30 W/m2. For some parts of the spectrum, IR can be either absorbed by CO2 or by water vapour, and so simply removing the CO2 gives only a minimum effect. Thus CO2 on its own would cause an even larger absorption. In either case however, the trace gases are a significant part of what gets absorbed.

    Notice that trace gases contribute to the GHE. The GHE is not dependent upon nor dominated by trace gases. A doubling of CO2 only increases the GHE by a tiny amount. (More on this later.)

    Step 3: The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions
    CO2 is up more than 30%, CH4 has more than doubled, N2O is up 15%, tropospheric O3 has also increased. New compounds such as halocarbons (CFCs, HFCs) did not exist in the pre-industrial atmosphere. All of these increases contribute to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

    Yes, human activity most likely has contributed to if not alright caused the observed increases in GHG’s.

    Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated
    Lessons from simple toy models and experience with more sophisticated GCMs suggests that any perturbation to the TOA radiation budget from whatever source is a pretty good predictor of eventual surface temperature change. Thus if the sun were to become stronger by about 2%, the TOA radiation balance would change by 0.02*1366*0.7/4 = 4.8 W/m2 (taking albedo and geometry into account) and this would be the radiative forcing (RF). An increase in greenhouse absorbers or a change in the albedo have analogous impacts on the TOA balance. However, calculation of the radiative forcing is again a job for the line-by-line codes that take into account atmospheric profiles of temperature, water vapour and aerosols. The most up-to-date calculations for the trace gases are by Myhre et al (1998) and those are the ones used in IPCC TAR and AR4.
    These calculations can be condensed into simplified fits to the data, such as the oft-used formula for CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) (see Table 6.2 in IPCC TAR for the others). The logarithmic form comes from the fact that some particular lines are already saturated and that the increase in forcing depends on the ‘wings’ (see this post for more details). Forcings for lower concentration gases (such as CFCs) are linear in concentration. The calculations in Myhre et al use representative profiles for different latitudes, but different assumptions about clouds, their properties and the spatial heterogeneity mean that the global mean forcing is uncertain by about 10%. Thus the RF for a doubling of CO2 is likely 3.7±0.4 W/m2 – the same order of magnitude as an increase of solar forcing by 2%.
    There are a couple of small twists on the radiative forcing concept. One is that CO2 has an important role in the stratospheric radiation balance. The stratosphere reacts very quickly to changes in that balance and that changes the TOA forcing by a small but non-negligible amount. The surface response, which is much slower, therefore reacts more proportionately to the ‘adjusted’ forcing and this is generally what is used in lieu of the instantaneous forcing. The other wrinkle is depending slightly on the spatial distribution of forcing agents, different feedbacks and processes might come into play and thus an equivalent forcing from two different sources might not give the same response. The factor that quantifies this effect is called the ‘efficacy’ of the forcing, which for the most part is reasonably close to one, and so doesn’t change the zeroth-order picture (Hansen et al, 2005). This means that climate forcings can be simply added to approximate the net effect.

    The total forcing from the trace greenhouse gases mentioned in Step 3, is currently about 2.5 W/m2, and the net forcing (including cooling impacts of aerosols and natural changes) is 1.6±1.0 W/m2 since the pre-industrial. Most of the uncertainty is related to aerosol effects. Current growth in forcings is dominated by increasing CO2, with potentially a small role for decreases in reflective aerosols (sulphates, particularly in the US and EU) and increases in absorbing aerosols (like soot, particularly from India and China and from biomass burning).

    That is correct in at least a mathematical sense, but note what he doesn’t say. The 3.7 W/m^2 increase in downwelling radiation is only about a 1% increase in something that varies both temporally and geospatially from [less than] 100 W/m2 to [greater than] 400 W/m2 naturally. The difference in theoretical increase in average could easily be lost in the noise of real world variation.

    Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2
    The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the ‘fast feedbacks’ have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the ‘slow’ feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.). Given that it doesn’t matter much which forcing is changing, sensitivity can be assessed from any particular period in the past where the changes in forcing are known and the corresponding equilibrium temperature change can be estimated. As we have discussed previously, the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~7 W/m2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars). More formally, you can combine this estimate with others taken from the 20th century, the response to volcanoes, the last millennium, remote sensing etc. to get pretty good constraints on what the number should be. This was done by Annan and Hargreaves (2006), and they come up with, you guessed it, 3ºC. Converting the estimate for doubled CO2 to a more useful factor gives ~0.75 ºC/(W/m2).

    Complete BULL. The difference between glacial and interglacial periods is not 7 W/m^2. In fact it’s not even a particular average insolation at all. Milankovitch cycles vary average insolation and also where and when insolation changes occur. The Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere absorb and distribute heat differently and variations in insolation between the two initiates transitions between glacial and interglacial periods (at least for the last couple million years) and geologically short time periods of increased or decreased insolation on average makes little to no difference in average temperature.

    Once the political need for an alarmist message has waned I’m confident climate sensitivity will become a function rather than a value. Attempting to assign a value to a function is problematic but even estimating an average value over a time period is confounded by short and incomplete data series’ as well as the fact that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is both a “forcing” and a “feedback” in that it both adds to the greenhouse effect and is absorbed more or less into the ocean depending on the temperature of the ocean. The temperature of the ocean has a major influence on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere due to Henry’s Law.

    Proclamations that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere from on the order of 300 ppm up to say around 600 ppm causing dangerous warming is kind of like saying elephants are afraid of mice. The scale of things just seems on the face of it absurd from a science/engineering point of view. Engineers in particular are trained to do a reality check on any values derived from complex computations with simple (actually over-simple) calculations (you know, when the stakes are high like when building bridges and airplanes and such that kill people if they fail). For example, let’s say I came up with a 3° C rise in temperature from a 3.7 W/m^2 increase in downwelling IR from some complicated set of equations that includes positive and negative feedbacks and all sorts of other considerations. The first thing I’d do is an oversimplified calculation to make sure I’m in the ballpark. Like average downwelling IR is on the order of 300 W/m^2 and average temperature gain (including feedbacks) from GHG’s is on the order of 30 degrees so (linearly, and yes I understand climate ain’t linear) we’re talking 30/300 x 3.7 = 0.37 °C increase from a doubling of CO2. I’d think: CR@P, I’m off an order of magnitude! Something might be wrong with my complicated set of equations. I know the simple calculation is wrong but I don’t know by how much it could be wrong, even worse the non-linearity of real world climate should make the incremental temperature change greater lower down the scale such that each additional W/m^2 added should result in less temperature gain than the one before it (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). How could the last 3.7 W/m^2 cause 3 degrees of warming when the first 300 W/m^2 only cause 30 degrees of warming? On the other hand, the 10:1 ratio (or 0.1 °C/W/m^2) had an incredible number of years to develop; therefore, the oversimplified calculation could be missing hundreds of years of “transient” responses to a “forcing” and only truly reflects large timeframes or as Dr. Gavin Schmidt might put it the result of the slow feedbacks.

    The suggestion that climate sensitivity estimates based on the temperature response after volcanic eruptions is in agreement with the 3°C meme is just plain wrong as he (Dr. Gavin Schmidt) himself has wrote:

    “[Response: The drop was more like 0.5 deg C, and was related to an enormous forcing (-3 to -4 W/m2) related to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. If there hadn't been any damping, the temperature response would have been much, much larger. - gavin]”
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/getting-things-right/

    Hmmm: 0.5/3.5 = 0.14 °C/W/m^2. So, that puts the Mt. Pinatubo experiment in the low climate sensitivity camp’s evidence basket.

    Annually the northern hemisphere is subjected to a great variation in insolation and this variation occurs way too rapidly for slow feedbacks. The NH gets about 150 W/m^2 in Winter and has an average temperature of 8.1 °C while in summer it gets 450 W/m^2 and has an average temperature of 22.4 °C Estimating seasonal sensitivity [(22.4-8.1)/(450-150)= 0.05 °C/W/m^2] we get way less than 0.75/W/m^2. Again, nature aligns itself with the low sensitivity crowd.

    The high climate sensitivity of 3°C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration largely depends upon the so called “fast feedbacks” to amplify the warming as opposed to dampening it:

    “Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect” http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/ “If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m2 — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the “feedbacks” are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone.”

    Where is the evidence for this amplification? Nowhere in nature that I’ve seen; it’s like only in the code of computer models does this amplification exist.

    We can plainly see fast feedbacks operating to dampen cooling in the Mt. Pinatubo experiment.

    We see dampening of warming in our everyday experience. If it gets hot a thunderstorm forms for example. The climate is characterized by negative feedbacks thus the sensitivity to doubling CO2 is likely on the order of [less than] 1 °C.

    Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number
    Current forcings (1.6 W/m2) x 0.75 ºC/(W/m2) imply 1.2 ºC that would occur at equilibrium. Because the oceans take time to warm up, we are not yet there (so far we have experienced 0.7ºC), and so the remaining 0.5 ºC is ‘in the pipeline’. We can estimate this independently using the changes in ocean heat content over the last decade or so (roughly equal to the current radiative imbalance) of ~0.7 W/m2, implying that this ‘unrealised’ forcing will lead to another 0.7×0.75 ºC – i.e. 0.5 ºC.
    Additional forcings in business-as-usual scenarios range roughly from 3 to 7 W/m2 and therefore additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC. That is significant.

    The Northern Hemisphere (NH) receives less energy from the Sun during its summer than the Sothern Hemisphere (SH)
    during its summer by 20 W/m^2, yet, the NH gets warmer than the SH. This would suggest a negative sensitivity (by “forcing” logic) if we didn’t realize the NH & SH differ with respect to energy distribution due to NH being 39% land and the SH being 19% land. The “radiative forcing” alone is inconsequential without defining where (on Earth) and when (in the annual cycle) the changes are occurring.

    The “climate sensitivity” in the real world has all indications of being rather small.

    Multiplying the “RF” and the “ECS” actually results in an insignificant number. (3.7 * 0.1 = 0.37 °C for a doubling of CO2) (1.6 * 0.1 = 0.16 °C for current “forcings”). But instead of believing the evidence we’re to believe in the authority of a cabal of activist “scientists” and their never ending stream of excuses like “warming in the pipeline” as to why their predictions and/or projections aren’t observable in the real world.

    342

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      A big post.

      Too big to read.

      It is very big.

      Just BIG.

      163

      • #
        Peter C

        Take if one step at a time. There are six steps. Only step 5 is really long. John builds the case for very low climate sensitivity to CO2.

        You can do it Keith.

        180

      • #
        toorightmate

        I think John West’s post is excellent.
        Large posts might be more resistant to white ants.

        150

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          In Britain, hundreds of years ago, they over_engineered building components to include a safety margin to allow for the inevitable borer attack.

          Sadly now Britain is a science free zone and such forethought is no longer valued.

          100

      • #
        tom0mason

        May be so but there is only 2 question that is not answered.

        2.How far does the IR energy at the specific frequency for CO2 excitation penetrate into the atmosphere?

        The answer in meters.

        3. How much time does it take for CO2 to transfer this energy from one frequency to another?

        The answer in micro-seconds.

        Both of these effects have been measured, but ‘climate scientist™’ such as Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate.org, and NASA find these to be facts difficult to reconcile with the rest of their unproven hypothetical blather.

        50

        • #
          John West

          Irrelevant. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere adds to the radiative ability of the atmosphere, such that the atmosphere can radiate more energy than it could before. Worthy of note: that under various circumstances this can cause the atmosphere to cool more efficiently. See equipartition of energy.

          12

          • #
            tom0mason

            John West
            Irrelevant argument! As you have no references to observed measurements (aka Facts)

            10

            • #
              tom0mason

              Also have a look at this image –
              https://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460.jpg
              It was originally from Clough and Iacono, JGR, 1995; adapted from the SPARC Website (Was originally available at http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html but is now defunct ).

              with a caption that says –

              The caption reads:

              3. Stratospheric cooling rates: The picture shows how water, cabon dioxide and ozone contribute to longwave cooling in the stratosphere. Colours from blue through red, yellow and to green show increasing cooling, grey areas show warming of the stratosphere. The tropopause is shown as dotted line (the troposphere below and the stratosphere above). For CO2 it is obvious that there is no cooling in the troposphere, but a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere. Ozone, on the other hand, cools the upper stratosphere but warms the lower stratosphere. Figure from: Clough and Iacono, JGR, 1995; adapted from the SPARC Website.

              My bold.

              40

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Q2

          Answer is about 30 metres.

          30

    • #
      GrahamP

      Step 3: …..

      “Yes, human activity most likely has contributed to if not alright caused the observed increases in GHG’s.”

      In the words of a certain politician “Please explain”.

      120

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Step 3.

        CO2 is up 30 percent.

        Maybe, I have no doubt that it has increased by that amount from some point in the past BUT I do not accept that human origin CO2 forms any significant part of the 30.

        One of the problems with long posts is that they may be used as a Trojan horse, but I don’t think that has been the intent here.

        KK

        62

      • #
        John West

        While there are competing hypotheses with respect to the increase in atmospheric CO2, the balance of the evidence comes down on our transferring carbon from geological formations back into the biosphere as atmospheric CO2 (where it can be utilized by plants to convert solar energy into chemical energy) as the main driver of the observed increase. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Tongue in cheek: The planet has been trying to eradicate the infestation of carbon based life forms by locking away precious carbon in geologic formations for billions of years and just as it looked as though it were about to be successful in this endeavor (in geologic timescale) those pesky humans figured out a way to liberate said carbon from its tomb.

        31

        • #
          tom0mason

          John West

          “transferring carbon from geological formations” in the case of coal this is trees. Thus in this case all you are arguing about is the age of the trees being used as fuel.

          Also note that modern industrialized societies require so called ‘fossil’ fuels to maintain themselves as renewables will not replace them as they are just an unreliable, inefficient waste of money.
          Also note that more CO2 in the atmosphere is very beneficial to life on this planet.

          50

        • #
          AndyG55

          On the contrary, John.

          All that carbon was locked away specifically for us.

          To provide our energy once we progressed far enough to need it and be able to access it.

          52

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          If we were desperate for CO2 there is heaps of it in the oceans.

          How to harvest it.

          30

          • #
            AndyG55

            “How to harvest it.”

            Just warm up the oceans.. easy-peasy. !

            Or shake them and take the lid off.

            50

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Nothing can be known to exist, until it has been observed (and ideally quantified, empirically).

        90

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘The “climate sensitivity” in the real world has all indications of being rather small.

      ‘Multiplying the “RF” and the “ECS” actually results in an insignificant number. (3.7 * 0.1 = 0.37 °C for a doubling of CO2) (1.6 * 0.1 = 0.16 °C for current “forcings”)…’

      Perhaps, have a read of David Evans posts here.

      101

    • #
      Ross

      John West. This is what is meant by ‘Gish gallop’.

      29

      • #
        AndyG55

        Another TOTALLY EMPTY post from Ross.

        Never anything else.

        83

        • #
          Ross

          ‘Gish gallop’. Look it up.

          39

          • #
            AndyG55

            YAWN !! gees you are boring !!

            83

          • #
            AndyG55

            What you are really saying is that you didn’t understand a single word that was said,

            … and you can’t counteract one statement made by John West.

            92

            • #
              Ross

              Gish gallop…look it up.

              38

              • #
                AndyG55

                …and you can’t counteract one statement made by John West.

                You are EMPTY of all content. A Nil.. a NONCE !!

                82

            • #

              AndyG55 April 10, 2016 at 2:21 pm

              ‘…and you can’t counteract one statement made by John West.”

              OK Andy,
              Perhaps Ross cannot counteract the incomplete, incomprehensible BS of John West April 10, 2016 at 4:27 am.
              Almost all the rest posting here are in the state of ROFLMAO!!! :-)
              Consider from JW:

              “Yes, the greenhouse effect (GHE) is an important feature of the planet for life. Without the greenhouse effect the average temperature of the earth would be around -15°C instead of 15°C based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and observations of bodies within our solar system like the moon.”
              This is but an agreement with the CAGW scammers that there exists a fantasy condition claimed to be some (GHE) based on more fantasy of what the very useful S-B equation (as no such law exists) may mean concerning Thermal EMR effects, on planetary atmospheres or some underling rocky or liquid surface. There is no scientific explanation for such fantasy. One can only imagine some fantasy of the structure of floaters vs sinkers after doing needed business into the toilet!

              “The downwelling radiation (~333 W/m2) from the atmosphere reduces the amount of NET radiation leaving the surface thus slowing the cooling of the surface. This downwelling IR is observable and measurable and its existence is a fact.”
              Earth”s atmosphere limits the amount of (unneeded) surface flux by replacing that by much more eficative atmospheric EMR exitance to space, by the atmosphere itself, of any waste sensible heat known as entropy.
              The potential for thermal EMR flux, is called radiance.:-)
              This value is carefully and mathematically constructed values, specifically designed, to eliminate the effect of any opposing “radiance”, potential! Such has been accepted as the “scientific method” of measurement. since 1907!
              The claim of the scammers is equivalent to temperature at the higher temperature piece of wire implies a virtual flux of sensible heat power to absolute zero temperature in one direction, and a virtual flux of sensible heat power in the opposing direction also to absolute zero. Thus the thermal conductivity of that wire is the (NET) difference in virtual flux divided by the (NET) difference in absolute temperature. None!, not even one of these virtual fluxi has ever been measured. :-)

              “Natural variations in the GHE are easily recognizable in our daily lives for example a cloudy winter night generally stays warmer than a clear winter night and the nighttime temperature drop in the desert is vastly greater than locations with greater humidity. Clouds and water vapor are responsible for the bulk of the GHE.”

              Again John West, promotes the CAGW scam of some need of surface “radiance” and surface radiant exitance to space.
              On this Earth with its atmosphere, almost all sensible and latent heat transfer is done by the lateral advection of atmospheric mass in the direction of lower: temperature, Near the surface lateral delta pressure dominates; creating interesting weather called hurricanes, tornadoes!
              Please John West, Please tell us all “How much atmosphere this Earth has at present? Why Earth has that amount of atmosphere? And what it may be that may change that amount of atmosphere? Without that all must remain ROFLMAO, complete with “will some one please hand me a slice of Pizza?”
              All the best! -will-

              74

              • #
                AndyG55

                Yeah, its funny Ross didn’t read enough to comprehend that some of John’s statements followed “the mantra”.

                I did try to tell him to actually read it and try to comprehend, didn’t I. ;-)

                Stop spoiling my fun !

                113

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Good post Will,

                Every time I see someone invoke Stephan-Boltzman in any way in relation to this CAGW business I laugh.

                If only those who did it realised how stupid they look, but then their only purpose is to lead others and in that area a distortion can serve just as well as reality.

                Usually S-B is mixed in with lots of serious looking Watts per square meter type figures which are real useful considering probably one third of all energy on the go is very very very difficult to account for.

                The loudest laugh is usually reserved for those SkS types who finally manage to balance energy in with energy out to within 1 W/m2. Well done guys.

                81

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Andy

                I managed to get up to steamfest this morning and it was great.

                My wife is not too mobile but seemed wrapped in all the commotion and it took us back to times past when steam rail was all there was. Her train trips in VN were obviously something she liked and talked about getting blackened faces from looking out the window too much.

                The steam tractors or whatever they were are huge.

                A good day out.

                KK

                110

              • #
                AndyG55

                KK,

                I spent yesterday morning at Steamfest. Great fun, all that lovely steam and real black smoke… (not that fluffy photoshopped stuff)

                Today, I had a great morning, managed to find a position at Hanbury Junction to catch all 4 steam locos at the start of the Great Race.

                90

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Hanbury Junction?

                Is that at Waratah station?

                50

              • #
                AndyG55

                Sort of between Waratah and Warrabrook stations.

                There used to be an old coal line that headed off passed where the uni is.

                50

              • #
                AndyG55

                Link for you.. (yes, I know its Wiki), but this isn’t climate science so its probably not too corrupted.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallsend_railway_line

                40

              • #
              • #
                John West

                S-B equation (as no such law exists)”

                http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/radframe/sb_tl.html

                http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

                http://www.britannica.com/science/Stefan-Boltzmann-law

                There most certainly is an S-B Law. It applies to the surface and clouds but not CO2 and water vaper in the atmosphere.

                Again John West, promotes the CAGW scam of some need of surface “radiance” and surface radiant exitance to space.”

                I do not promote CAGW. I do however recognize the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.

                01

              • #
                John West

                KinkyKeith says “Every time I see someone invoke Stephan-Boltzman in any way in relation to this CAGW business I laugh.”

                Typically I’d be right there with you because a lot of times they’re applying the S-B equation to gases which are not black or even grey bodies. I did not do this however.

                21

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                There is an S_B equation, but the conditions in which it applies are very specific.

                In the case of CAGW it is being used to give the appearance of science and its main purpose is to create the illusion of rigour in a poorly defined system.

                71

              • #

                John West April 11, 2016 at 1:26 am

                WJ( “S-B equation (as no such law exists)”)

                JW “http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/radframe/sb_tl.html
                http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
                http://www.britannica.com/science/Stefan-Boltzmann-law
                “There most certainly is an S-B Law. It applies to the surface and clouds but not CO2 and water vaper in the atmosphere.”

                That is but a Bill ‘Stoat’ Connolly edit to Wikipedia. A scientific physical LAW is but the most careful simplification of observation to that, that cannot be denied. Second LAW of thermodynamics “Stuff don spontaneously go uphill”!. Rudy Clausius! Please don truck wid Rudy, jus look at his picture!!
                Jozef Stefan’s constant of flux got it close “the maximum thermal emr flux between surfaces with differential temperature”. Luddy Boltzmann, Max Planck, and Jimmy Maxwell conspired to clean that up to have a theoretical value of 5.67 x 10^-8 W/(m^2 x T^4). This maximum value between any two differential temperatures, has been approached (measured)to within 0.01% while never once exceeding the theoretical maximum. A true wonder of the theoretical! This has nothing to do with CAGW bird sh*t futzing with the numbers.

                WJ (“Again John West, promotes the CAGW scam of some need of surface “radiance” and surface radiant exitance to space.”)

                “I do not promote CAGW. I do however recognize the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.”
                These are but claims from consideration of both Kepler and Newton. All mass, power, momentum, of stuff must be strictly accounted for, if you are to have any understanding if this is! Conservation of momentum is likely, but only if one considers that such must remains universally zero with careful note of chirality and parity! Please read what Amalie ‘Emmy’ Noether actually has proven!
                All the best! -will-

                00

          • #
            Winston

            Ross,

            John actually made 6 distinct points, numbered each one and then responded to each point sequentially.

            That is not, therefore, in any way shape or form a “Gish gallop”- a term I might add that SkS resort to when they actually can’t respond directly to someone’s point of contention without conceding that person may actually be correct. It is the intellectual equivalent of the old 1950′s response to nuclear attack with “duck and cover”.

            132

            • #
              Ross

              And what, exactly, were those six succinct points, Winston?

              39

              • #
                el gordo

                Its a sensitivity issue, CO2 causes a little warming is a nonsense but I’m not qualified to have a real opinion. Only three options exist:

                CO2 causes a little warming and the hiatus continues into the Never Never.

                CO2 doesn’t cause warming and global cooling has already begun.

                Too much CO2 is bad and temperatures will rebound very soon.

                92

              • #
                AndyG55

                “And what, exactly, were those six distinct points, Winston?

                READ IT, FFS !!!

                Can you at least do that !! TRY..

                102

              • #
                Ross

                You don’t get it either, do you Andy? It’s okay, Andy.
                No one else did either.
                You should probably call me a name at this point. (swoon).

                311

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Ross.

                I agree with you to a point, and that point relates to downwelling radiation.

                John seems to accept the idea as real and measurable but both of us seem to agree that the concept is not acceptable given that energy will only move to a zone of lower temperature.

                Sure, the transfer of heat at light speed up to cloud level is real, but when that energy is delayed by the clouds it is in an environment that is maybe 5 C degrees cooler than where it came from. We both know that energy does not move against the temperature gradient and that its next point of call will be somewhere higher in the atmosphere.

                Glad we got that sorted.

                120

              • #
                AndyG55

                Ross admits he can’t read more than 10 words, and the very idea of it makes him swoon.

                Go for it, pathetic child !

                103

              • #
                Ross

                Good on you, Kinky Keith. I was hoping SOMEONE would have a bash. And you did it in two short paragraphs, and not six distinct but impenetrable points.
                John still worries me a bit when he uses phrases like ” Nowhere in nature that I’ve seen..” Sounds a bit like “I just reckon”, but I’ll have to take you at your word that this is exactly what John was supposedly trying to impart.
                Thanks for your reply.

                39

              • #
                AndyG55

                “six distinct but impenetrable points.”

                Good to see you admitting your lack of reading ability , yet again.

                Apart from that..nothing to say again.. Well done.

                112

              • #
                Ross

                Oh yes, Andy. I can tell you had a firm grasp on Johns theories all along (chortle) It was the stream of angry emails, that told me so.
                More names, Andy? Obsession is morphing into infatuation, I think. Are you flirting with me again. Call me names, Andy. Call me bad ones.

                310

              • #
                AndyG55

                Still waiting for you to produce something with any content.

                The best either of you has managed is Roy’s graph showing the El Nino already starting to subside.

                Come on, you must have something to put forward to do with actual science.

                Even you can’t be that EMPTY !

                “It was the stream of angry emails”
                wft are you talking about?

                92

              • #
                Ross

                Ha ha, What angry emails? Seriously Andy, you’ve reduced yourself to a drinking game. WFT?
                Off to my sons 18th, now. I suggest you insult me to all and sundry while I’m gone. Knock yourself out Professor.

                49

              • #
                AndyG55

                Yawn !!

                103

              • #
                AndyG55

                Ross.. Have you been sending angry emails to yourself? bizarre !

                113

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Ross,
                Winston has addressed the structure of the comment.

                10

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      John.

      I agree, complete BULL.

      After I read “downwelling radiation” and “forcings” I started to feel very unhappy, and then came to your very apt summary: complete BULL.

      KK

      90

      • #
        John West

        I admit using the word “forcings” makes me a little queasy, but sometimes you just have to go with the terminology of the “debate”. The whole approach that climate science has taken seems more for computational necessity than physical reality.

        31

        • #
          tom0mason

          John West,

          ‘forcings’ is the preferred word as it obscures meaning.
          If they (UN-IPCC et al.) had used ‘feedback’ with proper definitions then everyone would see what a steaming pile of BS this theory truely is.

          40

    • #
      ScotstsmaninUtah

      Gavin Schmidt a great mathematician by all accounts , certainly the British institutions from which he has obtained his credentials would attest to this.

      Listening to Gavin Schmidt speak and always with such confidence, one comes away feeling that the Science is truly settled.

      Odd that his particilar version of the coupled Climate Model parallels many of those with enormous errors which we continue to read about.

      30

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Yes, he may be a good mathematician but he seems not to have any engineering ability.

        Terms like “back radiation” may seem scientific but are nonsense.

        50

        • #
          tom0mason

          Good point!

          40

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          In my career, I have worked with (well, for, actually) a number of Mathematicians and Theoretical Physists. Absolutely brilliant people. The cream of the crop. First class minds, all.

          Unfortunately, they frequently came up with elegant solutions to a problem that were impossible for a lowly engineer, such as myself, to design and build, when constrained by the three physical dimensions, and budget.

          100

        • #
          Analitik

          I have always wondered why they can’t measure and quantify this “back radiation” (eg IR readings against the night sky)

          30

          • #
            • #
              KinkyKeith

              They can?

              Or, They are trying.

              They claim to be measuring something.

              They don’t seem to be able to describe what they’re doing.

              Could you put it a bit simpler.

              10

            • #
              Analitik

              Strangely, that progress report, with its single plot of measurements, is the only thing I can find on this project.
              A series of readings over several years should have been able to confirm whether the back radiation (or downwelling infrared
              irradiance, if you like) is increasing with CO2 levels or not.

              The opening background sentence “Nocturnal minimum temperatures have increased three times faster than daytime
              maximum temperatures, an effect observed worldwide” should have been more tentative (ie a hypothesis to be verified) rather than a bald statement of fact to be confirmed.

              10

        • #
          John West

          In engineering the “backradiation” is acounted for with an “apparent sky temperature” in cooling calculations, just because different terms are used doesn’t mean we’re not talking about the same thing.

          02

          • #

            “In engineering the “backradiation” is acounted for with an “apparent sky temperature” in cooling calculations, just because different terms are used doesn’t mean we’re not talking about the same thing.”

            In what form of “engineering”,”physics”, or “science” is sky “radiance”, a potential for thermal EMR flux, confused with the demonstrated actuality of only a unidirectional EMR flux at each frequency?
            The term ‘backradiation’ is a political construct used by academic meteorologic ‘trough feeders’ to intentionally confuse the public and government.
            ——————————————–
            In abstract algebra a ‘virtual’ EMR flux in each direction can be somewhat helpful in understanding the combining effects of absorptivity (α), reflectivity (ρ) and transmissivity (t) which must always sum to unity, in each direction, at each frequency!
            Such is never to be confused with the physical and measurable.
            All the best! -will-

            20

    • #
      Ross

      Good point,

      00

  • #

    Production of Electricity in Eastern Australia

    It hasn’t been a very good week for the production of electricity by the green alteratives to fossil fuel generation; solar and wind.

    Average production figures for the first week of April were:

    Fossil fuel……..19,050…….Range…16,000–22,500
    Hydro……………1,090………………300–2,200
    Wind……………..880……………….200–2,200
    Solar……………..40…………………0–100
    Total production….21,060 MW

    Wind production was low, about 23.5 % of capacity, due to the prevailing weather conditions and overall production figures as low as 200 MW were noted. From noon on Thursday extending on to midday on Saturday production it was only 10% or 400 MW.

    On Friday April 8 the generation figures were:

    ………. …At 9 am………………..At 6 pm. (max. production)
    Fossil fuel.. 22,000…………………22,000….(90%)
    Hydro……….1,700………………….2,200….( 9%)
    Wind………….200……………………360….( %1) Solar………….16……………………nil

    Totals……..23,916 MW………………24,560 MW

    Little renewable energy was produced on Friday due to lack of wind, only 1 % of the total production, but it demonstrates the unreliability of solar and wind as sources of 24/7 electricity. Little Hydro electricity was also produced, but production can be increased as necessary as long as there is water in the dams, whereas with wind energy it is totally dependent on the prevailing conditions and cannot be controlled.

    The average capacity factor for the wind turbines was 23.5% for the week, but on Thursday and Friday it was down to 5% which is very little for 39 contributing windfarms to the grid, which demonstrates the need for back-up generation most of the time if renewables are ever going to be the main source of future electricity production!

    230

    • #
      sceptic56109

      Great summary of renewable vagaries, Robert O.

      In Australia, the amount of water in the dams does affect the capacity of hydro production. However, in Ontario in spring, there is no excuse for running the turbines at Niagara Falls at 60%, which is what happens whenever the wind is blowing. Hydro power HAS to be able to ramp up for the alternate scenario of tiny wind contribution. (see http://reports.ieso.ca)

      10

  • #
    Another Ian

    On a different subject

    “Recent data on Labor, union power and influence in Australia”

    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/04/recent-data-on-labor-union-power-and-influence-in-australia.html

    70

    • #
      Ross

      Ian@ #4. Who’d have thought the IPA would think this way? A real eye opener. Looking forward to ‘Banks, financial corruption, corporate tax avoidance and how it destroys local economies’.
      May not get a run at the IPA, but of course it wouldn’t, would it?

      29

      • #
        James Murphy

        If you have a problem with the IPA, then you must also have a problem with similar politically motivated lobby groups like the Australia Institute…?

        If not, why not?

        90

  • #
    Another Ian

    James Delingpole today

    “Why Conservatives Will Always Lose The War On Climate Change”

    and how to reposition.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/09/conservatives-will-always-lose-climate-change/

    and link

    90

    • #
      Peter C

      Good One Ian! Essential reading; but for the time poor I will give a few quotes here:

      the left has been using environmentalism as a cloak to disguise its usual controlling, misanthropic, puritanical, big government agenda with a kindly aura of bunny-hugging caringness.

      My book Watermelons: How The Environmentalists Are Killing The Planet, Destroying The Economy And Stealing Your Children’s Future describes the historical background to this. That’s “Watermelons” as in “green on the outside, red on the inside.”

      …..

      Environmentalism – the “climate change” scare, especially – is the hard left’s Trojan Horse: unlike the Soviets, unlike the Nazis, it intends to destroy Western liberal civilisation not from without but from within.

      Can (Conservatives) ever win the argument?

      Well, to answer the last question first, yes, absolutely they can but first they need to read this brilliant essay by Alex Epstein in Forbes.

      …..

      The current debate about the environment is constructed round an entirely dishonest core premise: “that we need to get off fossil fuels and onto green energy.”

      But Republicans – and other conservatives and, even more so, libertarians – can very easily win this debate simply by reframing its terms of reference.

      To reach the right conclusion… we need to be clear on our moral goal, our standard of value—.. the right standard of value is maximizing human well-being rather than the environmentalist standard of minimizing human impact. If we look at the big picture, both positives and negatives, of fossil fuels by the standard of maximizing human well-being, we find that short-term and long-term they improve every aspect of life by increasing mankind’s ability to use machines—including our capacity to make a naturally dirty environment far cleaner and our capacity to make a naturally dangerous climate far safer.

      200

    • #
      toorightmate

      The Y2K hoax was able to finish in a few minutes.
      This one will take a few decades to disappear.

      130

      • #
        Peter C

        The Y2k hoax destroyed itself, because it was a prediction, with a fixed end date.

        The climate change and fossil fuels debate can go on forever essentially. What is more we will continue to loose unless and until we find a way to reframe the debate by a changing the moral reference point from; humans are bad for the environment to seeking human benefit is good and moral and proper.

        I commend reading this article by Eric Epstein in Forbes magazine, which was the basis for James Delingpoles article.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2016/04/06/how-to-make-energy-a-winning-issue-for-republicans-in-2016/#2854d66c260d

        Increasing human benefit includes looking after the environment and all the other creaturess so it is win win. It is the starting point for the philosophy of Humanism. We recognize the argument when we see it but it is rarely articulated these days.

        131

        • #
          ianl8888

          Sorry mate, but Epstein’s essay is just a wank.

          It doesn’t matter how one may wish to “frame the debate”, the MSM will NOT let you change it. End of story.

          120

          • #
            Ross

            Ianipl8888. Oh well. That’s that then. Time to find a new hobby.

            212

            • #
              ianl8888

              The red thumb thingy isn’t mine.

              You don’t have enough value for me to bother. You’re just another parasite.

              83

            • #
              James Murphy

              As will you too, “Ross”.
              I wonder which cause will now get to benefit from your particular blend of (wilful or otherwise) scientific ignorance, unquestioning loyalty, and blind faith?

              132

    • #
      Ross

      Mr Breitbart, in your link, A Ian, compares the environmental movement with (in no particular order) Soviets, Nazis and of course, the Taliban. This may be a clue as to why conservatives can never win the argument. The horses mouth, being a big part of the problem.
      Furthermore, I didn’t realise being a climate skeptic automatically made you a conservative, but there you are, apparently.

      211

      • #
        Peter C

        Andrew Breitbart is dead RIP. Author was James Delingpole

        ” I didn’t realise being a climate skeptic automatically made you a conservative” Does it? No one said that except you Ross. .

        130

        • #
          Ross

          I thought the title of the article was the giveaway, Pete. Probably confusing.

          112

          • #
            AndyG55

            “”Probably confusing”

            Everything is, to you !.

            114

          • #
            AndyG55

            You are a confused little child, waiting for someone to come along to read, comprehend what is written, and then formulate a response for you…..

            … because you are incapable of doing any of those things yourself.

            A typical “progressive” (lol) mind.

            114

          • #
            James Murphy

            Ross, you do seem to have a problem with the most basic matters of logic.
            You seem to be at the level of ‘all dogs have 4 legs, my cat has 4 legs, therefore my cat is a dog’

            On the positive side, I guess the only thing you can do is improve, because at your level, I am not sure you could actually get worse.

            111

            • #
              Ross

              Hmmm. Interesting theory, James. Struggling to understand what on earth your on about, but, you know, like Andy, carry on.

              18

      • #
        Dariusz

        The climate does not know the meaning of politics. All we care about is data only. Show me a technical argument without the usual name calling, politicking, calling me a sceptic.
        I am not a sceptic, I am realist, that absorbs all kind of arguments and I am quite prepared to change my mind and accept other people,s point of view. If not convicted, I am more than happy to debate without radicule, bulling etc.

        90

        • #
          Ross

          Dariusz. Really good point.
          I don’t think it’s a left right thing either. It’s just become that way.
          You, and others, are sceptical of the accepted science and give your various reasons, here and on other blogs. Fair enough.
          I disagree and accept the general scientific opinion that CAGW is real.
          No, I am not a scientist, but like to think myself a realist ( go hard here, folks, I’ve just given you a big line of attack). I just don’t see a world wide conspiracy. It just doesn’t make sense to me that SO MANY international scientists would be part of some huge con.
          BUT, I could be wrong. That’s true.
          If it comes to pass, that the vast majority of the worlds scientists, come to realise, through further research, that CAGW is indeed a fallacy, guess what? I’d accept that too.
          What else would I do? They’re the people with all the information and expertise. The rest of us are mere amateurs. What would you do? Go the other way, because that’s what skeptics do?
          If you think you’ve absolutely nailed CAGW as a load of bollocks…For Christ’s sake get it out there. Publish it.
          Then we can all get some f…king sleep!!!
          Good night.

          23

          • #
            AndyG55

            “If it comes to pass, that the vast majority of the worlds scientists, come to realise, through further research, that CAGW is indeed a fallacy, guess what? I’d accept that too.”

            Sheep don’t think for themselves much either.

            51

          • #
            John Smith

            Ross
            sincere question if you see this
            What climate stats would you to like to see?
            GMST going down? Would that produce a sense of security?
            Do you believe an anthropogenic flat line is possible?
            Should we feel better if glaciers advance?
            What does victory look like?

            Hard for me to ponder a return to normal if normal is undefined.

            40

          • #
            Mark D.

            Ross says:

            I just don’t see a world wide conspiracy. It just doesn’t make sense to me that SO MANY international scientists would be part of some huge con.

            Firstly, the conspiracy claim is wearing thin.

            Secondly “SO MANY ….scientists” Really? How many actually have “knowledge” an how many are just parroting what the others say?

            Then wonder if funding only one side of the research produces a bias! Really Ross, use your “realist” mind.

            Then

            41

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            More research?

            Don’t think so.

            The cagw idea has very basic flaws for those who have bothered to educate themselves.

            LEONARDO DICAPRIO believes so everyone else should?

            That is the level of debate.

            It is a sociological situation.

            40

          • #
            James Murphy

            Ross – genuine questions;
            1. If humans were not generating CO2, what should ‘the climate’ be doing now? (you can choose a specific location/area if you want, given the spurious nature of a ‘global climate’).

            2. How do you select this baseline of “normality”? Is it based on temperature, CO2 content, duration…etc?

            3. If you do not have a baseline to work from, how can you reliably differentiate between natural variability and anthropogenic causes?

            50

          • #
            James Bradley

            Ross,

            Fair observation about world wide conspiracy, so explain why there are no balanced public debates and only warmist beliefs published in MSM?

            50

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            If it comes to pass, that the vast majority of the worlds scientists, come to realise, through further research, that CAGW is indeed a fallacy, guess what? I’d accept that too.

            Well, that statement comes down to what you mean by “CAGW”. Let’s unpick it. “Catastropic, Anthropogenic, Global Warming”.

            Is the world warming, globally? Yes it is! One estimate states that the rate of warming is 0.067 degrees Celsius per decade. What is more, that figure is not generally contested.

            Will that rate of increase in temperature be catastropic? No, it will not, because 0.067 degrees Celsius per decade translates to 0.67 degrees Celsius per century. Two thirds of one degree per century? Hardly catastrophic. Humans cannot detect such a small variation in temperature, in still air, under laboratory conditions.

            Is the warming man-made? This is a difficult question to answer. Fires can start naturally, from lightning strikes, or volcanic ejecta, or rockfalls striking a flint substrate, for example. When the Earth is viewed from space, there is always a forest fire somewhere, and there is always a volcanic eruptions somewhere. So we are only talking about part of the warming being man-made, primarily through industrialisation. It is hard to say how much of the two thirds of one degree per century can be attributed entirely to mankind, and how much will be due to natural causes. At a guess, I would say 10% could be sheeted home to mankind.

            So it is not a fallacy to say that mankind is currently responsible for a temperature rise of of two thirds of one degree per millenia. On this point, the vast majority of international scientists, will agree.

            Where you become confused is that the two dozen or so “climate scientists” (as distinct from from climatologists or meterologists), spend most of their time telling the truth, but in ways that are designed to decieve the non-scientifically trained public.

            It just doesn’t make sense to me that SO MANY international scientists would be part of some huge con.

            The vast majority of international scientists are not part of a huge con. They have better things to do with their time, than get embroiled in what is really a non issue. They have their own work to focus on, and that is usually all-consuming.

            71

  • #
    Another Ian


    Brandolini’s Law: “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”

    From comments at

    “What Would We Do Without Peer Review?”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/04/what-would-we-d-64.html#comments

    150

    • #
      Ross

      Smalldeadanimals really is, one angry Canadian yelling at the radio. (His words).
      But little else.

      49

      • #
        Another Ian

        Well! Seems that reply says a lot for your reading comprehension!

        81

        • #
          Ross

          Left hand column, under ‘Why this blog’ in bold; This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio – “You don’t speak for me.”
          I think I have the essence of it, ‘another Ian’.

          38

          • #
            AndyG55

            And the empty mess continues.

            Poor Ross, the ZERO CONTENT child.

            64

            • #
              Ross

              Oh, Andy. There you go again.
              I’m responding to ‘Another Ians,’ accusation about my reading comprehension, and pointing out exactly where my quote came from? That’s all.

              Now…I think it’s your turn to call me some more names.
              But this time, go a little harder. May I suggest the emoticon?
              The ultimate weapon! Just to really stick it to me.
              Aaaaand…go Andy!

              38

              • #
                AndyG55

                Nothing, Yet again

                Another empty comment.

                You are exceeding all expectations for nothingness.

                Well done!!!

                “accusation about my reading comprehension”

                Obviously they are well founded accusation. You admitted you didn’t understand any of it.

                65

              • #
                Another Ian

                Did you try reading the bit just above that quote?

                90

      • #
        James Murphy

        Ross, yet agin you (perhaps deliberately?) misrepresent the facts instead of engaging in anything resembling a debate. From what I have seen, many regular visitors here are very happy to have reasonable and rational debates about, well, pretty much anything really – you should try that tactic instead of your childish and vacuous waffle.

        By the way, the full quote is
        “…Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media and politicians alike have told me “what Canadians think”. In all that time they never once asked. This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio – “You don’t speak for me.”…”.

        61

      • #
        tom0mason

        No Ross, the full quote is

        Why this blog?
        Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media and politicians alike have told me “what Canadians think”. In all that time they never once asked.

        This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio – “You don’t speak for me.”

        Also of note – Best Canadian Blog 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and you can email Kate the blogger directly by emailing kate@katewerk.com

        31

        • #
          Another Ian

          Tom

          And to quote Ross from #6.1

          “Smalldeadanimals really is, one angry Canadian yelling at the radio. (His words).”

          A gender recognition problem or is there a song called “A Boy Named Kate” that I’ve missed?

          20

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        ‘his’ name is Kate.

        20

  • #
    TdeF

    An observation on Green solutions. The back to nature Greens always have the most complex, expensive and short term solutions.

    Australia has not built a new dam in 50 years. Dams are cheap, last forever, have little maintenance and harvest a free resources. The Greens are utterly against them. They prefer massive high tech, high maintenance, non natural, edge of technology, super expensive desalination plants which are dependent on electricity typically from coal.

    Electricity itself? As Tasmania has demonstrated, what dams have been built, they have been emptied to make profits from the carbon tax, devastating Green Tasmania in every way. Greens do not want power from hydro and waste it when , they have it, starving farmers of the essential water they need to grow crops. No, the Greens prefer giant landscrape ruining windmills which cost a fortune, have a very short lifespan, require annual maintenance, are unpredictable and whose energy cannot be stored. Unlike the dams they disrespect, these are not expected to last more than a few decades. Only the Greens would remove and ready for sale a low CO2 gas turbine for the Tamar valley and end up flying in hundreds of diesel generators. A lesson in clean sustainability. Destroying farming and agriculture and manufacturing, all at once.

    In food, the Greens are against genetically modified crops. They prefer ancient farming methods, suitable for backyards and small farms and unable to feed today’s populations. They believe nature will fix the problem by starving millions. Not them of course because universally Greens are lucky to live in advanced countries where food is plentiful thanks to mechanised modern farming, electricity, coal, oil, roads, trucks and distribution, all of which they oppose and try to frustrate.

    As for sustainability, that only applies to where Greens live. Windmills for Germany, Holland, England, the US in case they run out of coal. Nothing for countries which have nothing. Manufacturing, all going to China so they alone can choke on our CO2 and we can live without it. South Australia is still closing coal power generation, making it totally dependent on GST taxes taken from other states to subsidize their purchase of coal fired power from Victoria, but they will live in a low CO2 state.

    Rare earths, essential for the 300kg magnets in every windmill? The Greens have shut down rare earth mining around the world, so all the pollution is in China where it belongs. So the price jumped from $12 a kg to $250 a kg. Who cares, as long as it and the CO2 is not in my backyard. Caring.

    No, sustainability is a myth based on expensive, short term, NIMBY attitudes. The world will run out of gas then oil and then coal. The Greens solutions are short term, selfish, very expensive, high maintenance and ultimately, not sustainable. If you take the most selfish solution to a problem, that is the Green platform. Beggar thy neighbour.

    At least the Green boats have stopped and the terrible mass drownings of whole families, have stopped. Four jumbo loads of families under a Green government, the biggest peace time tragedy in our history, more than all others put together. Or as Green Senator Sarah Hansen Young said, “Accidents happen”. Caring too.

    302

    • #

      Although I agree with the sentiment of your comments I don’t think one can blame the greens for everything without the compliance of others.
      Sure the greens (+ Bob Hawke) stopped the Gordon below Franklin dam and 180 MW of “clean” hydro electricity.

      Actually, there is currently a Liberal govt. in Tasmania and the only input the greens had in the current problem is that Ms. Gillard provided an incentive for idiots in charge to sell too much electricity during the carbon years. Going into the Summer months with only 22% of dam capacity in a Winter rainfall is gross mis-management.

      The same mis-management applies to the decimated forest industry who leaders at the time who didn’t see the green lobby coming. Save the old-growth forests is a recipe for their demise since eucalypt ecology doesn’t work that way. The enormous fires in Gippsland with so much death and destruction are a direct consequence of the failure to undertake preventative burning under benign conditions due to green tape. The same for the Dunalley fire and in the Otways. If you live in the bush keep the surrounds clean.

      I could go on, but whilst the greens receive the political support of the inner city folk who think they are supporting the environment whilst enjoying their lattes, schools, hospitals, air-con, the greens influence will continue.

      152

      • #
        TdeF

        The Greens are a minority. That is my point. Both sides of politics are pandering to this minority. Bob Brown with one member in the democratic House of Representatives stood next to Gillard, made her government policy and was given his Carbon Tax, against the wishes of both Coalition and Labor voters. Why else did Gillard promise “no carbon tax in a government I lead” when she immediately brought on in just so she could lead.

        The same in Germany. A Green minority are dominating politics, wasting trillions with their crazy demands. Now the Liberals under Malcolm are combining with the Greens to get rid of the minority parties who eliminated the Carbon Tax and Malcolm will bring in his beloved ETS. He is saying nothing and no one is asking.

        Voters should know by now that Malcolm always gets what he wants. Whether it is good for anyone else is irrelevant. It will be his final vengeance on Tony Abbott, to destroy one of Tony’s great achievements and simultaneously show the Australian voters that he is in charge. What people do not realise is that he hates the National party too and will combine with the Green against both Labor and the Nationals. This is Malcolm’s party. People will only wake up when it is too late.

        150

      • #
        TdeF

        As for saving the old forest, farmers in Tasmania tell me they destroyed their land by growing trees for the pulp mill. Now trapped they cannot sell the trees, but thanks to the Greens, they cannot clear them either. These are not old forest or even native trees! These trees are only usable for paper. Why are trees preferable to grasses? This is a direct attack on essential farming, not conservation or sustainability. The half of Tasmania which grows food, mines and makes paper and aluminium is being assaulted by public service Greens in Hobart. At this rate Green dominated Tasmania and South Australia will be retirement villages where the houses cannot be sold and food is distributed by charities.

        121

        • #

          I think land use is quite a complicated subject and as you say the producers are being assaulted by the public service greens creating more and more hoops to jump through. As I mentioned the locking-up of old growth forests is an oxymoron but things like world heritage values and politics over-ride basic eucalypt silviculture. What is going to occur in the not too distant future is a large conflagration similar to Gippsland simply due the build-up of fuel loads in the forests and their complete lack of management. It happened in 1934 and again in 1967 and you have a small example such as the Dunalley fire recently. Seriously, what would some clerk in Paris know about the management of the native Eucalypt forests?

          On a trip to NZ I was amazed of the amount of pine logs and timber stacked on the NZ wharves for export coming from 20-25 year old plantations; millions of tonnes and hundreds of millions of dollars. This begs the question what have they done right and we have done wrong. The answer to this question has a lot to do with green politics, sub optimal land use, lack of foresight etc.

          60

          • #
            Analitik

            I’m guessing that you meant to say “the Otways” rather than “Gippsland”
            Other than that, spot on.

            20

    • #
      gnome

      Australia has built a new dam in 50 years- the Thompson River dam was built in my student days, and I am sure there will be others I can’t bring to mind immediately.

      Still- it’s about time we got the finger out and put in a few (or a lot) more. I’m keen to see one on the Gilbert River, another on the Leichardt River, raising of the Lake Julius Dam wall by at least 20 metres, and another in that general area, somewhere like the Dugald River, then providing water to the Barkly Tablelands, which are big enough and manageable enough to feed another world population equal to the one we’ve already got.

      70

      • #
        TdeF

        Yes, started 45 years ago and complete 33 years ago. The nearby Mitchell has been declared a heritage river, free of ‘impediments to natural flows’, despite the frequency of damaging floods. As time goes on more and more offshore fishing areas and fresh water rivers are out of bounds. We can only be grateful that the 26 locks on the Murray were put in place before the madness and the Murray was full of water through the long drought. Now water management is near illegal. In Tasmania, non existent.

        81

        • #
          TdeF

          Worse, the population of Australia fifty years ago, in 1966 was 11.65 million. It is now double, over 24Million. So what does the country build? $100Bn of desalination plants dependent on coal power. Why, because it is near illegal to imprison water. It is a wonder farmers are even allowed build tanks and maintain dams on their properties, so cruel is the treatment of fresh water.

          30

    • #
      Peter C

      Australia has built a new dam in 50 years

      Ord River 1971 = 44 Years

      3 Cheers for the WA Governments.

      Thompson Dam 1983= 32 years.

      3 Cheers Sir Henry Bolte!

      McCalaister Dam (Vic) not built yet. Thanks to the Greens.

      We need to argue to +100. Human benefit is good. Human benefit is moral. Human benefit helps sustain the Earth!

      No

      90

  • #
    Ruairi

    The Greens should know that CO2 will pass,
    From China,cross the sea and each landmass.

    On climate-change,more people now don’t care,
    Because they know that warmists love a scare.

    That Earthshine on the moon reflects no trend,
    Makes climate models awkward to defend.

    For windmills,Germans plan a few, if any,
    Which over time will fail,not leaving many.

    160

  • #
    tom0mason

    Must be global warming –

    April 4, 2016. Heavy snowfall on Honduras-Guatemala border! OK it’s hail mixed with snow in Irazu National Park, Costa Rica, just 10 degrees north of the equator– Video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivZghJyiLe8
    Well, it’s just weather, right?
    Also never recorded before some more weather on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe. “This is an exceptional event that we will never forget.” said the locals. More at http://dominicanewsonline.com/news/homepage/news/weather/snow-falls-in-guadeloupe-in-extraordinary-weather-phenomenon/

    Just unusual weather OK.
    Unusual like the North African Algerian news website says that snow height was over 25 cm (almost a foot) in several places.
    http://www.tsa-algerie.com/20160311/neige-grele-pluie-plusieurs-routes-coupees-a-circulation/
    Or unusual like seeing snow and Saudi Arabia together but for a few days, around February 2, an unusual cold snap had reporters saying “Heavy snowfall catches Saudis by surprise and joy” http://english.alarabiya.net/en/webtv/reports/2016/02/01/Heavy-snowfall-catches-Saudis-by-surprise-and-joy.html

    No, no. Don’t look it’s just a cold snap.
    Weather you know!

    Another good example is the first snow in recorded history which happened 180 miles south of Hanoi this winter, when the unforgiving cold in the north has killed more than 50,000 cattle and poultry, according to newspaper reports. This includes more than 9,000 animals and 43,000 poultry.

    Also back in January, Northern Lao provinces hit by extreme cold snap,VIENTIANE – People and livestock in upland areas of northeastern Laos are struggling with the freezing cold as temperatures in some areas dropped to zero, while lowland areas too have been taken by surprise.(http://www.nationmultimedia.com/aec/Northern-Lao-provinces-hit-by-extreme-cold-snap-30277751.html)
    25 Jan 2016 – Officially it was Snow Day in Northern Vietnam, with a massive cold blast hitting that part of the country and giving some regions their first ever taste of snow. Ever.
    Also of note was the first records of snow in both Kuwait and Okinawa.

    Hey but that was just some unusual weather not human induced ‘Climate Change™’(aka AGW), may even be caused by the slight dip in solar output, a dip that can’t affect the climate, could it?

    Info culled from http://iceagenow.info/ and verified through other sources as indicated.

    113

  • #
    Analitik

    There has been a lot of discussion about the electricity/water situation in Tasmania of late but I think longer term, South Australia is a bigger worry.

    Tasmania will muddle through with the aid of the diesel generators until the BassLink cable is repaired (I wonder if the government will be forced to use some of the Collins fleet as portable generators as an Oberon was slated to do in the aftermath of cyclone Tracy – http://www.navy.gov.au/history/feature-histories/disaster-relief-cyclone-tracy-and-tasman-bridge). After that, sensible management of the dam levels along with the TVPS and BassLink will prevent this situation re-occurring.

    On the other hand, this statement was made on Energy Matters (Euan Mearns excellent site) and bares thinking about for the coming summer

    The same is happening down here in Australia where one state (South Australia) will soon close its last 768 MW of coal power plants, leaving only 2939 MW of gas and diesel generators to “backup” 1477 MW of wind turbines. Of the dispatchable generators, only 838 MW are CCGT meaning peaking plants maybe required to run for long periods since there are only 2 interconnectors with a total capacity of 680 MW (being upgraded soon to 870 MW) and the mean demand is around 1700 MW.

    With a peak demand around 3300 MW in the coming summer (the northern hemisphere winter), it will be a race to see whether Scotland or South Australia experiences the first total grid collapse.

    110

  • #

    Every couple of weeks, we hear how rooftop solar power is increasing out of sight, and how it can become the new big thing in power generation.

    Now, the AVERAGE rooftop system is a 2.5KW installation. (note the word Average here)

    When the actual figures for generation are worked out for a full year, then this average system might generate around 10KWH a day, and here I’m using the best case quoted by the Companies which install them. However, that average is on the high side, and it would be closer to 8KWH in reality. The further North, a little more, South, less. But for the sake of the exercise here, let’s actually use their own figures of 10KWH.

    The actual home with the panels will use half that power, and again, I’m going on the low side here, because it would actually be closer to two thirds.

    So then, the average rooftop system is (probably) feeding back to the grid around 5KWH of power per day, best case.

    Average rooftop generation (returned to grid) – 5KWH per day

    Sydney – Absolute full 24 hour requirement – 85,000,000KWH per day.

    Tony.

    Post Script – That’s just for Sydney. For all Australia, east of the WA Border, the absolute full 24 hour requirement is (around) 440,000,000KWH

    161

    • #

      Tony

      FYI

      My wife and I have consumed 25.5 kW-h daily over the last 160 days, on average. Included in this is some pump power to water some stock, but I’d expect that our personal power use would be >20 kW-h per day.

      My brother living alone next door consumes 9.5 kW-h per day.

      Therefore your 5 kW-h per day fed back into the grid could be a little high?

      40

    • #
      Analitik

      The answer, of course, is to double (triple/quadruple…) down and increase the size of installations as well as the number. Then combine this with battery storage and feed in management systems and we will have hundreds of thousands (millions?) of mini power stations, providing distributed local generation so that we will no longer need to gold plate the grid for the mythical need of baseload power and wind turbines will do the rest.

      Just go the RenewEconomy and you will read all about it.

      14

      • #
        Analitik

        Oops. Forgot to mention that the smart grid will provide flexible demand as well as removing the need for high voltage transmission (aside from that needed to transfer the power from the wind farms, mass PV arrays and CSP plants).

        RenewEconomy (and CleanTechnica, The Rocky Mountain Institute, The Solutions Project and GreenMediaTech) – solutions for our future

        14

        • #
          GrahamP

          Analitik

          Sounds most impressive, except that the posts TonyfromOz puts up that provide hard data would indicate it is a pipe dream.

          Maybe you would be so kind as to provide a detailed financial and factual analysis to prove that your dream can be realised.

          40

          • #
            Analitik

            We only need the political will….

            24

            • #
              bobl

              And gazillions of square km of land.

              Singapore’s energy needs (electricity gas and liquid fuels) can be satisfied by just 6000 Square km of Solar Power with 1500 square km of pumped storage – around 7500 square km.

              Too bad Singapore is only 719 Square km in size!

              Pipe dream, you live in a fantasy world.

              110

              • #
                Analitik

                You can read this peer reviewed paper by Marc Diesendorf (Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales) on how renewables can power 100% of the Australian grid. They simulated the requirements with various scenarios of generation types and population and demand models.

                The report shows that the average wind and solar conditions for over the course of a year provides scope for wind and solar generation to cover the average demand with any minor, short term shortfalls to be dealt by shedding industrial demand. They even modelled the costs of renewables deployments and transmission upgrades vs the replacement costs for the ageing fossil fuel generators and found the renewables option cheaper when a sufficient carbon price is factored in.

                It draws information from reports by Marc Jacobson, the European Climate Foundation, the International Renewable Energy Agency, Nicholas Stern, the WWF and many others.

                05

              • #
              • #
                handjive

                “It draws information from reports by Marc Jacobson, the European Climate Foundation, the International Renewable Energy Agency, Nicholas Stern, the WWF and many others.”

                Would that be the same Nicholas Stern …

                Nicholas Stern: ‘I got it wrong on climate change – it’s far, far worse’

                “Lord Stern, author of the government-commissioned review on climate change that became the reference work for politicians and green campaigners, now says he underestimated the risks, …”

                The meaning of underestimate is “to ​fail to ​guess or ​understand the ​real ​cost, ​size, ​difficulty, etc. of something”. Underestimate- overestimate; wrong is wrong is fail.

                Using the same failed methods, Stern says trust me this time.
                Good luck to you if you want to quote Stern the failure.
                ~ ~ ~
                I perused your link and could not see any data for extreme weather/climate that will be prevented.

                This is after all, the main reason for replacing our reliable fossil fuelled energy with sunbeams & sea breezes.

                Can you provide the evidence how climate will stop because of all these ‘renewables’ as your links fails to do this.

                For example, how many solar panels will control the weather in Queensland? Or stop the next cyclone?
                (Hint; answer can be found @0.17 seconds)

                50

              • #
                bobl

                Analitic,

                Actually since I’m an Electrical Engineer I don’t need to take anyone’s word for it. I just do the math.

                Australia’s Energy usage is 6000PJ, So to replace everything with renewable power including all the electric cars and trucks and replacing gas heating with electricity

                That (using reliable solar) requires 47,000 square km of PV panels. That’s around about a square 270 km a side – bit impractical don’t you think? At lets say 2k per ha land tax – the cost of the land tax alone is $9 Billion and capital and costs are 20 times higher (around 180 Billion). Panels and wiring is around $9.4 Trillion Inverters add another $10 Trillion. Double that for 1 days storage to cope with nights. Triple it if you use solar trackers.

                I’ll get you to clean them all once a week OK? Oh and every 10 years they have to be replaced!

                I guess you can do that too, right?

                Now given the cost of some $20-30 Trillion every 10 years or around $2-3T a year forever and note that Australia’s GDP is around $1.6T so Australia’s TOTAL GDP IS NOT ENOUGH TO PAY FOR THIS !

                PS I have not included the poles and wires and land easements to get this energy from place to place – or acts of god like cyclones which drives up PV costs.

                All to do what Analitic? Reduce the temperature in 100 years by 0.0002 degrees?

                Better to let the plants have the CO2, improve our food stocks and spend the cash on something actually useful, like curing cancer!

                110

            • #
              GrahamP

              I quick speed read through the paper does not leave me with much enthusiasm. A couple of relevant quotes in no particular order.

              “Depending on the choice of discount rate, the 100% renewable system is
              cheaper on an annualised basis than a replacement fleet with a carbon price
              in the range of $50–65 (5% discount rate) and $70–100 (10% discount rate).
              Despite these conservative discount rates, the range of carbon prices that raise
              the cost of the replacement fossil-fuelled fleet above that of the 100% renewable
              energy system appear modest, and below those carbon prices that appear to be
              required in order to effectively address climate change out to 2050. This range
              of carbon prices has been projected to prevail between 2029 and 2043, with the
              uncertainty predominately due to uncertainty in long-term carbon prices and
              the future cost of renewable energy technologies.”

              “Spatial mismatches between renewable electricity generation and demand may require an extensive reconfiguration of the transmission network.”

              “The simplified transmission network used in this work underestimates the
              full length of transmission lines required and therefore the cost of transmission.”

              “A more interconnected transmission network significantly reduces the peak energy exchanges between certain regions, particularly between SA and Victoria. Victoria is a region with high annual electricity demand, second only to NSW. South Australia is a region that can host a high level of the relatively low cost wind power, which features high in the merit order.
              By introducing two new interconnections from South Australia (the dashed
              lines in Figure 3), a lower overall cost of transmission is achieved because this
              energy can be delivered via a shorter path. This eliminates the very high peak
              energy exchanges that are otherwise seen between South Australia and Victoria.”

              40

              • #
                GrahamP

                Comments on the above quotes:

                100% renewable is only possible with a punitive carbon price. No mention of the social cost of that lunacy.

                Costs involved in upgrading the grid seem to be ignored

                The last quote seems to defy logic based on the data available for wind power in SA and further how can adding two new connectors eliminate high peak energy exchanges.

                60

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Coal fired electricity from Victoria sells at a base price around $30 a MWh.
                Wind power delivers at around $110 although some claim it can be as cheap as $90. The UK Government seems to think that $145 is more likely for on-shore wind turbine output. Since Marc Diesendorf thinks it would require a carbon price of $143-172 per MWh* to make wind cheaper than coal fired, it seems likely that wind power is 3-4 times more expensive than coal fired. It is interesting that if we were to up-grade our coal fired plant to the latest technology that the carbon tax would have to be raised to make them more expensive than wind.
                Recently PV solar has been claimed as slightly cheaper than wind. It might be but the question of cost is confused by those enthusiasts who confuse selling price (before adding the subsidies) with actual cost. Concentrated solar heat is admitted, even by those involved as costing $270-285 per MWh (see the Noor project in Morocco).
                Obviously renewables cannot compete without subsidies or penalties on conventional methods.

                There is another point in which he thinks that industry can be shut down at will when is scheme comes unstuck. It will shut down permanently and relocate to China, India or any of those countries that don’t give a brass razoo for renewables. With the reduction tax collections and increased demand for unemployment benefits, the Government will have to reduce expenditure. The Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales will find out the hard way about renewables.

                * there is a factor of 2.86 for CO2 emitted per MWh.

                70

              • #
                Analitik

                Great jobs guys. I’ve run out of renewables bull$hit to throw at you since Diesendorf’s “Least cost 100% renewable electricity scenarios in the Australian National Electricity Market” paper is the cornerstone of arguments for 90% or 100% renewables electricity generation by organisations such as Beyond Zero Emissions and The Greens.

                As you’ve noted, it’s just rubbish based on invalid assumptions and simplifications – a classic case of garbage in => garbage out.

                The other main flaw is that the time resolution they used for analysing demand vs potential renewables generation was hourly and we all know that a grid must be balanced and stablised continually.

                This has been fun

                100

    • #
      Robber

      So how much income does rooftop solar generate at 8 cents/Kwh feedin tariff?

      30

  • #
  • #
    pat

    this got posted by Drudge this week, plus on loads of alt websites, and it couldm’t be more simple or effective…to my mind, anyway:

    8 Apr: Steven Goddard: Global Temperature Record Is A Smoking Gun Of Collusion And Fraud
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/global-temperature-record-is-a-smoking-gun-of-collusion-and-fraud/

    ["Collusion And Fraud," is a quote from Steven Goddard and is his opinion. We do not need to see comments repeating those allegations so limit them to discussion of the data and Goddard's reasons for his opinions.] AZ

    51

  • #
    pat

    9 Apr: Reuters: Nichola Groom: Financial turmoil at SunEdison imperils solar projects worldwide
    Among the deals now in question is a solar plant under construction for the central Texas community of Georgetown. SunEdison initially told officials there it would self-finance the project, but now wants to make alternative funding arrangements.
    At SunEdison’s request, the city last month authorized financing through Morgan Stanley(MS.N), but the financial services firm has yet to agree to the arrangement.
    In February, Hawaiian Electric Company (HE.N) cited project delays in cancelling a contract with SunEdison to purchase power from three solar facilities the company was building on the island of Oahu.
    And last month, TerraForm Global(GLBL.O) – a related company set up to own and operate clean energy assets developed overseas by SunEdison – warned of delays in construction on two projects in Uruguay and a wind venture in India. Another of SunEdison’s Indian ventures, a 500 megawatt solar plant that is one of the country’s biggest forays into renewable energy, has not yet broken ground. Industry sources said it will likely be re-bid unless another company steps in to buy it.
    SunEdison declined to comment on the number and status of its unfinished deals…
    SunEdison and First Reserve – which jointly own the huge 156 MW Comanche Solar plant underway in Colorado – asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in March for expedited approval to sell that project…
    A SunEdison bankruptcy would rank among the largest by asset value involving a non-financial company in a decade, according to bankruptcydata.com…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sunedison-inc-projects-idUSKCN0X60GB

    30

  • #
    AndyG55

    Interesting

    The warm Blob off the west coast of the USA could have been from volcanic activity.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/08/possible-explanation-for-warm-ocean-water-off-the-oregon-coast-known-as-the-blob/

    Conclusion near the bottom of the post…

    “The amount of energy from the magma was far in excess of what was needed to supply the heat necessary to create the “Blob anomaly.” “

    71

  • #

    At my home site, we have permission to copy Posts from other selected sites. One of those contributors is Ron Arnold who does his Posts for the CFACT site.

    A recent Post from Ron Arnold shows something very interesting, detailing how the Climate Science may have been, umm, altered, to make it a little more politically acceptable.

    One short excerpt says this:

    Many have suspected that U.S. political intervention in climate science has corrupted the outcome. The new emergence of an old 1995 document from the U.S. State Department to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms those suspicions, or at least gives the allegation credence enough to ask questions.

    It’s troubling that a FOIA lawsuit came up empty – “no such correspondence in our files” – when the old 1995 document was requested from the U.S. State Department late last year. This raises a certain ironic question: If I have a copy of your document, how come you don’t?”

    While the article from Ron is at the CFACT site, I’ve linked to it as Posted at my home site. It’s very interesting to say the least.

    How Corrupt Is Government Climate Science?

    Tony.

    40

    • #
      ianl8888

      The Arnold article you link to states outright to “read the PDF for yourself” but contains no link to the actual document.

      So where is the copy of the 1995 document, please ?

      50

      • #

        ianl8888,

        thanks for raising this. I thought it was at the provided link. I’ve looked at the original Post at the CFACT site, and it’s highlighted in blue (where it says that text you mentioned) which indicates a link, but there’s nothing there. I m looking in the text at the link to see if I can trace it from there. That’s curious, so thanks for mentioning it.

        Tony.

        40

        • #

          ianl8888,

          go to the link that is provided, and scroll down to the Heading Politics Enters into Drafting the IPCC Report, (about a third of the way down that document) and it’s mentioned there in part, but I would need to contact the author to find the full pdf document.

          Apologies.

          Tony.

          40

          • #
            ianl8888

            Ok, but you know I’m an empiricist. If Mother Teresa arose from the dead and swore that an article said exactly what she described, I would still read the original.

            Too many misquotes and slidey comments infest the internet to do anything different. I’m sure the actual 1995 document is interesting, particularly since the US Govt denies its’ existence. Of course, I fear that it has been disappared.

            71

  • #
    el gordo

    Willis is putting the boot into the cosmic ray theory over at Watts and it looks like he is going to win.

    Where does this leave those who think Sol is the main driver?

    30

  • #
    el gordo

    The north east Pacific warm blob has been uncovered, appears to be of geothermal origin.

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/clip_image005.jpg

    60

    • #
      AndyG55

      Surface volcanic heat dissipates fast through the atmosphere, and the ash can cause cooling.

      The heat from this undersea volcanism has heated a reasonably large part of the north east Pacific combining with the El Nino to push up atmospheric temperatures for a short period.

      a quote from the article…

      “The amount of energy from the magma was far in excess of what was needed to supply the heat necessary to create the “Blob anomaly.” “

      The blob has now gone (maybe the volcanism has stopped).

      The El Nino has pretty much subsided.

      and the sun is having a rest as well.

      Next few years could be quite interesting!

      70

  • #
    el gordo

    No coral bleaching in the Kimberley (north west Australia) and its clear that adaptation and different DNA are the reasons.

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V19/apr/a5.php

    50

    • #
      AndyG55

      Upper GBR has been so stable for so long that even a slight rise in temp, from a solid El Nino and period of minimal cloud, was enough to temporarily disrupt the coral polyps.

      51

      • #
        el gordo

        Coral is more resilient than given credit for, having survived the universal effects of the Holocene Max and LGM, when New Guinea and Australian coral mixed DNA. Whatever it takes to survive.

        60

  • #
    Climate Heretic

    Dr Murry Salby was terminated from his job at Macquarie Univeristy in 2013[1] and resigned from the University of Colarado in 2007[1].

    Information in regards to his court case in regards to MU can be found here[2] and information on why Salby resigned from UC can be found here[3].

    Regards
    Climate Heretic

    [1] Terminated
    [2] Fedreal court case
    [3] Resgination

    30

    • #
      Climate Heretic

      Sorry, I should have written a couple of points in regards to his termination and resignation links. He resigned from UC for irregularities in regards to NSF and Salby was terminated from MU legally.

      Regards
      Climate Heretic

      30

    • #
      Peter C

      Thank you for the link.

      From 2. Federal court case against Maquarie University.

      Conclusion

      I conclude that Dr Salby has failed to establish any of the elements of his case. It follows that his application should be dismissed and I will so order.

      40

  • #
    Analitik

    Power reforms will save Western Australia $500m per year, Treasurer says

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-07/power-reforms-will-save-millions-nahan/7308174
    https://www.businessnews.com.au/article/Reforms-to-WAs-energy-market

    So it seems WA is going to follow SA down the renewables path except via household solar rather than wind and require Synergy, the state’s generation entity, to reduce thermal plant capacity by 380MW and reduce capacity payments to peaking plants making these less profitable and more likely to shut down as well.
    Finally, Demand Side Management payments will be reduced giving less incentive for industries to shed load when demand peaks.

    Sounds like another disaster is heading our way.

    RenewEconomy, of course, is ecstatic and saying “WA takes the lead”
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/wa-takes-lead-and-tells-utility-to-close-down-fossil-fuel-generation-42982

    40

  • #
    pat

    2 Apr: Redd-Monitor: Chris Lang: An email trail of a carbon credit scam. Featuring Carbon-ex, 360 Invest Group, Carbon-Expert, and Colemans-CTTS
    This is a story about how a pensioner was scammed into buying carbon credits as an investment. Miriam contacted REDD-Monitor in August 2014, to ask whether her 4,000 carbon credits were worth anything. She told me that 360 Invest Group had persuaded her to buy the carbon credits and that she’d paid the money to a firm of solicitors, Colemans-CTTS LLP, in Kingston upon Thames.
    I told Miriam that unfortunately her carbon credits were not worth very much at all. She’d been scammed. I suggested she should report the details to Action Fraud.
    Miriam recently sent a series of emails to REDD-Monitor asking for them to be posted to “help others not to make the same mistake”…READ ON
    http://www.redd-monitor.org/2016/04/02/an-email-trail-of-a-carbon-credit-scam-featuring-carbon-ex-360-invest-group-carbon-expert-and-colemans-ctts/

    50

  • #
    pat

    comment #22 on carbon fraud is in moderation.

    10 Apr: Adelaide Advertiser: Sam Kelton: Councillor fears a ban on cars in Adelaide’s CBD would kill the city
    It comes as the council is still grappling with how to fix the controversial $1.6 million Frome St bikeway and it has signed on to an agreement with the State Government to make Adelaide the world’s first carbon-neutral city. The carbon-neutral push for Adelaide includes several controversial plans to reduce the city’s reliance on cars, such as…READ ON
    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger/councillor-fears-a-ban-on-cars-in-adelaides-cbd-would-kill-the-city/news-story/9c43afe808537b3491795434e23a8590

    plenty in the comments are ok with this.

    30

    • #
      toorightmate

      I think the Upper House in SA is still debating what colour to paint the roof of the Blackwood railway station.
      There are some pretty big ticket items under scrutiny in SA.

      30

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Their efforts so far are working. I used to go into Adelaide City about 50 times a year, so far this year I have been in twice.

      This might have something to do with the City Council assigning road lanes to buses, blocking turns, closing some (small) streets etc. while the State Government increased the cost of parking with a tax and is busy digging up roads to reduce the bus travel time from the NE suburbs by 2 minutes (possibly). Readers can amuse themselves working out where there are several marginal electorates.
      Both entities are throwing money away subsidising Lithium batteries installations. The arithmetically challenged inner city dwellers think this is wonderful as they rush to get their snouts in the trough, and I guess that it would be a waste of time pointing out that the subsidies reduce the payback time to 13 years (for something with a 10 year life maximum.)

      30

      • #
        Analitik

        Graeme No.3, would you care to look at the generation capacity figures I quoted in comment #10?
        South Australia may not be able to indulge in re-organising the inner city roads this coming summer if they are accurate.

        00

  • #
    pat

    8 Apr: Age: Adam Carey: Hundreds of new car share parks in plan to steer people away from car ownership
    A bayside council wants to put a stop to car ownership growth, while doubling its population, by converting hundreds of ordinary parking spots into car share bays.
    The City of Port Phillip has released a draft plan for a fourfold increase in car share spots in the next five years, from 79 vehicles to 330 by 2021, in the hope it will encourage thousands of residents to give up their cars.
    It estimates each new car share vehicle will remove 10 privately owned cars from the road…
    The council’s draft plan sets a goal of zero growth in car ownership from now, meaning there would be one car for every four residents by 2031.
    This would put car ownership levels in Port Phillip on par with Paris and Amsterdam…
    Cr Voss said the municipality, which stretches from Elwood to Port Melbourne, faced “a huge problem” if all new residents wanted to own cars…
    “People naturally think that they should own a car, but [with] inner city living, it’s simply not possible.”
    There are three car share companies with vehicle bays in Port Phillip: GoGet, Flexicar and GreenShareCar…
    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hundreds-of-new-car-share-parks-in-plan-to-steer-people-away-from-car-ownership-20160407-go0zw2.html

    30

    • #
      James Murphy

      I love the idea that car ownership levels on par with Paris or Amsterdam are possible in the areas mentioned in the article – I can only assume the people who genuinely think this are on some strong medication, or at least, they should be.

      I don’t have a car in Paris because I do not need one, the public transport system is great (2 metro stations within 2-3 minutes walk), and walking/riding is easy as well. The city is also set up so that you don’t actually need to go far at all in order to get just about everything you need on a regular basis – it’s likely to be only a couple of minutes walk away.

      I know it’s more difficult/less practical with children, and for the physically disabled (the bus system is also extremely good for those who don’t want to/can’t face endless flights of stairs), but literally millions of people manage it.

      That’s not to say that cars aren’t useful, and I do wish I had one sometimes, but it’s a matter of economics and practicality. I currently pay ~35 euros a month for unlimited public transport (French government reimburses 50% of public transport costs for all ‘workers’ using public transport), and 29 euros a year for bicycle hire (helmets not compulsory – another practical factor behind the success of such systems), and I don’t have to worry about bad traffic, parking (absolute nightmare!), and maintenance costs.

      (note the lack of ‘environmental’ reasons for not owning a car)

      It looks like people genuinely believe they can make 1 place just like another by doing 1 thing in isolation (just like the CO2 abatement rationale!), rather than taking all the factors into account. The Adelaide City Council and SA Government are guilty of this with respect to their desire to remove cars from the CBD without practical alternatives, and without considering the ramifications.

      60

  • #
    David Maddison

    Socialist utopia Venezuela asking women to stop using hair dryers as they are running out of electricity plus have reduced working week to 4 days.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-energy-crisis-president-tells-women-to-stop-using-hairdryers-and-go-with-natural-style-to-a6976246.html

    40

  • #
    sophocles

    Let;s see:
    2008 (Oct) Big Crash on Wall St.
    1999 (Oct) Not so Big Crash on Wall St.
    1989 (Oct) Big Crash on Wall St
    1980 Not so big Crash on Wall St.
    1972 Crash
    1963 – (1964?)
    1954 – (1955?)

    Timetabled is Oct 2017. This time, China is a big player and has been showing signs of early instability (or late: this could be 2008 catching up to them). So could be late 2016. (After NH summer)
    Next really big one maybe 2025 or 2026. 2026 is `timetabled.’

    1963 and 1954 I was too young to notice. Our Ministers of Finance were doing some quiet or not so quiet panicking around then, but I’ve never investigated what happened.
    6 months after the later crashes, economies were in recession. The recessions lasted another 18 months to 2 years. Then it started all over again.
    The partial reserve banking system is to blame.
    There’s a remarkable pattern in there.

    51

    • #
      ROM

      Recessions last roughly eighteen months.

      The Lady of the House’s electric iron goes on the blink and with no money around she makes do with a couple of old flat irons heated up on the stove. She does this for a few months and then gets thoroughly fed up with the whole damn inconvenience of it all and just goes out and buys herself an expensive new electric iron plus a few bits and pieces to help along.

      The man of the house comes home and is told by his lady that she just went and bought a new iron and if he objects he can put it where it fits.
      He snarls and etc and then, the hell with it and heads down to the store for that barbecue set he has regularly drooled over.

      Both store owner’s / operators rub their hands and order a bit more stock.

      Small beginnings but the the money starts flowing.

      Recession over.

      50

  • #
    ROM

    Tony @ # 16.1.1.1.1

    That document is no doubt genuine.

    If you want the full story on how that corruption of climate science occurred in the Madrid Conference of 1995 [ where reportedly some 300 submitted papers to the Conference with a skeptical outlook on CO2 and a warming globe went missing never to be seen again ] then I suggest that those interested take the time to read Berniel’s three articles on the 1995 Madrid Conference.
    And how during the last hours or so of that first major climate Conference the political blow torch was applied to the science of the climate which to that point had deep reservations about the role of CO2 and in fact whether the warming seen in the data was anything but a completely natural variation in the earth’s overall temperature, no different to the same warming and cooling periods seen and recorded throughout history and confirmed by a whole range of temperature proxies.

    Berniel is a well known scientist who knew all the major figures in this event and has spoken with a most of them to ensure that what he recorded is correct as can be seen in his quest for copies of the central documents to the confirm the political interference in the first Major Climate Conference.

    A political interference and a political dictate which has subsequently set the scene for the ENTIRE corruption of climate science, of politics, of stewardship of tax payers funds, of an increasing distrust of scientific pronouncements and etc, a corruption which now unfortunately is extending into other branches of science.

    Enthusiasm, Scepticism and Science
    on the origins and impacts of Global Warming Alarmism in the history and philosophy of science

    Quoted ;

    John Houghton writes of it under the heading: Meetings that Changed the World. He may be right but not only in the way he thinks. Here we consider whether this meeting in Madrid was the moment when climate science gave way under the monumental pressure of politics.

    Remembering Madrid ’95: A Meeting that Changed the World

    Madrid 1995: Was this the Tipping Point in the Corruption of Climate Science?

    Madrid 1995 and The Quest for the Mirror in the Sky

    [ Ben Santer's "Mirror in the Sky", the hall mark signature it was claimed that —would— firmly established mankind's impact on the climate has never been found ]

    Madrid 1995: The Last Day of Climate Science

    Madrid 1995: The Last Day of Climate Science (Part II)

    Ben Santer of the climate gate infamy has since publicly admitted to and possibly operating under instruction, made a key wording change to the Madrid Conferences’ final version of the proceedings that altered the whole context of the Conferences conclusions.
    A wording nobody had seen until they opened the proceedings publication a couple of weeks after the conference had concluded.

    The story of Ben Santer’s late changes to Chapter 8 of the Working Group 1 Report is familiar to most sceptical accounts of the climate change controversy (e.g. here & here and a non-sceptical account). However, it is often overshadowed by other landmark events, and so it is usually not put up there in the same league with Hansen‘s sweaty congressional testimony of 1988, with the establishment of the IPCC nor with the Hockey Stick Controversy. Yet, if one looks at the greater controversy in terms of its impact on science, then this conference in Madrid might just surpass them all.

    And in reference to the American State Department’s role and interference in the scientific debate we have this from BernieL

    A Government License to Change the Report

    That Santer and Houghton saw their role differently to Zillman is illustrated by their deferral to an extraordinary governmental request in defence of their actions. A week before Madrid, Houghton had received the previously mentioned collated comments on the Summary for PolicyMakers from the USA State Department Office of Tim Wirth. For the D&A section of the Executive Summary—which, you will remember, then included the weakly supported bottom line claim that the evidence is pointing towards a detectable human influence—they provide the following comment attributed to the head of the US delegation Robert Watson:

    This text is not fully consistent with the rest of the SPM and various parts of Chapter 8; because this is such a new and important aspect of the report, we believe particular care must be taken. We believe the text here, with some clarification, does represent current understanding as contained in the body of the chapter, but that the executive summary and concluding sections of the chapter may need to be revised. [emphasis added 6]

    This recommendation to revise Chapter 8 is re-enforced by a statement in the cover letter addressed directly to Houghton. After noting that there are several inconsistencies between the Summary and the chapters, and within chapters, it says that ‘it is essential that the chapters not be finalised prior to the completion of the discussions‘ in Madrid, and that…

    …chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner following the discussion in Madrid. (pdf)

    Thus, just before the conference is about to begin the US State Department indicates that it is not happy with the conclusion of Chapter 8 and tells Houghton that ‘it is essential’ to prevail upon the chapter authors to make changes according to the outcome of ‘the discussion.’ Although not entirely explicit, there remains a strong suggestion that this is a formal request for Houghton to direct Santer to revise Chapter 8, and especially the Concluding Summary. If that is what is being requested, and we take into account the US delegations strategic influence upon the direction of ‘discussions’ in Madrid, then there appears to be a striking similarity between the desired outcome of the US State Department and what in fact occurred. That is, following the completion of ‘the discussions’ in Madrid, this text of the D&A section of the Executive Summary would be revised and expanded as giving the ‘current understanding’ of the Chapter’s science, and the Chapter would be ‘revised’ accordingly.

    60

    • #
      Analitik

      And again, I’ll blame Al Gore as the political entity behind the c0rruption of climate science since he was the US Vice President at the time of the Madrid conference. He would have been behind or at the very least backed Tim Wirth using the State Department to position climate change as anthropogenic.

      70

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Good analysis. One minor change: “He would have had the State Department brief Tim Wirth …”

        Big Al had to keep his hands clean.

        20

  • #
    ROM

    And if you see me using the term Green sleaze it will be for the very reasons and a term that some of the leading German environmentalists are also now using to describe the Greens movement in Germany.
    As Germany and the surrounding European countries are the founding source of the green movement and of the likes of the anti human increasingly sleazy greenpeace organisation I figure if the formerly green environmentalists can use that “sleaze” term to describe the greens then so can we.

    Naturally the European wind industry is the corrupting influence referred to here, a wind industry labeling that is beginning to create the very large stink bordering on a perception of outright criminality surrounding the wind industry’s operations, its financing and its corrupting political influence brought at a very high cost, courtesy of and paid for unknowingly by the tax payers of many nations.

    Source; Pierre Gosselin’s NoTricksZone blog

    Spiegel Puts Spotlight On Germany’s “Green Sleaze” … Wind Industry’s “Corruption Of Greens, Environmental Groups, Local Pols…” –

    So divided the environmentalists have become that Germany’s powerful BUND (Friends of the Erath Germany) launched a slander lawsuit against Guttenberg after he accused the organization of having “merged” with the Wind Lobby. BUND later dropped the suit. Since then Guttenberg has compared the BUND directors to Judas and accused them of having sold out the environmental philosophy for a “dish of lentil”. Leading environmental activists today are now saying: “The color of sleaze is no longer black, rather it is green.”

    81

  • #
    john

    My latest article on Sun Edison is now up at the Daily Bail. We have a microscope on this situation.

    SunEdison: The Biggest Corporate Implosion In U.S. Solar History

    http://dailybail.com/home/sunedison-the-biggest-corporate-implosion-in-us-solar-histor.html

    …First Wind CEO Paul Gaynor said that what SunEdison and its YieldCo bought were “high-quality assets,” meaning the projects are located in areas with high electricity prices and states needing to meet RPS requirements. He said the firm has “a mindset of long-term ownership. [...] We develop projects to own them, and that’s the mindset we’re going to take forward.”

    He suggested that the “marriage” of SunEdison’s international in-country development and policy expertise with First Wind’s domain knowledge could create an international platform “that can really set this company on fire.”…

    ——

    Yes indeed Paul. You did one HELL of a job setting it on fire. Congratulations!

    80

  • #
  • #
    john

    UPDATE:

    We have updated our latest story with a video of the CEO of First Wind (Now Sun Edison) boasting about all that stimulus money they got.

    http://dailybail.com/home/sunedison-the-biggest-corporate-implosion-in-us-solar-histor.html

    Enjoy!

    As a rule we add extra material in the comments.

    john

    50

  • #
    Another Ian

    Another fiasco

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/04/the-hemp-compan.html

    and check the comments IMO

    But no doubt tourists will be the saviours of, say, Tasmania.

    50

  • #
  • #
    pat

    totally unsurprising:

    11 Apr: AFR: Angela Macdonald-Smith: Grattan proposes emissions credits system to switch to cleaner power
    Power stations across the country should have to operate under an emissions credits trading system that would make dirtier plants more expensive and drive a push toward cleaner generation, the Grattan Institute says.
    The credit system, based around a limit set on the volume of emissions per megawatt hour of electricity produced, is a centrepiece of an emissions reduction “road map” proposed by the think tank…
    Over time, emissions baselines should be decreased to zero and entirely replaced by permits, all of which are auctioned, Grattan proposes.
    ***It also recommends limiting the amount of international carbon permits that Australian emitters can use to meet their greenhouse obligations.
    http://www.afr.com/news/policy/climate/grattan-proposes-emissions-credits-system-to-switch-to-cleaner-power-20160410-go2tm2

    Hannam doesn’t mention “limiting” the use of “international carbon
    permits”:

    10 Apr: SMH: Peter Hannam: Bridge to bipartisan climate policy exists – if major parties want it: Grattan Institute
    While an economy-wide carbon price remains “the ideal preferred future climate policy”, the political reality excludes that prospect winning bipartisan support for now.
    Still, sufficient flexibility exists within the major parties’ platforms that a “sustainable policy phoenix can yet arise”, the report argues…
    “We know we’ll all pay eventually, whether it comes from the left pocket or the right pocket,” Tony Wood, the report’s lead author and director of Grattan’s energy program, said…
    The Grattan report focuses in large part of those elements of the Abbott-Turnbull government’s climate policies that could be strengthened. These might also be acceptable to a future Labor government because they match the party’s stated aim to introduce an emissions trading scheme…
    ***While penalties should be imposed on firms that don’t cut emissions, they should be allowed to buy permits to pollute from companies that exceed their reduction goals, or from international markets…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bridge-to-bipartisan-climate-policy-exists–if-major-parties-want-it-grattan-institute-20160408-go1igj

    20

  • #
    pat

    10 Apr: Forbes: James Conca: Federal Court Rules On Climate Change In Favor Of Today’s Children
    In the first lawsuit to involve a planet, Judge Thomas Coffin of the United States Federal District Court in Eugene, Oregon, ruled on Friday in favor of twenty-one plaintiffs, ages 8 to 19, on behalf of future generations of Americans in a landmark constitutional climate change case brought against the Federal Government and the Fossil Fuel Industry…
    A surprising number of Atmospheric Trust Litigation lawsuits and petitions have been brought by students, and advocated by the Oregon-based nonprofit Our Children’s Trust, in both domestic and international courts. And they’ve been more successful than anyone expected. Other groups supporting these suits include the Western Environmental Law Center, Plant-for-the-Planet, and Climate Change for Families…
    Dr. James Hansen, famed climatologist and also a plaintiff in this case, said, “Judge Coffin in effect declares that the voice of children and future generations, supported by the relevant science, must be heard. We will now proceed to prove our claims. It is perhaps not too late for serious action to preserve a viable climate system that will be required by our posterity. If you want to join the fight to save the planet, to save creation for your grandchildren, there is no more effective step you could take than becoming an active member of the ***Citizens’ Climate Lobby.”…
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/04/10/federal-court-rules-on-climate-change-in-favor-of-todays-children/#5a9f25a46219

    Citizens’ Climate Lobby is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots advocacy organization focused on national policies to address climate change
    CCL’s Advisory Board
    ***George Shultz, James Hanson, Katharine Hayhoe, etc
    https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/#advisoryboard

    ***anything connected to George P. Shultz (see Wikipedia) should be anathema to the progressive left (as should anything connected to Hank Poulson, but that’s another story).
    however:

    ultra-progressive leftist Thom Hartmann has a program, “The Big Picture”, on Russia Today. the homepage has Bernie Sanders starring or mentioned in at least 8 out of the 10 stories featured, including 5 with Bernie pictured.
    last week’s episode of “The Big Picture” had:

    7 Apr: Thom Hartmann: The Big Picture, Russia Today
    Thom discusses … whether there could be bipartisan efforts on Capitol Hill to tackle climate change with the Citizens Climate Lobby’s Danny Richter…

    Sam Daley-Harris, tho not mentioned in the summary above, was also on the 7 Apr episode, as he was on 17 Dec.

    17 Dec: Russia Today: Thom Hartmann: The GOP’s path to the dark side
    Thom discusses what’s next for climate activists following the Paris climate deal with RESULTS’ Sam Daley-Harris and Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s Danny Richter…

    from Wikipedia: Citizens’ Climate Lobby
    (Marshall) Saunders coordinated his efforts to establish Citizens’ Climate Lobby with RESULTS, an organization committed to helping volunteer organizations seeking legislative changes to become more effective…
    Citizens’ Climate Lobby advocates putting a price on carbon based on the support of both conservative and liberal economists, including: George Shultz, Gary Becker, Gregory Mankiw, Art Laffer, Nicholas Stern, and Shi-Ling Hsu…
    In 2013, Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, endorsed CCL by saying “I love working with Citizens’ Climate Lobby—their relentless focus on the need for a fee-and-dividend solution is helping drive the debate in precisely the right direction…

    Citizen’s Climate Lobby: Marshall Saunders, Founder and President of Citizens’ Climate Lobby
    Marshall Saunders was trained by Vice President Al Gore to give his slideshow on the climate. In the first 10 months after being trained he gave the talk 43 times to about 2,700 people…

    circles within circles…

    20

  • #
    pat

    read all, can’t copy:

    10 Apr: Financial Times: Ministers axe climate change research agencies
    by Pilita Clark and James Wilson
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f186348a-ff0f-11e5-99cb-83242733f755.html#axzz45TDwNRJw

    above follows closely on the heels of another govt decision that upset the CAGW mob:

    7 Apr: Edie.net: Lord Barker: No reason for UK to appoint another climate envoy
    Lord Barker of Battle sees “no reason” for David Cameron to find a successor for him as the Government’s climate change envoy, after the Prime Minister confirmed that no one is being lined up for Barker’s now vacated post…
    But, as reported by the Guardian today (7 April), the Prime Minister has come under fire over this decision by opposition politicians who have become increasingly concerned by the Conservative Government’s recent raft of green policy changes. Shadow Climate and Energy Minister Clive Lewis and the Liberal Democrats’ climate change spokesperson Lynne Featherstone have both been vocal over the decision…
    http://www.edie.net/news/11/Lord-Barker—No-reason–for-Prime-Minister-to-appoint-climate-change-envoy/

    earlier Edie.net reported:

    17 Feb: Edie.net: Luke Nicholls: Lord Barker takes sustainability role at advertising agency
    Former UK Energy and Climate Change Minister Lord Barker has been appointed head of sustainability practice at green B2B advertising agency Gyro…
    “Gyro is an impressive group of entrepreneurial talent and I’m genuinely excited to be working with Kate and her team,” said Barker.
    “We are living through a period of extraordinary change, and gyro has a set of unique skills which can add real value to senior decision makers as they respond to business risks and opportunities that sustainability and climate change present.”…
    Late last year, edie reported that Barker had formed an unlikely alliance with actor and environmentalist Leonardo DiCaprio; as inaugural advisory board members for microgrid solutions provider Powerhive, which supplies affordable, reliable, and productive solar electricity to rural communities in the developing world.

    00

  • #
    pat

    11 Apr: Australian: Jared Owens: Shorten’s electricity inquiry is code for power price hike: Michael Sukkar
    Labor is moving towards announcing an inquiry into Australia’s electricity industry — which could be charged with developing a plan to shut down ageing coal-fired power stations — under an opposition election policy that seeks to avoid a carbon tax scare campaign, The Australian revealed today.
    The climate change policy is also expected to outline a “staged’’ reintroduction of an emissions trading scheme, but will shy away from specific details on how it will reach its goal of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030.
    Mr Sukkar said the inquiry sounded “awfully similar” to Ms Gillard’s proposal to break the parliamentary deadlock on climate change policy by outsourcing the issue to an unelected body of 150 ordinary citizens…
    The Opposition Leader said Labor’s policy would focus on renewable energy, which would “give consumers power over their electricity prices” while creating new jobs.
    “Labor will always be more trusted on climate change than the Liberal Party,” Mr Shorten said in Melbourne.
    “We believe in climate change, we believe in acting on climate change, and we certainly won’t fob off to the future what this Liberal government is refusing to do now.”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/shortens-electricity-inquiry-is-code-for-power-price-hike-michael-sukkar/news-story/6053289b79cf90b9566b4a8a28a6d547

    11 Apr: ThisIsMoneyUK: Thames Water for sale: ‘Vampire Kangaroo’ investor who loaded utility firm with £11.4bn of loans to dodge tax seeks to sell stake
    By City & Finance Reporter for the Daily Mail
    Australian investor Macquarie is seeking to sell its remaining stake in Thames Water, ten years after buying the company, sources say.
    Macquarie – nicknamed the Vampire Kangaroo for its ruthless focus on profits – now owns about 26 per cent of the utility firm and is believed to be seeking more than £3billion.
    The Australian bank and its partners have earned £1.6billion in dividends and interest from Britain’s biggest water supplier…
    They loaded Thames with £11.4billion of loans to limit tax payments, and paid just £100,000 in corporation tax since 2006, partly due to high debt levels and partly because of tax-deductible investments to replace pipes…
    Bosses sparked outrage in 2013 after saying it might be a decade before it next paid tax.
    It is understood to have hired investment bank Nomura to handle the deal. Some of the proceeds will be used to cut Thames’s debts but Macquarie and its partners will pocket the rest…
    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3532903/Thames-Water-sale-Vampire-Kangaroo-investor-loaded-utility-firm-11-4bn-loans-dodge-tax-seeks-sell-stake.html

    10

    • #

      How does one speak out against this patent rhetoric where pat mentions this (my bolding of two points here)

      ….. which could be charged with developing a plan to shut down ageing coal-fired power stations — under an opposition election policy that seeks to avoid a carbon tax scare campaign, The Australian revealed today.
      The climate change policy is also expected to outline a “staged’’ reintroduction of an emissions trading scheme, but will shy away from specific details on how it will reach its goal of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030.

      This whole exercise here has just the one aim, to shore up the second preferences of Greens at the election.

      Those two highlighted points alone will never be implemented, and here, read my lips ….. NEVER.

      Closing down coal fired power plants would be instantaneous political suicide, both for Labor, and from that, The Greens. They’ll waffle like they were taught by Malcolm himself, but they won’t be closed down. They are just too critical.

      As to 50% renewables, while it sound good rolling off the lips like that, it also is a dream that will never be realised.

      Australia’s total power generation is 248TWH.

      Total Renewables is 37TWH, which is 14.9%

      Wind is 10TWH.

      Solar is 4.8TWH, and that includes all rooftop solar power as well.

      Take out Hydro 18.4TWH (7.4%) and that leaves 18.6TWH. (7.5%)

      There won’t be any new Hydro under Labor/Greens, so to make up to that 50% it all needs to come from Wind and Solar.

      Just to keep generation at the same level, 248TWH (and it’s rising slowly) that means they need to close down coal fired power to bring the fossil fuel total down to 124TWH, meaning a closure of 88TWH from coal fired power, and hey, good luck doing that, as that would immediately STOP Australia, stone cold dead.

      Then to bring renewables up to that 240TWH, they will need (on top of existing renewables) a new 203TWH, all of it from Wind and solar.

      Using the Industry standard power formula, then that means a new Nameplate of 77,200MW of new Nameplate, using the current Capacity Factor of 30%

      Most of it would have to come from wind, and the current nameplate for wind in Australia is 3700MW, so that means what there is now, well multiply that by 21.

      Ballpark on the cost – A tick under $300 Billion. (at $2.2 Billion for a wind plant of 600MW)

      So, if this has to be achieved by 2030, then that comes in at around $20 Billion a year.

      It works out to around 130 new wind plants of 600MW Nameplate each.

      Half of those wind plants would need to be in planning right now, because it’s an average of 7 years from thought bubble to power delivery.

      They would need to construct 8.6 of these plants of that size each new year between now and 2030, so one new plant on line delivering power every 42 days between now and 2030.

      Now can you see why this will NEVER be achieved.

      Money and time.

      I have no idea how to argue against what Labor says here. The people will lap it all up, and not believe one single word of what I have shown here.

      Tony.

      Source for power generation data – Australian Energy Update 2015 (pdf document Table 4.2 on page 21)

      40

  • #
    Analitik

    Another energy storage pipedream, this time brought to us by greenie, anti-nuke evangelist, Roger Sowell
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/08/this-new-battery-is-a-game-changer/

    I have no frickin’ idea how Anthony Watts allowed this utter BS from this mor0n to be published in his site

    31

    • #

      What is your beef? The ever present “Game changer” for every tweek, or that folk are still trying for better/safer anode,cathode,electrolyte combinations for lithium cells? If this kind of effort were put into lead acid batteries,for stationary, rail, shipboard use, every tweek must also be another “game changer”.
      Just imagine a pleasure sailing craft with photo voltaic sails, and lead acid keels for nighttime stable operation. Tesla is building the wrong luxury vehicle!
      All the best! -will-

      10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The words “Nobel Prize”, or derivitives thereof, appears three times in the first four paragraphs. At that point, I gave up reading.

      Using the mantra of the Nobel Prize is a sure indication that the article is pure political science, with little or no relationship with any of the physical sciences.

      20

  • #
    Analitik

    Well, we all suspected it but a Swiss university professor has openly denounced the peer review process as forcing conformity in publications by limiting the career prospects of those who don’t toe the line

    a young researcher has no option but to go along with the mainstream theories represented in the top journals and to use the empirical processes that are currently in trend. Only in this way does he/she have any chance of having enough publications to make him/herself eligible to be a professor.

    From Pierre Goselin’s blog site No Tricks Zon
    http//notrickszone.com/2016/04/10/stalinist-conformity-prof-mathias-binswanger-says-young-researchers-forced-to-submit-to-mainstream-theories

    10

  • #
    pat

    9 Apr: AP: Joan Lowy: Experts tell US agency to slow down on self-driving cars
    Engineers, safety advocates and even automakers have a safety message for federal regulators eager to get self-driving cars on the road: slow down.
    Fully self-driving cars may be the future of the automotive industry, but they aren’t yet up to the demands of real-world driving, several people told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during a public meeting Friday…
    Mark Rosekind, the NHTSA’s administrator, taking note of the “irony” of automakers asking for regulations, said the agency can’t wait because early self-driving technologies are already in cars on the road. Tesla’s “autopilot” function, for example, enables its cars to automatically steer down the highway, change lanes and adjust speed in response to traffic.
    “Everybody asks, ‘When are they going to be ready?’ I keep saying they’re not coming; they are here now,” Rosekind said. Without federal instructions, “people are just going to keep putting stuff out on the road with no guidance on how do we do this the right way.”…
    But many of those who addressed the meeting, the first of two the agency has scheduled as it works on the guidelines, described a host of situations that self-driving cars still can’t handle…READ ALL
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SELF_DRIVING_CARS_CAUTION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-08-15-37-19

    10 Apr: Gas2.org: Steve Hanley: Tesla Will Adjust Model 3 Production To Maximize Tax Credits
    All this interest in the Model 3 is making people nervous about whether the federal tax credit will still be available when their Model 3 is manufactured. The answer lies buried deep within IRS Code Section 30D. I won’t burden you with the actual language. As usual, it is unintelligible to mere mortals. But here’s the gist of it.
    Once Tesla sells its 200,000th car in America, the federal tax credit shifts from a focus on how many cars have been sold to when they are sold. For example, let’s assume Tesla sells it 200,000th car on January 1, 2018. During the rest of that quarter and for the entire quarter following, every car it sells will get the tax credit. If it could build and deliver 200,000 cars during those 2 quarters, every one of them would be eligible for the federal tax credit.
    Elon Musk has indicated via Twiiter that the company is keeping this all in mind and will try to do right by its customers. It might even reduce sales temporarily to maximize the tax credit. In other words, if Tesla is bumping up against the 200,000 limit near the end of the 4th quarter of 2017 — when Model 3 production is scheduled to begin — it might simply stop selling cars in the US all together for a week or two and not start deliveries again until the next quarter begins…
    The excitement about the Model 3 may boost sales of those other cars. That could eat up all the available tax credits before the Model 3 production even begins. And remember, Tesla has never started manufacturing a car on time yet…
    http://gas2.org/2016/04/10/tesla-will-adjust-model-3-production-to-maximize-tax-credits/

    00

  • #
    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Yairs. I read lately that the Brits are taxing or going to tax sugar consumption.

      The bane of the Australian sugar producing industry is the very heavy subsidisation of sugar production in Europe. Now the Brits are apparently both subsidising and taxing sugar.
      Perpetual motion at work. Can it be real?

      10

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Just happened to have the radio on ABC about noon.
    They were interviewing Tim Flabbergasted’s good mate Andy Glickson.
    Terrible news. It’s worse than we thought. The sun has no influence on temperatures (he calls it “climate”). The amount of CO2 has been increasing far more rapidly than in the Eemian. Andy was there one day when he was cruising in his time machine.
    It brought back memories of the online debate in which Joanne whipped his arse real good.
    Must be a few years back.

    31

  • #
    Mari

    Smart soils – “Climate Smart Soils” – to store carbon. Huh.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160407221447.htm

    I thought it was called composting.

    00

  • #
    Mari

    Some USA citizens (Vermonters) seem to be unhappy with their greens

    http://watchdog.org/261841/petition-for-corruption-investigation/

    “On March 22, Vermonters for a Clean Government delivered a 16-document packet to the attorney general’s office that provides ammunition for investigating “suspected misconduct” among top Vermont officials.

    One of the documents, an eight-page petition for a corruption investigation, cites potential ethics violations ranging from conflicts of interest and favoritism to influence peddling and collusion.

    READ: VCG Petition for a Corruption Investigation”

    00

  • #
    el gordo

    Turnbull is resurrecting the continental bullet train and thinks it can be done without taxpayer dollars by selling land along the route.

    This can only be achieved through massive Chinese immigration.

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “through massive Chinese immigration”

      Which will all be to the cities, not the country

      10

      • #
        el gordo

        If they push the locals out into the bush then so be it, but I suspect the new immigrants are going for prime agricultural land and easy access to the bullet train.

        The coastal route is uneconomic but inland rail Melbourne/Brisbane is a goer.

        00

      • #
        el gordo

        No matter which way they go.

        ‘Mr Robb said Australia should take advantage of very low interest rates and the “huge” interest.

        “I can give you (names of) companies from three nations who been seeing me again and again,” he said.

        “They’ll do the whole lot. They’ll finance the whole lot.”

        00

  • #
    Gary Pearse

    I note that for the first over the years I’ve been watching, BOM hasn’t reported the past week’s ENSO change. It was free falling for weeks and had reached 1.25 the week before last and remains so. Is there some fiddling afoot to delay the La Nina?

    00