CFACT has a report from a 40 year career meteorologist who alleges that skeptics are silenced through intimidation and threats at the National Weather Service (NWS). He also says data is “altered for political purposes” and that he was advised nearly forty years ago that he could find fame and fortune with CO2.
““When I was a graduate student I had a professor come up to me, and he said in the late 1970s ‘If you want to make a name in the field, want to be famous, CO₂ is the place to go.’ There is a lot of money to be made, authority and control over people’s lives at stake.””
A whole generation of meteorologists and climate scientists have been raised with these incentives, and a culture of fear:
Meteorologist allegedly assaulted by NWS Director Uccellini
Adam Howser, CFACT
“I was giving a talk to fellow NWS staff about the jet stream flow in the upper atmosphere [in 2014]. What it showed was large amplitude waves in both the northern and southern hemispheres. I explained that the only way the jet stream could get to be high amplitude is if the atmosphere was actually cooling.”
“Right at the bathroom break, the Director of NWS, Louis Uccellini, put a hand on my chest and pushed me up against the wall and said ‘Don’t ever mention the word cooling again.’ He did not mean it in a ‘joking’ way, he absolutely violated my personal space and was dead serious.”
The whistleblower, who spoke to CFACT on the condition of anonymity, described a culture of fear and ostracism at NWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) against those who dissent from the “global warming” narrative.
The accused NWS Director Uccellini, has responded through a spokeswoman, and claims that “this alleged incident never happened”, and that Uccellini “encourages open discussion on all science issues…”. The whistleblower disagrees saying that the incident described above was not isolated and according to CFACT “describes a culture of fear at the agency in which experts are silenced through intimidation“.
“One coworker who is a fellow ‘skeptic’ and I have to be careful about what we talk about at our desks or the break room,” the NWS employee explained. “We can’t let the word get out that we aren’t buying into the whole ‘the climate is warming’ narrative.”
“It is an almost Orwellian, nasty-type society.”
Read all of it at CFACT –– the meteorologist also describes problems with climate models, says the NWS and NOAA is a “well oiled propaganda machine”. He referred to a study that took ocean buoy data and recalibrated it with measurements taken in ship engine intakes, even though everyone knew that the ocean bouys were more accurate.
The same all over the world!
The GREENIES are entrenched by their $ grabbing CO2 religion and bully tactics
Our tertiary education establishments are the worst!
Also include BOM, CSIRO, ABC etc!
403
.. and talking of intimidation, JCU has some explaining to do.
302
‘I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury,’
says cunning old Fury.
230
Disgraceful behavior by disgraceful people and Frydenburg defends them!
90
Time for a Royal Commission, perhaps!
Yet another body run by a bunch of bozos who have completely lost sight of what they are there for in the first place.
111
#metoo ?
10
It’s not just the Greenies. It’s also the Libs. Haven’t you noticed yet? Support ACP if you can.
210
Any group of people whole are pwned by the globalists will sing from the CAGW hymn sheet.
Its also becoming clear from observation that its primarily a religious war ( literally ) of extreme green Occultists vs the rest of humanity, but its not clear to most people there is a values system driving what happens.
Historically there is a similar model – the Inquisitions. The politics ( e.g. the King of Spain during the Inquisitions ) provides the political clout to set up the inquisitions, and provide cover “legitimacy” for the real evil doers.
As such, we are politically a one-party state ( Globalists ) and religiously Occult, but have a wedding of State and religion with what appears to be no separation. This is always a dangerous combination.
With most religions there is a form of moral code, however with the Globalists, there appears to be none….
140
You present the truth there. From a truly religious perspective (including the churches) it’s a lot like the Pharisees of old. Self-righteous, arrogant and legalistic. Turnbull gets the gold medal for all three. What has to be said is religion per se has always been on the wrong side of good, sometimes in a disastrous way and other times moderately so as today. Jesus was very clear with religion. He was scathing on the religious leaders of the time. He is beyond religion. Even atheists would have to agree with that if they were truly honest, and many of them in fact do agree with regards to a lot of what Jesus preached, except of course the part about being God.
60
As I understand it, he was only accepted as God at the Council of Nicea in 325AD, by 1 vote! Hardly a ringing endorsement!.
Like lots of human institutions, as we are now finding out the hard and painful way, they tend to be corrupted when the pollies and bureaucrats take over.
20
There is some progress. Notice that Pres Trump put the space business initiative under Sec. of Commerce Wilbur Ross. Suggested to be $trillion or more in space business within the next decade. Pres Trump is also talking another branch of the military for space developments. NASA has been slow to listen and hard to convince that CO2 is not the future of everything. A long and proud history being worn away by the false ACGW stubbornness.
190
It’s not just the Greens, either.
Time for an inquistion into The Montreal Protocol.
As I have said before. The greatest lurk in business comes in three grades.
1. Persuade a government to mandate the use of your product,
2. Persuade a government to prohibit the use of your competitor’s product, and
3. Persuade a government to prohibit the use of your less profitable product, thereby mandating the use of your more profitable product.
261
Too late. That stable stall is empty.
It’s your last point, Point 3, which is the pertinent one:
– patents have a 27 year life (in the US and other countries).
– when the patents for your product are about to expire, persuade the govt to make those compounds illegal. Then your competition cannot compete with you.
– bring out your new patent protected compounds.
– repeat.
That’s the even better lurk.
CFCs were the high profit compounds of Dupont Chemical Industries. They engineered their ban, in 1980 after 27 years, as their patents were about to expire and were expiring. They had CHCs up their sleeve in readiness. In 2017, 27 years later, CHCs were added to the Montreal Protocol.
That’s the real lurk, Ted. 🙂
11
Thanks for the detail, it confirms my understanding of the scene.
But it is not too late to get the history straightened out. It has absolute relevance to current problems.
00
If this is true its still hard to comprehend, I’ve been in work environments where disagreements became physical but they were blue collar jobs involving basic people combined with fatigue with misunderstanding.
For well educated people this goes beyond base reactions under stress, its dangerous idealism morphing into reactionary violence against any that threaten to challenge their argument from authority.
Cowards by nature that wouldn’t try this outside their socialist sheltered workshop.
344
Universities have given us, and are supporting, the Antifa movement, which appears born in violence. Maybe the “well educated” part in your is from a past age.
191
Well educated is a bit generic but perhaps ‘well adjusted’ could be better?, you’re correct on Antifa but it was to be expected given the history of those political bents they never tolerate independent thought while claiming to protect the oppressed.
142
Well,you only have to look at the furor over Kane West leaving the plantation.It seems the”DemocRATS”haven’t forgiven the”Republicans”for taking their slaves off them.
51
I would say that well educated or not, most people will be happy to repel anyone who tries thuggery on for real.
SJW “attacks” on social media….these can be largely ignored, most of them are cowards anyway who speak tough from behind a keyboard in a nice air-conditioned office.
I’ve had at least one near stand up in an office about climate change with a hard left boofhead who picked the fight, but he eventually retreated still yelping, once he realized I wouldn’t be cowed and I’d set my jaw. I knew my Scottish & English heritage would come through one day… 🙂
The trick is to look harmless, but be able to deliver as needed….
130
“I was giving a talk to fellow NWS staff about the jet stream flow in the upper atmosphere [in 2014]. What it showed was large amplitude waves in both the northern and southern hemispheres. I explained that the only way the jet stream could get to be high amplitude is if the atmosphere was actually cooling.”
There you go. I’ve been focusing on jet stream tracks since 2007 and pointing out that more meridionality with greater waviness is associated with more global clouds, higher global albedo and thus system cooling since less solar energy can get into the oceans.
I have also linked such conditions to solar induced stratospheric warming over the poles at a time of less active sun.
The recent very powerful stratospheric warming which has led to the delayed spring across the entire northern hemisphere is a prime example and it occurred whilst the sun is quiet.
Back in 2010 near solar minimum the UK endured the coldest December for 100 years as a result of a stratospheric warming event.
The original proposition from the AGW believers was that CO2 was pushing the jets more poleward and making them less wavy not more wavy with less global clouds not more.
Actual events are the opposite of what AGW predicts.
Maybe Jo could do a separate post on the whole issue ?
584
Sorry, wrong button. Using an iPad badly.
80
I would like to see that Stephen.
I hope that Jo gives you a guest post
171
‘Maybe Jo could do a separate post on the whole issue ?’
I second the motion because global cooling has begun and we are in need of a timeline.
120
What staggers me about this is that any search on the notorious Dec 2010 cold wave (not on 2010, which was very warm in the UK) would produce heaps of info on the subject. Within seconds. What is it with these demands for citations of widely known facts that a one-eyed, one-legged pigeon could easily ascertain?
51
“The recent very powerful stratospheric warming which has led to the delayed spring across the entire northern hemisphere is a prime example and it occurred whilst the sun is quiet.”
“Back in 2010 near solar minimum the UK endured the coldest December for 100 years as a result of a stratospheric warming event.”
Citations?
17
The Beast from the East.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/19/weatherwatch-sudden-stratospheric-warming-beast-from-the-east
41
el gordo.
Where does your citation answer my questions?
17
Harry I believe everything the Guardian says and so should you.
If Jo gives Stephen another crack at this, then you will have plenty of opportunity to criticise. The thing is comrade, Stephen has been talking on this subject of a wayward jetstream for at least seven years and I count him as an authority.
51
“I count him as an authority.”
Point me at his publications in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and I promise to at least read the abstracts.
Even if he is an unpublished gifted amateur of some sort (which I doubt as he makes several technical errors), he should still be able to do citations to back up his claims. I am not even a gifted amateur but I still know how to do citations and read study abstracts.
17
Stephen can defend his position when he returns, I remember years ago he received a lot of flack over his adiabatic process, but lets move on.
The view of Britain under snow in the winter of 2009-10 is still memorable, but looking behind the scenes I think ‘blocking’ is the main mechanism involved.
https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/pdf/presentation/20110205-blackburn.pdf
51
EG…I have lots and lots of photos of that winter in England…I lived through it!
51
What is more, there was a great load of snow in Feb 2009. While I was on my computer a lot keeping up with what was happening here in Victoria with the Black Saturday firestorm and Skyping out to my daughter’s mobile while she was evacuated from home, I had only to look out of the window to see the snow that children would never see again.
61
Britain stood out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2009–10_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland#/media/File:Great_Britain_Snowy.jpg
31
I kept a copy of the old Booty CET records before they went off line. This is the entry on Dec 2010:
“December was an exceptionally COLD month! TEMPERATURES integrated over the entire UK were around 5degC below the 1971-2000 LTA. The COLDEST December in over a century & one of the COLDEST calendar months in the past 100 years; in the CET record [begins 1659] only 21 months of any name beat this one: using data from the Met Office, much of the English Midlands, Wessex, the Home Counties around London along with Lincolnshire had an anomaly close to -6degC!
“> Possibly the COLDEST December in the overall Scottish instrumental record (around 100 years) & only February 1947 (any month) beats this one. However, for Edinburgh specifically, it was probably the COLDEST December in a record that began in 1764 (GPE/WxLog/ng)”
Now, I’m one of those who doubts one can know such things with finality. Nor do I care if the world is warming a bit overall since the 70s (and on a longer scale since the 19th C), since it can only do one of two things. But there’s the CET on the subject of Dec 2010. Enjoy.
71
mosomoso.
CET stands for Central England I think. That is quite some extrapolation. Pity you don’t have the reference anymore, I am genuinely interested. No mention of “stratospheric warming” in your cut and paste, however.
16
For Gawd’s sake, the Dec 2010 cold wave was a major and well reported event. The winter 2010-11 was something of a weather disaster for the UK, as was the winter of 2009-10 in Europe, especially the north-east. I demand a citation on why you can’t look it up and find what details are out there. Don’t just stop at what I’ve quoted, read yourself rich.
Regardless of what CET stands for the record is full of reportage on many regions. Hence the reference to Scotland in my “cut and paste”. I demand a citation on how you didn’t notice that.
Stop face-saving. If for some odd reason you didn’t know about the 2010 cold wave find out now. Don’t make it sound so hard. (You’ll be delighted to know that it was just an extreme weather event in a year which was otherwise one of the hottest in the CET. A December freeze in the UK after a baking year for all Europe, preceded by a very severe winter over all. There’s a good gotcha for a GetUppy sort of guy who’s on the ball.)
61
Umm …. Skeptical Science for Harry’s sake.
‘These strong contrasts in temperature are the result of a strongly negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation. This is caused by opposing patterns of atmospheric pressure between the polar regions and mid-latitudes. During a negative phase, pressures are higher than normal over the Arctic and lower than normal in mid-latitudes. In December 2009, the Arctic Oscillation index was -3.41, the most negative value since at least 1950. ‘
41
Why don’t you visit the Met Office website and do a bit of research yourself, Harry?
11
Carbon500.
I have. What I saw disagrees with what was claimed. But there is always the possibility of confusion (semantics can be slippery). So I ask for a reference to help clarify the discussion, and to ensure we are actually discussing the same thing. And yes, I have been wrong before and I am sure I will be wrong again.
Don’t misunderstand me, I love a discussion around scientific evidence. What I can’t handle is the “Al Gore is phat” type claims, they bore me to distraction.
The Dec 2010 cold snap was real. But it was also local (not global) and I could not see any mention of “stratospheric warming” or a “quiet sun” as the cause.
00
Hello again, Harry. Having a good time I see.
As usual, Harry spews propaganda while supporting none of it with actual evidence, something you can reliably observe and measure over and over as many times as you want to or the results of an experiment that anyone can repeat and get the same results, again, over and over as many times as you want to.
Read on down the page and smile. I think Jo may tolerate or even encourage him because he provides some color and controversy now and then in place of the old trolls who seem to be missing of late.
51
Roy Hogue.
Yawn. Your ad homs bore me.
I should ask you for evidence that proves your god is not a fairy tale, but there is a time and a place 🙂 The Hebrews have been around longer than the Christians, and there is more evidence for Mohammad than Jesus. So I just usually let history speak for itself.
I will repeat this again. If people ask me for a reference that backs up what I claim about global warming, I will do it. But I rarely get asked, go figure.
12
Harry, don’t you read. I’ve admitted that I have doubts.
As for evidence, you tell me how a single human being could happen by chance, much less two, one of each sex. How could a single living cell ever happen by chance? I don’t know but I’m more doubtful about that than I am about the possibility of a creator.
21
“How could a single living cell ever happen by chance?”
I have never heard a scientist claim that living cells happen by “chance”. It’s always interesting when people ask questions about something that was never claimed (by credible scientists anyway, you can get some strange people even in groups of scientists).
Anyway, discussion about evolution when it comes to Christianity is just a red-herring – they are not even related. The real question is if you think invisible immortal beings with supernatural powers is even the slightest bit credible.
01
Ha ha ha! ‘Citations’ Harry is here again.
41
There is nothing new in this.
When I was in graduate school in the 1970’s I watched a brawl in the corridor of the chemistry building between two faculty members. They were literally rolling around on the floor punching each other.
The issue? They were believer/skeptic on the hot topic of the day: poly-water.
The hostility between both camps in our chemistry department was palatable, and was still evident when I graduated in 1975.
190
I would think it would have been very “unpalatable”?
Water is a very interesting compound but I haven’t heard about poly water.
What is it?
🙂
100
It’s the water that parrots drink.
180
Good one,
Did you know that horn, or your fingernails, is mostly water.
Water is a very strange item chemically.
120
Polywater is an interesting read KK, its now referred to as Pathological Science or what we would call Lysenkoism.
90
A very quotable article, so I will:
“Polywater was a hypothesized polymerized form of water that was the subject of much scientific controversy during the late 1960s. By 1969 the popular press had taken notice and sparked fears of a “polywater gap” in the USA.”
Gosh, doesn’t that sound familiar.
“Today, polywater is best known as an example of pathological science.”
“Pathological science is an area of research where “people are tricked into false results … by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions.”[1][2] The term was first[3] used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize–winning chemist, during a 1953 colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory. Langmuir said a pathological science is an area of research that simply will not “go away”—long after it was given up on as “false” by the majority of scientists in the field. He called pathological science “the science of things that aren’t so”.”
Gosh, doesn’t that sound familiar.
160
Ronald Reagan has been heard to say”It isn’t so much that leftards are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”
130
Very good.
80
Perhaps palpable? Like delicious/delightful, or shirtfront/confront
60
I assumed that William meant ‘palpable’. Pretty Polly!
40
Whoops!
I stand corrected. Damn you autocorrect!!!!!!!!!!!!
40
And predictive text.
While on the subject of words, there is the neatest description yet of the AGW campaign. “Pathological science.”
31
Actually there is one thing new in all this. The LNP officially have sided with the left and are as true believers in the CAGW scam/hoax as anyone on the left. Anyone who doesn’t realise this is asleep under a rock.
180
Geez I would like tosee the whole faculty of Arts at my local university go for a mass donnybrook.Being somewhat effeminate lot I don’t think it will happen.
30
Maybe “palpable” instead of “palatable”?
20
Di hydrogen oxide, terrible stuff. You die if you don’t get enough and drown if you get too much. Maybe the EPA should declare it a pollutant.
20
Skeptics. A horse’s head in the bed first thing in the morning usually brings them round. If not, a row on the lake courtesy of Don Uccellini.
Capisc?
193
There is too much at stake now so no wonder the so called experts wont disclose their methodology just enforce the 97% agree meme
183
Shouldn’t Scott Pruitt be ridding NWS & NOAA of their “green swamp ideology”? With the economy currently travelling so well, numerous new jobs created etc and Trump likely to win the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts bringing peace to the Korean Peninsula, then logic says that Trump will be re-elected in November 2020. Then Pruitt can put the dagger in, ie dismantle the “green swamp” in the USA which flourished inexorably under 8 years of “Obama Rule”. Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for doing SFA. He will be mainly remembered for creating a US$20trillion USA debt and donating US$500 million to the UN Green Climate Fund just 3 days before leaving office on 17 January 2017. In Aussie terms we would say “What a prize w…..!!”. Even former Aussie PM Kevin Rudd would not have done that.
163
Pruitt is EPA. NWS, NOAA are under the Department of Commerce.Our Wolverine might be glad to give them to somebody\anybody! I would prefer into da terlit with NASA Goddard! 🙂
71
Typo – make that donating US$500 million to the UN Green Climate Fund.
[fixed] ED
103
As the left, being unable to win arguments by rational discussion, they try to impose their ideology by threats. It will get a lot worse.
101
Remember this from last year? ‘Bike Lock’ Antifa Professor Gets His First Lesson in Justice, Pretrial Date Set.
He knowingly took a potential weapon to a rally, used it, shows no remorse, blames others, justifying his actions, might as well happened in a German Beer Hall…….
50
“Eric Clanton, a professor of philosophy, ethics, and critical thinking at Diablo Valley College, was arrested in May for using a bike lock to beat three people senseless…”
These are the people they look up to and give awards to. These are the leaders in their ideological wars.
70
Some ‘critical thinking’. That behaviour is bullying thuggery.
40
It truly scares me that this man every taught kids in a collage.
Just like a vehicle defect; everyone who went through his course at college should be notified that their education is faulty and reimbursed their fees for his subject with an apology.
50
good news from Bonn – where they can’t even say what the problem is!
3 May: ClimateChangeNews: Bonn morning brief: ‘Dramatic as far as the UNFCCC goes’
By Megan Darby, Karl Mathiesen and Soila Apparicio
Hump day in Bonn and more than a few people had the hump.
Despite broadly positive noises coming from negotiators and observers about steady progress, the CHN team has also heard the rumblings of discontent.
My way or the autobahn
A meeting between donor countries and the developing world (led by Africa) over the predictability of climate finance contributions ended in friction on Wednesday afternoon. According to a source in the room, African diplomat Seyni Nafo, who has been co-facilitating with Australian Peter Horne, took the microphone and said that he would be running discussions alone in the coming days, then abruptly walked out.
“Dramatic as far as the UNFCCC goes,” said our source. We asked Nafo about it, but he did not respond to our emails.
What got his temper up was an attempt by rich countries to block the Africa group from submitting a draft decision to be considered by the meeting. The proposal would create a register of intended contributions, to be updated every two years. (Rich countries will hate this, and many will say it’s impossible as it doesn’t fit with their budget cycles.)
Eventually, after China and some smaller Latin American countries, spoke in support of the Africans, the secretariat posted the draft on its website (LINK).
There are five meetings scheduled through the fortnight on this issue, which the Africans have made a condition of any support for rich country positions (LINK) on other negotiating streams. This was the second, and it did not go well…
***Can’t manage what you can’t measure
Talks on the costs incurred by poor countries due to climate change – a fraught topic known as ‘loss and damage’ – kicked off on Wednesday.
Both St Lucia and the Cook Islands complained about the absence of hard data to inform their claims for assistance from the countries that have caused climate change. St Lucia’s representative said the response needed to consider the ability of the country to predict the level of risk they face.
Simon Young, from insurers African Risk Capacity, opened the risk assessment roundtable of the so-called Suva Expert Dialogue ****by highlighting the need to “understand what is happening before we can design the actions to manage risk”…
Bogged down
While some aspects of the talks are reportedly going along positively, a source in the discussions on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement – which calls for the creation of carbon markets – are in poor shape.
***“There basically has been no substantial discussion on anything yet… This is probably the worst that I’ve seen it,” said the source…
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/05/03/bonn-morning-brief-dramatic-far-unfccc-goes/
31
It’s Here: A 1900-2010 Instrumental Global Temperature Record That Closely Aligns With Paleo-Proxy Data
By Kenneth Richard on 3. May 2018
A global-scale instrumental temperature record that has not been contaminated by (a) artificial urban heat (asphalt, machines, industrial waste heat, etc.), (b) ocean-air affected biases (detailed herein), or (c) artificial adjustments to past data that uniformly serve to cool the past and warm the present . . . is now available.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/05/03/its-here-a-1900-2010-instrumental-global-temperature-record-that-closely-aligns-with-paleo-proxy-data/
—-
Cracker!
151
Excellent reference.
30
Nice counter to the BOM data crooks too, who got a special mention for their now globally infamous dishonesty and perversion of public records and observations.
Lest we forget.
51
Prior to adjustments there must have been raw data, we need to get hold of that archive and use it to set the record straight.
In regard the scientific community a Royal Commission would sort the wheat from the chaff, with penalties if warranted.
Joëlle Gergis has a new book out, not content with the southern hemisphere hockey stick she is now focussed on a sunburnt country. The impact of humans on the biosphere.
Our ABC is supportive.
11
3 May: ClimateDepot: Marc Morano: Cornell University course examines ‘derangement’ of ‘climate denialism’
Deranged Authority: The Force of Culture in Climate Change (LINK), worth four academic credits, is set to be taught in the Fall 2018 semester at Cornell University by cultural anthropologist Jennifer Carlson. The course description asserts that “climate denialism is on the rise,” suggesting the increase is related to the rise of “reactionary, rightwing [sic] politics in the United States, UK, and Germany.” …
Richard Lindzen, MIT emeritus professor of meteorology and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, found the course “an insult to the intelligence of the students.” “The point of such courses as are proposed for Cornell, is to replace science with belief,” Lindzen argued, adding that students are “encouraged to replace understanding with virtue signaling.”…SCROLL DOWN FOR CAMPUS REFORM ARTICLE
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/05/03/cornell-university-course-examines-derangement-of-climate-denialism/
51
how long will people put up with the BULLYING of CAGW zealots, whose only purpose in life is actually to help sell wind and solar energy?
this is insane:
3 May: ClimateChangeNews: ‘Manels’: Male speakers outnumber women two to one at UN climate talks
Panel organisers promise to change policy after Climate Home News analysis finds there are significantly more men than women invited as speakers at Bonn talks
By Soila Apparicio and Megan Darby in Bonn
Of the 39 side events with announced speakers at talks in Bonn, which started on Monday, just one third have an equal gender balance or majority of women on their panel. 65% of all listed speakers are male.*
A spokesperson for the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPI), co-organisers of an all-male panel on Tuesday, recognised the need to be more thoughtful about representation in the future.
“Gender balance obviously wasn’t considered when putting together the panel but was noticed by ourselves during the event and also brought up during the event by the panellists,” he said.
“The issue was raised between the co-organisers after the meeting and there had been a clear position from everyone that this has to change in future events,” said GPPI’s spokesperson. “In the future it will be higher on our radar not to happen again.”
Kentaro Takahashi from the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) said that they “very much regret that all speakers and panelists were male”.
“In the preparation stage, we have considered the regional balance, gender balance as well as availability of speakers, so that we can ensure a discussion with different views from different regions. But we now recognize our thought on gender balance was not enough,” Takahashi said…
At a side event organised by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on monitoring greenhouse gases on Wednesday evening, there were five male speakers and one woman. Session moderator Florin Vadu, a manager at the UN climate change secretariat, told Climate Home News his department was 80% women. “All are women working under me, but they [the organisers] wanted the boss and the boss happened to be a man.”
Neither he nor fellow panellist Han Dolman, a researcher from the Free University of Amsterdam, considered the gender balance when deciding whether to join the event.
“You see it depends on my agenda,” said Dolman, cautiously “but it is something when you organise a panel meeting you can take into account”. The WMO was not immediately available for comment…
***Despite their relative underrepresentation at UN talks on climate change, women are disproportionately affected by its effect. That was the topic of discussions during a Wednesday afternoon workshop on gender. But here too balance was an issue. But this time it was a noticeable lack of men in attendance, with just eight men in an audience of roughly 100, according to youth activist Alex Lutz.
“Would be great to have more of them joining the conversation,” she tweeted…
* These figures do not distinguish between people who may not identify as male or female, or either.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/05/03/twice-many-men-women-panels-un-climate-talks/
21
MORE MEGAN BULLYING:
3 May: ClimateChangeNews: Fossil fuel companies should be part of UN climate process, says top Polish official
Tomasz Chruszczow said calls to exclude organisations from talks based on a conflict of interest test were not ‘very useful’
By Megan Darby in Bonn
Poland’s climate envoy dismissed calls to keep polluters out of UN talks, ahead of a controversial negotiation in Bonn on Thursday about widening participation.
Activists outside the venue put pressure on the EU to support a conflict of interest policy for businesses getting involved in the process. They argue that fossil fuel companies are a malign influence and weaken climate ambition to protect their profits…
“We want everybody in this action,” he said. “Even if they are now generating electricity from fossil fuels – the majority of electricity comes from fossil fuels – still it is changing, but it is a process.
“The call for exclusion of anybody from the process… I don’t think that is very useful. Let’s think how to incentivise the transition [to a low carbon economy].”…
PHOTO CAPTION (FOUR PROTESTERS WITH #DumpTrump PLACARD): Activists outside UN interim climate talks in Bonn on Thursday
In 2013, the Polish government overtly supported a coal industry conference running alongside the Warsaw climate summit.
Asked if any such industry events were planned in Katowice, Chruszczow winced, despite his principled defence of business participation. “Please don’t ask me this question. That was a nightmare,” he said, and “above his pay grade”…
In a written submission, the US argued for lifting restrictions (LINK) on business participation…
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/05/03/fossil-fuel-companies-part-un-climate-process-says-top-polish-official/
21
Exclusion of people from a discussion is not democracy…but I guess we knew that….
20
I believe it’s now correct to say it’s not just the Greenies that are the problem in all this. The Libs are too. From Andrew Bolt’s blog “Tony Abbott’s political future could be under threat from a group of activists who have been organising environmentally conscious [sic] voters to join Liberal party branches on Sydney’s north shore – a move that could unseat the former prime minister.” http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/leftist-libs-target-abbott-who-could-cost-their-green-mates-cash/news-story/bf5eeac98fdac2262aeecdb1b71f84ca
This pretty much convinces me there is no real difference between the ALP+Greens and the LNP, and so we are wasting our time here if we don’t encourage to the hilt the only real alternative; the ACP. This is especially so after listening to Josh Frydenberg’s second interview on 2GB recently, which was very revealing. It might as well have been an interview with an ALP or Greens fanatic.
191
Correct. All the parties are the same globalist underneath with only “wrappers” over the top.
We are a one-party state aka a warmist Dictatorship.
41
This well known and established theory. It is either delusional or it is rank mendacity to oppress such academic free expression in the face of clear evidence.
This thing happens everyday in the academy and also with government bureaucracies everywhere. The bureaucratic inertia for AGW is great. It is like a run away train. It will take much to slow it down much less reverse course.
Another example, is the reaction to the recent paper published by Judith Curry and Nic Lewis examining climate sensitivity.
132
I suspect Donald Trump’s election as president was the catalyst that brought this out into the open and made the confrontation start to be so public. By winning the election he very effectively drew a red line and said I dare you to step over it. And they have too much to lose and cannot counter the skeptical argument with facts because the facts are not on their side so they must resort to force; they stepped over the line.
It’s ripping my country apart. I don’t recognize the current world around me as the United States I was born and raised in.
Politics, science, morality, civility, the truth, all of it is being sacrificed on the alter of a god that demands that they stay in power. Democrats believe they will retake the House of Representatives in November, though that’s still an open question, and they now realize Nancy Pelosi is not a good Speaker. But she’s already staked out her claim to be reelected Speaker and dares them to cross her. They appear to be intimidated enough that they may well elect her out of fear of her political power She may be dumber than a rock but she’s ruthless. Yet if they stuck together and elected someone else she could do nothing about it.
Every top dog needs the support of many underlings who enable and do the top dog’s bidding. I do not understand why staying in office or accumulating their own political power, which consists mostly of accumulating seniority, is more important than running the country. If I were a representative I would never vote against my conscience to stay in office. And you all know I’m unafraid to speak my mind.
I don’t know how to stay true to myself and avoid trouble. All I can hope for is to go down fighting if and when it happens. I don’t intend to sell my soul to anyone or anything.
Is someone else behind Pelosi and the rest, someone with even more power? Look to George Soros for that answer.
232
The Democrat Party’s lust for power is exceeded only by their incompetence to use it, for anyone’s benefit except their own.
161
Vlad,
I wonder sometimes if it’s incompetence or intent. I don’r know how to answer that question because they appear willing to be negligent or take destructive action as necessary to stay in power. And I don’t trust the reasoning given publicly by someone who makes a mess of things every time. And that goes for Republican all too often for me and I wish I had a viable Conservative party to call home. But there isn’t one.
31
Roy, listening recently to a US preachers sermon ( http://www.trunews.com ), he said he felt an urgent need to preach Christianity to a pagan nation. His comment was that God basically told him he was already in a pagan nation – the USA. As such, he is hard at it. He also holds similar views to us on CAGW.
Australia has also done the same, turned its back on God, and in one way rather spectacularly just recently country-wide and the liberals ( US meaning ) called it “progress”. Australia too is now a pagan nation, in many ways no different to what Paul and Barnabas encountered in their missionary trips, with similar dangers.
We now have a pagan religion that rules the roost among our leaders and govts, with its clear hostility to Christianity and Judaism.
In many days, we are back in the days of the early Church.
94
Oh come off it Steve, Chrustianity was a complete flop, widespread pedo crims, second coming no-show, fundi fanatics making believers go insane with guilt-trips, repression and low self-esteem. Christianity was and is a factory of deep human misery, dressing itself up as a factory of hope and ‘salvation’, whatever that is. Original sin my butt. Ths Sin meme is a ludicrous fantasy. Last thing we need is more of that silly muck in the world. Keep your religion out of it.
86
WXcycles,
I will beg to differ with you. And please don’t make me your enemy or anything of the sort for saying this. But…
You can dismiss Christianity if you choose — your privilege or your right depending on how you look at it. But you cannot dismiss the fact that it has survived for more than 2,000 years, even in the face of intense persecution. In fact persecution appears to make it stronger, not suppress it. I don’t know how you can explain that but I can explain it very simply, it has something to offer that nothing else does.
I’m probably not one of Christianity’s bright shining examples. I’ll even confess to having doubts about there being a God at all. But the fact remains that when I look around me at just one thing, that complex biological machine called the human body and as I learn more and more about it, I find it impossible to believe it could have arrived on Earth by accident of…well you name it; whatever it’s supposed to be an accident of.
So you may easily dismiss Christianity as a flop but please let me know how you can dismiss it’s survival for over 2,000 years if it is such a flop. I don’t think you can come up with a good answer. And I’ve tried to come up with that answer myself and I can’t do it. So good luck.
53
And one last point I’ll make is this. When we were convinced that our rights were bestowed on us by God, someone with more power and authority than we have, those rights remained intact. Our First and Second Amendments meant something and no one could attack those and other rights and get a way with it. So those wanting to destroy our rights had to first destroy God. And he was sacrificed on the altar of science and on the altar of experts who could tell us how to run our lives better than we can do it.
Once that happened our rights are bestowed on us by the government and anyone who wants to can mess with them. And they are now doing just that.
Were I you I would realize that if you are so willing to remove God from our lives and let us be ruled only by what rights men will give us, someday you will find yourself having your cherished rights removed by some law and you’ll play hell defending yourself.
I can only speak for the United States. We seem to be the only country in the world that was willing to fight a devastating war to get out from under the hand of a brutal king. And then build a nation so remarkable that a Frenchman thought it worthwhile to present us with the Statue of Liberty that now overlooks New York Harbor. Where else in this world is there a Statue of Liberty? No other place on Earth, that’s where.
If you think you have nothing to lose I suspect you’re wrong. But again, your privilege. But I know I have much to lose and I don’t like it. And I have the good sense to realize what has enabled the erosion of my constitutional rights and those same rights of everyone. And lest you think otherwise, I know Donald Trump is not responsible for any of it.
You may think of me what you will but I will speak what I believe is the truth. I would rather have God and Christianity, even with my doubts, than what is happening right now as I type this.
43
Roy, relax, I would never care to reject people like that, or to hold a grudge because think differently.
As for the US, it was colonised by people fleeing European Christain repression and its typical human-misery-factory behaviours and CULTure, so that they could have a ‘New World’—one minus the appalling Christian traits that I mentioned.
In my direct experience, and thus my personal opinion is formed, Christianity destroys people’s lives, and damages their mind badly, but mostly recoverably. It’s certainly misery inducing and generally a horrible experience for many of its victims.
Human life and mind is in no way impoved by Christianity, just the reverse—in my experience.
40
It’s difficult to answer you because you can say, “…in my experience,” and I don’t know what that experience is so what more can I say? But I’m certainly not destroyed by it.
“…misery inducing and generally a horrible experience…” Give me an example and then we have a basis to talk.
12
Well I said this to Steve:
“Keep your religion out of it.”
Nothing personal Roy, I don’t wish to talk about religion in a climate science blog, or elsewhere, it’s not relevant, hence my comment to Steve.
How does a ‘bad-idea’ (meme) like Christianity last 2000 years? Easy, you replace old worn-out apostates with new converts, by convincing and scaring converts to proselytize, or risk being found wanting (self-guilt).
It’s a classic ‘pyramid scheme’, Amway lasted a long time selling soap that way too, but the proselytizers sell a fantasy of immortal glory, so it’s not a mystery as to why Christianity hung around for so long Roy, as it’s a clever psychological undermining of scared or vulnerable people.
Cheers.
30
WX. Just because there are bad so-called Christians, and unfortunately there are, it doesn’t make Christianity bad per se. You condemn the church because of some that give it a bad name. How do you think we who are Christians feel when we have these offenders letting the church down so badly? It doesn’t make Christianity bad; we are here because we want help to do better, not because we are perfect!
My husband, an Anglican priest, just commented that it is a religion for sinners….see some of Charles Wesley’s hymns.
22
C’mon ‘ole red thumb…time to give me a few!
22
It doesn’t make it good or worthwhile Annie.
In my direct *experience*, non-Christians are far more moral, friendly, open-minded, less violent, fair, decent and ethical, as well as vastly more mature.
Otherwise these would not be my views, Ann.
40
You have been unfortunate then WX. I’ve met a lot of wonderful people, both Christians and otherwise, and some truly horrible ones, including some ‘Christians’.
Annie ( not Ann).
00
O/T
Don’t forget to visit the Lake Goldsmith Steam Rally this weekend. Machines from the time when “coal” and “carbon” were not dirty words.
From the time of industrial progress, not deindustrialisation.
Two hours drive from Melbourne.
http://www.lakegoldsmithsteamrally.org.au/
72
In Newcastle we went to the Maitland Steam Festival about a month ago.
Good to be reminded.
40
Placing your hand on my chest and shoving me is a great way to find yourself in an arm bar submission hold within two seconds.
70
Agree! And maybe a new job, a lawsuit and extra spending money.
Unless the SOB chose a place with no witnesses and no cameras.
30
And who gives a shot
21
How can you argue against a cause when you live in a bubble any way
23
How can you argue against a cause when you live in a bubble any way
How can you tell me that I should follow Lord Christopher Monckton because he is an expert on critical thinking , when he is not prepared to criticize his own faith
16
Lord Christopher Monckton is a lukewarm skeptic. He thinks that the Earth would be 33C cooler without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
I am very doubtful about that idea myself.
53
Peter C May04,18:7:32
What total ignorant BULL SHAT!!
31
Peter is correct, Monckton is a lukewarmer.
22
el gordo May0418:14:50 pm
OTOH You Gordo; have demonstrated your adherence to vile politics rather than any scientific method!
10
Peter C May04,18:7:32
Why? Have you even tried using the measured values of atmospheric pressure/density (kappa) and the ‘ideal gas law’; to determine the REQUIRED temperature/altitude lapse within Earth’s gravitational field? Earth’s lower atmosphere is known to be “isentropic” (no work done), rather than “adiabatic” (no heat transfer) since 1792. 🙂 The lower atmosphere remains isopotential rather than isothermal.
All the best!-will-
21
Hyper physics, very impressive.
20
el gordo May04,18:15:05
Your ‘learned reposte” to measurable scientific method is just what FOOL? 🙂
10
el gordo May0418:14:50 pm lockquote>Peter is correct, Monckton is a lukewarmer.
You Gordo; have demonstrated your adherence to vile politics rather than any scientific method!
10
So why would it be an advantage for lord Monkton to abandon his critical thinking skills and support his fAith
23
Its the sensitivity issue, Monckton can join the backsliders Judith Curry, Nic Lewis and Roy Spencer to name a few.
I also suspect Willis, Leif and Anthony.
33
Why does Christopher Monkton have to do anything you suggest he needs to?
He’s investigated CAGW and come to some conclusions, you can read his assessments and agree with him or disagree with him. You have that choice.
He’s not obliged to do anything else to convince you one way or another.
100
Turning on people that are at least prone to think and agree with you do is really stupid. REALLY REALLY STUPID!
Got anything better? or are you willing to admit the reason you cannot get a simple positive election result, is YOU?
Dumb. Really really dumb.
30
The warmists rush into the queue,
To make money from CO2,
Pushing skeptics aside,
Whom they cannot abide,
For asking if data is true.
160
So why is it that Lord Christopher Monckton does not apply his skills of criticAl THINKING to his own faith
36
You seem to be in your late night (UK) rant mode DD. What Lord Monckton holds about his faith is his business, not yours, same as mine is my business, not yours.
80
What are you saying Doubtingdave? That life all came from a rock? My critical thinking abilities says there’s not enough blind faith in the whole Universe to believe that.
50
Your such a bunch of wimps you’re going to let your country get taken over by Asians ,what a. Bunch of pussies
28
‘…you’re going to let your country get taken over by Asians ….’
Its about time, they are hard working, intelligent and sober, and they have bags of money.
The ACP needs needs a sprinkling of comedians to run as candidates.
https://www.conservatives.org.au/political_correctness_is_killing_australian_comedy
70
Better than Democrats
60
Coming from someone UK-based that is a bit rich, to put it mildly DD. I’ll remind you that I am proud English native-born and also a proud new-Australian and am distressed at the strange path both countries are taking, along with other good countries in this world.
72
Annie May04,18:11:57
Anne, For understanding, please consider this all out WAR between Wealthy Marxist Bankser Global Ranchers; and us cattle. The USA still has the Second amendment that banksters try to steal! Are the USA cattle equipt for CIVIL WAR-II?
Love you good upside-down guys!-will-
31
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Weird.
30
el gordo May04,18:15:09 pm
This is interpreted as in the event of all out conflict ‘tween US government and US citizens; the citizens must prevail! The ‘well regulated’ vast US military honor this concept. Why not you peon?
21
The right to carry arms is directly related to the war of independence, doubly weird.
American culture has been dumped on Australia for a century and I’m over it, i support the move to break with the American Alliance.
10
Speaking of the 2nd amendment in the US I find it amusing how so many try to argue that automatic and semi-automatic guns should be banned because at the time the amendment was made they didn’t exist. That’s really beside the point because the original argument was for the people to defend themselves from a dangerous dictatorial government. Since today they have automatics so should the people. What use is the 2nd amendment if all the people can have is say bolt action rifles when the government can have the latest and greatest guns? It would be like back when the 2nd amendment was passed it said the people could only use bows and arrows while the government can have muskets. What should really happen is better control over who is allowed to have guns of any kind. Perhaps say 10% of the population should never have them but the rest should be allowed to if they so desire.
31
‘…the original argument was for the people to defend themselves from a dangerous dictatorial government.’
I have the impression that the citizen militia was setup to defend themselves from a British invasion.
10
That too. Besides can’t that be the same thing? 🙂 Seriously though they feared coups be they initially from within or external.
10
There was the war in 1812-1815, America declared the war after severe provocation but were not invaded by the British until 1815. Britain has not yet been forgiven for that, although it is overlooked in most of their international relations.
10
If we are going to be taken over by the lefties it might as well be the real thing and not some fakes like the Greens, ALP or LNP who actually do a rotten job of it.
20
It would be better if we could get our democracy to work, so that we can bargain for a stronger position within the new world order.
20
Absolutely but that never happens, unfortunately. A true democracy though would require each and every citizen to be given the choice to accept or reject each and every major policy being presented to parliament. Citizens initiated referenda is a similar approach. Too bad it’s too much work for most people. A better model IMHO is to allow that choice only to those with sufficient knowledge, experience, intelligence and logic (ie, filter out the foolish, idiots, ignorant and non-serious thinkers) but that would be too difficult to manage let alone approve. Also those excluded would revolt. SO the current system is pretty much the best we can do, which in the end is not good enough, sad to say. Still it’s better than the alternative but the trouble is the end result is still the same – the difference is how fast we get there and often the number of deaths in the process.
20
It shouldn’t be too hard, all we want is a return to the Westminster system.
Over time it has been labour against capital, or free trade against protection, but in the 21st century the lines are a little blurred. My gut feeling is that Talcum will go by Xmas and we’ll get our democracy back.
20
Not if he’s replaced by someone like him or even worse. Next couple of years will be pivotal for the West as a whole. I don’t believe it will end well.
30
If the government calls for tenders for a continental bullet train network, then the Coalition will be returned, and Albo will become the Opposition leader after the election.
If Labor gets elected then Albo should rightfully pick up the infrastructure portfolio, he loves bullet trains.
20
My Hope is that Talcum will go by Christmas and Not be replaced by that other bloke ? was it Peter Bland,
10
I’m not surprised by this report and I suspect most of us here to feel the same. Of course the mainstream media will give it zero coverage and the public will never hear a whisper.
All part of the huge, public climate-change brainwashing hoax carried out over the last 40 years.
GeoffW
41
hoping someone can access this and post excerpts. it’s shocking “renewables are cheaper” stuff from Frydenberg and Kerry Schott:
New coal power stations ‘no match for renewables’
The Australian-7 hours ago
The comments by Energy Security Board chairwoman Kerry Schott sparked a furious response from the Coalition’s pro-coal Monash Forum, but were backed by Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, who said new coal stations faced “an uncertain utilisation rate and return on capital”.
Tony Abbott said Dr Schott’s comments suggested the NEG — billed by the government as “technology neutral” — would discriminate against coal…
2 May: RenewEconomy: “No way” anyone will fund new coal plants under NEG, says Schott
By Sophie Vorrath
The chair of Australia’s Energy Security Board – and one of the chief architects of the federal government’s proposed National Energy Guarantee – has uttered the words that no minister of the Coalition dares to speak: there is no appetite for new coal power in Australia’s energy market.
Speaking at the 2018 Future Thinking conference, hosted by the Energy Users Association of Australia, Dr Kerry Schott opened her presentation with some slides charting the falling cost of renewables, and with an assurance that no new coal power would be built, NEG or no NEG.
“I can assure you that, unless there’s a change of technology, there would be absolutely no way that anybody would be financing a new coal-fired generation plant,” Schott said.
“So, people might want to see them go faster, but they’re going anyway.”
2 May 2014: SMH: Why they were never going to destroy Kerry Schott
By Mike Carlton
Curious, I made some inquiries about Schott. She turns out to be an extraordinary woman. The doctorate is in pure mathematics from Oxford. An economist by trade, she has been a merchant banker, working in her early years for Malcolm Turnbull and later as the local boss of Deutsche Bank. She was a visiting professor at Oxford and Princeton, a senior NSW Treasury official, chairwoman of the Environmental Protection Authority, an adviser to the Reserve Bank and a trade practices commissioner. Now in semi-retirement, she is on the boards of Macquarie University and the National Broadband Network.
Turnbull sang her praises when I spoke to him this week. “She’s outstanding,” he said. “A woman of enormous integrity and great ability. You may quote me on that.”…
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/why-they-were-never-going-to-destroy-kerry-schott-20140501-zr2r7.html
31
Mike Carlton – the well known name dropper (and A grade JERK).
30
Remove the one sided subsidies Pat and coal is king no matter which way you look at it .
71
Deep down,but not too deep- one detects a Green/socialist look to Kerry Schott. She seems to be ideologically fixed to renewable energy.Frydenberg is running Turdballs agenda.
40
Frydenberg talks like a Greenie. As the saying goes if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. In the case of him he is definitely a duck.
41
Who is this ‘we’ you speak of, Kemosabe?
Japan.
The nation has fired up at least eight new coal power plants in the past 2 years and has plans for an additional 36 over the next decade—the biggest planned coal power expansion in any developed nation (not including China and India).
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/bucking-global-trends-japan-again-embraces-coal-power?utm_campaign=news_daily_2018-05-02&et_rid=383837843&et_cid=2006724
Frydenberg @ national press club, 11.4.18:
17.25: A 3rd home truth, is that whether people like it or not, we are moving towards a carbon constrained future.
https://iview.abc.net.au/programs/national-press-club-address/NC1811C012S00
60
A Lib member was recently telling me how some conservatives had spoken sternly to Frydenberg about going off the track. Some really believe he is a lost lamb straying out toward the wolves.
Do the globocrats and carpetbaggers have to draw us a picture?
Has Josh really been slotted into the prime seat of Kooyong from a position as Director of Global Banking with Deutsche Bank to just sort-of drift into accidentally promoting the Green Blob agenda? Because he fell into some bad company at Davos? Because he knoweth not what he doth?
Frydenberg is a wolf in wolf’s clothing. Australia-negative, clear and guaranteed.
81
The LNP went off track as soon as Turnbull took it over. That in itself says it all given his background and his beliefs about climate change going back many years. The LNP is not the party it used to be. If anything Turnbull with the help of many others has shifted it towards the left in a big way. Consequently it makes very little difference as to who is in power, ALP+Greens or LNP. The only way to change things is for the ACP to gain sufficient support, perhaps with the help of ON, and break the nexus either by holding the balance of power or form government in its own right. Yes I know the latter is impossible. The former is probably unlikely but I am holding some hope given the time we still have before he next federal election, assuming it’s not held much sooner that we expect. If nothing changes and support for the ACP remains minuscule then things will go on as now until the crash and burn scenario plays out.
50
‘If nothing changes and support for the ACP remains minuscule then things will go on as now until the crash and burn scenario plays out.’
Cory should ask Austen Tayshus to run for the senate, he won’t be ignored. At press conferences he could tell them CO2 does not cause lower atmosphere warming and coral bleaching is caused by El Nino, that should get a few laughs until they realise he isn’t joking.
Is Cory a lukewarmer?
20
The pattern I often see is when once starts off in politics they are either well meaning and promote sensible policies, or they are not so well meaning and promote bad policies. Later on when the advance in the careers, the well meaning ones tend to change into not so well meaning ones and the not so well meaning ones turn into radical and evil dictators (extreme left or extreme right). If you think about it no benevolent leader of a nation lasted forever to maintain a good regime. Eventually when they pass away or are replaced, someone else with the more traditional bad ways take over and everything eventually goes pear shaped. It can be put down to human nature.
30
Fair enough, but Confucian thought should give the world a breathing space for at least a century.
10
Agreed! OTOH even your hen chooks after violently assaulted via ROOSTER; get over it! WHY NOT YOU? 🙂
20
Frydenbergs’ are ever the internationalists.Hard wired like so many of his type to control the worlds pursestrings.
30
Maybe better to say that Australia will miss the bus and 20 odd years down the road we’ll be playing catch-up.So disappointing when things could be so much better.
20
By the way, I’m not making up that bit about “Director of Global Banking”. Not satire. That was Josh, before he became the new Colt from Kooyong.
Think a Director of Global Banking would prefer trafficking in a tiny fragment of thin air to all that messy agriculture and manufacturing where people actually make stuff right here? Hey, we’re a service economy now, which means…well, something to do with exchanging electronic pulses rather than food, minerals, fibres and all the smelly stuff. Someone turns on a light in Bullamanka or flushes a ‘loo in Woolloomooloo? There’s an electronic pulse for monitoring, moderating and charging that now. Service isn’t just what you get at a Bowral cafe or Potts Point eatery. Oh no.
Production is so last reality.
30
“A 3rd home truth, is that whether people like it or not, we are moving towards a carbon constrained future.”
Opening up a few more mines and wells ought to fix that
40
It’s reminiscent of the strong arm talk that came from Greg Combet when this fiasco was initiated during Rudd1. Obviously the financiers behind this won’t be brooked. Davos mafia is it?
50
Did you know that Tonto went to his grave not knowing that “Kemosabe” meant ar*ehe*le?
11
another Aussie deep inside the CAGW swamp:
3 May: Reuters: Megan Rowling: Green Climate Fund may ask donors for a refill in 2019: director
The Green Climate Fund, set up to help developing countries tackle climate change, could seek to refill its coffers in 2019, a year which is likely to see “a huge amount of attention on climate finance”, said the fund’s executive director.
Howard Bamsey, a former Australian diplomat, said the fund could reach the trigger point for its replenishment process later this year if the share of available funds it has allocated for projects reaches 60 percent.
The fund began making investment decisions in 2015, with pledges from donor governments of $10.3 billion.
But it is expected to receive only about $8 billion of that after U.S. President Donald Trump – a climate change skeptic who plans to pull out of the Paris climate accord – indicated he would not make good on the remaining $2 billion of the $3 billion promised by his predecessor.
Bamsey said the fund had not been formally notified it would not receive the full U.S. contribution. But if the money were not available, it would limit what the fund could achieve.
“As far as we are concerned, we are waiting for the next step (from Washington),” he said…
Rich countries have promised to raise $100 billion a year in climate finance, from both public and private sources, by 2020 to help developing countries tackle global warming.
Poorer nations are seeking reassurances that target will be met…
So far, the Green Climate Fund has agreed to provide about $3.7 billion to finance projects to help developing countries shift to clean energy and adapt to the impacts of climate change, such as more extreme weather and rising seas.
Bamsey said a further $2 billion for projects could be approved at meetings this year, bringing the total close to $6 billion and pushing the start button to replenish the fund.
The fund’s board, which has 24 members balanced between developed and developing countries, has yet to agree on the process and whether to set a target amount.
Bamsey said the fund would likely seek at least $10 billion, and the board could also decide to widen its pool of donors – now limited to governments – to include philanthropists and others that have shown interest in contributing.
“I think we’re in a good position for replenishment,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation on the sidelines of a conference on energy access in Lisbon.
“Our projects are getting better and better, and countries want more and more – and so you’ve got a very good opportunity here where funding can be used extremely well to help solve the climate problem.”
Bamsey said he thought the projects being submitted for backing were gradually becoming more in line with the fund’s mandate to be “transformational”.
He cited a recently approved project led by the World Bank to develop financial instruments to improve energy efficiency in Brazilian cities, and a longer-standing initiative managed by the Acumen Fund to build markets for off-grid solar in East Africa by investing in small providers…
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-climatechange-finance/green-climate-fund-may-ask-donors-for-a-refill-in-2019-director-idUSKBN1I41I2
21
what a laugh:
3 May: HuffPo: U.S. Climate Scientists Flee For France To ‘Make Our Planet Great Again’
Some of America’s top researchers will move to France to continue their research.
By Dominique Mosbergen
Fourteen climate researchers, including six from U.S. universities, have been selected for French President Emmanuel Macron’s “Make Our Planet Great Again” initiative. The scientists applied to move to France to carry out climate science projects in the country’s top research laboratories.
The selected researchers include some of America’s brightest scientific talents: Alexey Fedorov, a Yale professor and Guggenheim fellow, and James Clark, a Duke University climate expert, according to a press release Wednesday from France’s Ministry of Higher Education and Research.
Researchers hailing from universities in several other countries, including Canada and Saudi Arabia, also were selected.
The applicants’ projects, covering a range of topics including Arctic climate change and improving air quality, are expected to last three to five years. Each researcher will receive at least $600,000 in funding, according to the statement, which noted that Germany is now jointly supporting the initiative…
Trump’s “decision is unfortunate but it only reinforced our determination,” Macron said in a message on the initiative’s website. “France has always led fights for human rights. Today, more than ever, we are determined to lead (and win!) this battle on climate change.”…
The first group of 18 scientists selected for the program was announced in December. That group included 13 researchers from U.S. universities, including Camille Parmesan, a professor at the University of Texas and U.K.’s University of Plymouth who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for her work as a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…
https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/us-climate-scientists-make-our-planet-great-again-france_us_5aead46ee4b06748dc8fe1ac
30
“France has always led fights for human rights. ”
The guillotine was a human right?
121
Do even one of these ugly researchers\professors have the mathematical skills\proficiency to even begin to understand the complexity of spontaneous massless electromagnetic power transfer in any direction whatsoever? WHERE IS ANY EVIDENCE? 🙂
51
Appalling. Planning to ripoff the public for fame and fortune based on CO2 as far back as the 1970s. Once were scientists. Shades of ‘The Graduates’. Instead of get into Plastics, it is get into CO2, follow the yellow brick road.
Fast forward to today’s Australian in 2018
“The architect of Malcolm Turnbull’s signature energy blueprint says there is no longer an investment case to build new coal-fired power stations in Australia ¬because “the cost of coal is always going to be more than the cost of wind and sun”.
Energy Security Board chairwoman Kerry Schott
How would she know?
“Kerry holds a doctorate from Oxford University, a Masters of Arts from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver and a Bachelor of Arts (first class Honours) from the University of New England.”
Great. Absolute nonsense. Science and energy policy run by an Arts graduate appointed by the Wizard of Oz in Point Piper. One of Turnbull’s munchkins. There was a time engineers had a say in engineering. Now it is all Turnbull’s Greens and their non science, anti arithmetic druidic views. Wind, sun, water, fire but as long as the fire does not involve carbon. Carbon is evil.
121
The Graduate. Dustin Hoffman. Amazing what a difference an s makes.
20
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/why-they-were-never-going-to-destroy-kerry-schott-20140501-zr2r7.html
“Curious, I made some inquiries about Schott. She turns out to be an extraordinary woman. The doctorate is in pure mathematics from Oxford. An economist by trade, she has been a merchant banker, working in her early years for Malcolm Turnbull and later as the local boss of Deutsche Bank.
She was a visiting professor at Oxford and Princeton, a senior NSW Treasury official, chairwoman of the Environmental Protection Authority, an adviser to the Reserve Bank and a trade practices commissioner. Now in semi-retirement, she is on the boards of Macquarie University and the National Broadband Network.
Turnbull sang her praises when I spoke to him this week. “She’s outstanding,” he said. “A woman of enormous integrity and great ability. You may quote me on that.”
Economists aren’t Engineers….
Economic-focussed journos keep also trying to tell us how to engineer things.
Or put it this way – if a money manager was controlling the design parameters of an aircraft, would you fly on it?
I wouldn’t. Yes there needs to be some form of cost control for aircraft manufacturers, but not at a deep level. Otherwise you could have a room full of economics graduates designing space shuttles…
50
O S
“Or put it this way – if a money manager was controlling the design parameters of an aircraft, would you fly on it?”
Worry less – fair chance it wouldn’t get off the ground
50
It would probably disintegrate rapidly on the runway…
41
Nah, hi-tech, held in place with ‘Tarzan’s Grip’.
20
Meaning you fly with a grip of Tarzan’s tube?
20
It would be as effective as the Australian submarines are. Very expensive non-starters.
20
Interesting. Mathematics. Super numerate then but science? The price of coal is a dead give away. We own the coal and cannot afford to buy it from ourselves. Pull the other leg. The only cost is State royalties but her advice is that the cost is prohibitive. Why not make it free for Australians? Or is that too difficult s concept?
Another Finkel then. Another Stockbroker banker type. Friend of banker Turnbull.
80
My God!
If this list of qualifications are true, then we are all doomed.
How can anyone with these credentials be so abysmally stupid?
70
Must be easy – it seems to be replicated
30
This is apparently all in ‘Pure’ mathematics, unsullied by any practical considerations or usefulness like dirty Applied Mathematics or science or engineering.
30
TdeF May04,18:16:59 pm
Such is but a political desecration of the concept of ‘mathematics’ a gift for our ‘learning skill’! Trigonometry allows the ‘master toolmaker’ to determine the ‘proper angle’ for woodworker ‘chisel’ to form this specific wood into USEFULNESS (tabletop), You clever earthlings have been so ripped off by Alien evil BANKSTERS! Our wonderful GOD still messages “Wad da f**k over, hello,hello? 🙂
20
Economists aren’t Engineers….
A pearfect example of USA-NASA. 🙂
40
““You are unlikely to see a new coal-fired generation plant built unless there is a change in technology and a decline in the price of coal,” Dr Schott said.”
So who charges too much for coal? We do. ‘Our’ government run by ‘our’ ABC.
In Victoria union puppet Premier Daniel Andrews tripled the price of coal when Hazelwood was on the edge. Now we get nothing from Hazelwood for our coal. Good one, Daniel. Looking after our interests and getting paid nothing.
Almost as good as the previous John Brumby Labor government which banned the export of $400Million in brown coal to India, because they were going to squeeze the 66% water out and make it ‘blacker’, according to the headlines in the Age newspaper. So we Victorians are $400Million poorer. Good one, John.
With politicians like these and their friends, who need enemies?
110
We all know black is the essence of pollution. Pure carbon is black, so carbon is pure evil. Too bad about invisible CO2 and diamonds then. Both black and polluting. Greens do not need chemistry. Chemistry is the devil’s work. Like carbon.
80
I think Victoria-stanis know who their enemy is…..
Not sure if we will have a politico who will ever equate to Mugabe…perhaps that’s a good thing, but there are certainly elements of Marxism that seem to be shared, a wanton drive to crash the local economy, a drive for never ending Leftist rule……..
40
Now more than 700 reader comments on this article in The Australian today.
Dr Kerry Schott, 15 years as an investment banker with an Arts degree says new coal stations no match for renewables. But perhaps she can show us some simple arithmetic – she agrees that wind and solar are not “despatchable” so need to be backed up with gas or hydro. Come on Dr Schott or Minister Frydenberg or even an analytical journalist – what is the total despatchable cost? Dr Finkel reported the levelised cost of wind as $92/MWhr without backup. What is the cost with backup? He reported the cost of open cycle gas as $123/MWhr. So we need both – one for when the wind isn’t blowing and then something else when it blows too strongly. So total cost about $200/MWhr. Dr Finkel also reported the cost of new coal as $76/MWhr, and solar with 12 hours backup $172/MWhr.
Yet Dr Schott claims as “factual”: “The cost of running a clean-coal plant is much more expensive that running a combination of wind, solar and gas, or, better yet, wind, solar and pumped hydro.” Show us your facts.
The current wholesale electricity price is $80-100/MWhr, yet only two years ago it was under $50/MWhr. We are destroying Australia’s manufacturing economy with unrealistic and unnecessary government interventions.
Minister Frydenberg says the NEG is “technology neutral”, ignoring the essential fact that intermittent “renewables” are mandated because of the commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
90
Her maths got better! Whether she can add up is another matter.
20
Adding up will show the benefits. Getting the costs included needs competent subtraction – which is the worry IMO
30
The Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance proposes a cheap energy target for Australia. Now that’s what I’d like to see!
20
Everyone will be happy to know none of this matters any more.
The latest theory from the flat Earth crowd says that Australia is fake and doesn’t exist.
Yes, the whole continent doesn’t exist.
So…you and I don’t exist, the BOM doesn’t exist, AGW doesn’t exist, coral bleaching doesn’t exist, carbon taxes don’t exist etc etc.
Oh man…life on this planet is getting funnier than Fawlty Towers!
Can’t we round up the flat-Earthers, AGWers, pollies, bankers, hairdressers etc onto a ship and shoot it straight at the sun ?
Forget resettling on another planet a-la Hitchhikers Guide.
What will the AGW crowd and governments do when the reality of cooling becomes undeniable in the next 2 years?
When global crops are wiped out (look at the losses now!), food is unaffordable or or even available,
sever weather becomes the norm, crime goes crazy.
Refund our tax dollars ?, blame it on us somehow (no doubt)?
May you live in interesting times…indeed…
[Hmmmm….]ED
40
Whether this is attempted satire or a genuine opinion, making definite predictions concerning what is a coupled non-linear chaotic system is balmy, and that applies to predictions of warming and cooling.
What the zombie says about crop yields and severe weather if the planet cools significantly is correct.
40
So I’m imaginary in my own mind and so is every one and everything around here DownUnder? What a fun thought!
41
Annie
Knowledge of things Australian from a lot of people in US brings to mind at least imaginary history and geography
30
Lovely upside-down ladies are forever a fun thought! 🙂
20
Sometimes isn’t worth the bullet! OTOH shipping all to Thule Greenland; may temporally increase sea level, until they too all freeze over! 🙂
All the best!-will-
21
comment #28 – Reuters reports Green Climate Fund doesn’t even have the $10.3 billion in pledges; might not even get $8 billion; and we’re talking about a fund that is supposed to get $100 billion each and every year.
yet look at the spin below from Oxfam, Fiona Harvey & The Guardian.
btw plenty of silly links, but none to the silly report:
3 May: Guardian: Climate change aid to poor nations lags behind Paris pledges
Donor nations’ 2020 target of $100bn annual fund for adapting economies falls short by near 50% says Oxfam
by Fiona Harvey
While taxpayer-funded finance has increased, and the private sector has stepped up with some initiatives, the amount raised could still fall short of the goal of providing $100bn a year to the developing world by 2020.
The 2015 Paris agreement on climate change re-stated the $100bn financial target, but Oxfam says the taxpayer-funded finance from rich countries in 2015-16 stood at about $48bn, or nearly half the amount promised for 2020.
In a 28-page report published Thursday, entitled Climate Finance Shadow Report 2018: Assessing Progress Towards the $100bn Commitment, Oxfam says funding announced by donor countries involves projects and aid not directly related to climate change.
The aid organisation found that only $16-$21bn of the overseas aid commitments fell under the strict definition of climate finance – if what was counted was just assistance directed towards reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and towards adaptations for climate change effects rather than economic and social development more generally…
(Senior climate-change policy adviser at Oxfam Tracy) Carty said: “There’s no reason why rules for calculating climate [finance] should be more lax than those for [general overseas] aid. Governments have to agree new accounting standards for climate finance under the Paris agreement. This is an opportunity to agree fair and robust standards.”…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/03/climate-change-aid-poor-nations-paris-cop21-oxfam
3 May: Oxfam: Climate Finance Shadow Report 2018
Assessing progress towards the $100 billion commitment
DOWNLOAD REPORT
https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/climate-finance-shadow-report-2018
quite a different story in the report, and fun stuff about Dear Climate Leader Macron:
3 May: Oxfam: For the world’s poorest, latest trends in climate finance are going in the wrong direction
“Climate Finance Shadow Report 2018” (LINKS TO PAGE WHERE REPORT CAN BE DOWNLOADED) looks at the latest donor reports for 2015 and 2016 and finds that:
•Increases in climate finance are largely due to an upsurge in loans, especially to middle-income countries.
•Government grant money isn’t meeting needs and isn’t rising fast enough. Grants represent an estimated $11 to $13 billion, compared to $10 billion in our last assessment covering 2013 and 2014.
•Funding for adaptation continues to be neglected, making up only an estimated 20 percent of public climate finance, up from 19 percent in 2013 and 2014.
•The share of the pie going to least developed countries hasn’t gotten bigger; it’s still just around 18 percent of public finance.
“Despite people in poor Caribbean islands staring down supercharged hurricanes and others in Africa reeling from brutal droughts, the money flowing to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable to climate change remains woefully inadequate,” said Tracy Carty, Oxfam’s climate change policy expert…
One of the major problems described in the report is how many donors overreport the value of the funds they’re providing. One way is to overcount the climate change value of a development project where climate change is just one aspect of a broader program.
Another involves counting loans and other types of non-grant financing at full face value, obscuring the actual level of assistance developing countries receive by a huge margin.
Oxfam is urging governments to end this practice and count the “grant-equivalent” of their climate loans, meaning only counting the net transfer of finance to a developing country once repayments, interest and other factors are accounted for…
Oxfam estimates the net, climate-specific public finance in 2015 and 2016 is around $16 to $21 billion per year. This is significantly lower than the estimated $48 billion per year in public climate finance, if donor numbers are taken at face value…
***While the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden and others provided more than 90 percent of their climate finance in 2015 and 2016 as grants, ***France and others have fallen far behind.
The Shadow Report shows that despite French President Emmanuel Macron claiming leadership on combating climate change, France’s finance numbers tell a different story. Just seven percent of the country’s climate finance was given out as grants in 2015 and 2016, far below other neighboring countries.
“With only two years left before the $100 billion deadline and the eyes of millions in the developing world watching, we hope to see Macron’s actions to financially support the world’s poorest countries match his inspiring words,” said Armelle le Comte, Oxfam France’s climate lead.
https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-05-03/worlds-poorest-latest-trends-climate-finance-are-going-wrong
11
unbelievable:
2 May: NPR Morning Edition: A Temperature Roller Coaster Could Be Coming
by Christopher Joyce
New research suggests that global warming could cause temperature swings to get unusually extreme. And the regions where the biggest swings will occur are among the poorest in the world — and the least responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.
Climate scientists already know that as the planet warms, there’s a bigger chance of extreme weather: bigger hurricanes, for example, or heavier rainfall.
But a temperature roller coaster could be on the way as well, according to the study, which appears in the journal Science Advances (LINK).
Sebastian Bathiany at Wageningen University in the Netherlands says his calculations indicate that variations in temperature will increase — the normal swings between high and low temperatures will get wider. The variations aren’t apparent yet but will be in coming decades, Bathiany says…
This won’t happen everywhere, because different conditions affect temperature in different parts of the world. In the tropics, soil moisture plays a big role in moderating or “buffering” temperature swings, according to Bathiany. It’s kind of like the so-called Goldilocks effect — moisture keeps temperatures somewhere in between very hot and very cold…
Many countries in these regions “are not only poorer to deal with the impacts,” he says, “but also in this case the impacts will be worse” than in other parts of the world…
Worse because temperature variation in places like Europe and the U.S. isn’t expected to change much…
Another new study (LINK) found that California will see more extreme wet and dry periods this century. They’re calling that the “whiplash” effect of global warming…
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/05/02/607800921/a-temperature-roller-coaster-could-be-coming
31
You mean there’s,like, hope. Thank you Sebastian you snot-nosed twit.
20
Hedging their bets. Betting all ways to keep the whole thing going.
21
New research suggests that global cooling will cause temperature swings to get unusually extreme in mid latitudes. And the regions where the biggest swings will occur are among the wealthiest in the world — and the least responsible for the natural variables which cause global cooling.
There, fixed it.
41
Pfft! Just like “things were better in the old days”, eh?
https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_is_the_world_getting_better_or_worse_a_look_at_the_numbers
10
Don’t mention the doubleplus unwarming.
20
2 May: CityAM UK: No decent economist will be surprised to see renewables push up electricity prices
by Paul Ormerod
(Paul Ormerod is an economist at Volterra Partners LLP, a visiting professor at the UCL Centre for Decision Making Uncertainty, and author of Against the Grain: Insights of an Economic Contrarian)
British Gas is putting up the price of its dual fuel tariff by an average of 5.5 per cent at the end of this month. EDF, whose standard tariff is already one of the most expensive, will raise it by a further 1.4 per cent next month.
In the longer run, the widespread hope is that we will be saved by alternative energy sources, such as solar and wind. And indeed, these have become much more efficient because of major technological advances…
A greater reliance on solar and wind power has led in general to higher, not lower, electricity prices.
Michael Shellenberger of the California-based Environmental Progress think tank sets out the evidence in a couple of fascinating columns in Forbes magazine…
http://www.cityam.com/285086/no-decent-economist-surprised-see-renewables-push-up
I posted the first Michael Shellenberger piece on Jo’s Midweek Unthreaded on 25 April.
23 Apr: Forbes: If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
Shellenberger’s followup piece, SIX PAGES, lots of detail:
6 pages: 25 Apr: Forbes: Michael Shellenberger: Yes, Solar And Wind Really Do Increase Electricity Prices — And For Inherently Physical Reasons
One big reason seems to be their inherently unreliable nature, which requires expensive additions to the electrical grid in the form of natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries, or some other form of stand-by power.
Several readers kindly pointed out that I had failed to mention a huge cost of adding renewables: new transmission lines.
Transmission is much more expensive for solar and wind than other plants. This is true around the world — for physical reasons.
Think of it this way. It would take 18 of California’s Ivanpah solar farms to produce the same amount of electricity that comes from our Diablo Canyon nuclear plant.
And where just one set of transmission lines are required to bring power from Diablo Canyon, 18 separate transmission lines would be required to bring power from solar farms like Ivanpha.
Moreover, these transmission lines are in most cases longer. That’s because our solar farms are far away in the desert, where it is sunny and land is cheap. By contrast, Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear plants are on the coast right near where most Californians live. (The same is true for wind.)…READ ALL SIX PAGES
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/25/yes-solar-and-wind-really-do-increase-electricity-prices-and-for-inherently-physical-reasons/
11
to be fair, here is an opposing view tho, dare I say, not a convincing one:
30 Apr: Forbes: Joshua Rhodes: No, Wind And Solar Do Not Inherently Increase Electricity Prices
(Joshua D. Rhodes, PhD is a Research Fellow at the Energy Institute and the Webber Energy Group at the University of Texas at Austin)
Michael Shellenberger, a California gubernatorial candidate and president of the think tank Environmental Progress, recently published two pieces in Forbes in which he claimed that renewables, namely wind and solar, have caused higher electricity prices in the U.S. and abroad…
While Shellenberger raises ***some good points, the real story, like the grid itself, is more complicated…
Between the two pieces, Shellenberger lists off a number of locations that have higher retail electricity prices now than in the recent past. While that may be true, almost everything is more expensive now than it was in the past, too…
All of the EIA data used as evidence of price increases are nominal values, meaning the prices have not been adjusted for inflation. Look at the cost of cars, for example. If the average cost of a car in the U.S. was $3,215 in 1967, and $25,499 in 2016, does that mean the cost of a car increased 700%? No…
Federal data show that in the past decade the overall inflation-adjusted price of electricity has fallen, though some parts of that cost have increased. The costs of generating electricity (namely from natural gas, wind and solar) have fallen, while the cost to deliver that power have generally increased…
So why are transmission and distribution costs trending up? Are renewables to blame? Probably for some of it, yes! For example, the CREZ lines in Texas have allowed significant amounts of low-cost wind to connect to the Texas grid, and there’s a cost associated with those lines…
As for Shellenberger’s claim that the intermittency of solar and wind introduce variability into the grid, while true, has not been shown to result in higher prices…
There are locations where wind and solar have driven up the costs of electricity, but they have been early adopters who did not benefit from the rapid fall in prices…
Other factors, such as the price of natural gas, are in play as well. The price of natural gas has fallen significantly in the past decade, lowering wholesale market prices for electricity. To further complicate things, for much of the U.S. electricity demand growth has stalled.
The grid has many moving parts, so claiming cause and effect between any two is likely problematic…
To be fair, claiming that wind and solar are the cheapest option everywhere every time is also too simplistic. One thing is becoming more clear as time moves forward is that flexibility is going to be valuable, but remaining open to options among various generating technologies also will help ensure a more resilient and affordable electricity system.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuarhodes/2018/04/30/no-wind-and-solar-do-not-inherently-increase-electricity-prices/#57ee13c97b8b
31
Economics deniers @ Forbes.
30
so much comedy with Macron being lauded as a “climate leader” again, so worth remembering shutting down nuclear has been pushed back:
Wind of change as France faces end of era
Financial Times-29 Apr. 2018
Having inherited a target to cut the proportion of energy generated from nuclear to 50 per cent by 2025, (Minister for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition Nicolas) Hulot has suggested pushing that out to 2035, arguing a speedier shift would risk power shortages and could even push up carbon emissions…
Nov 2017: Reuters: France postpones target for cutting nuclear share of power production
by Geert De Clercq, Michel Rose and Bate Felix
The French government has postponed a long-held target to reduce the share of nuclear energy in the country’s power production after grid operator RTE warned it risked supply shortages after 2020 and could miss a goal to curb carbon emissions…
Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot said on Tuesday it was not realistic to cut nuclear energy’s share of electricity production to 50 percent by 2025 from 75 percent now and that doing so in a hurry would increase France’s CO2 emissions, endanger the security of power supply and put jobs at risk…
He later said in an television interview the government would be working towards a 2030 to 2035 timeframe…
In 2015, the previous government of Socialist Francois Hollande passed an energy transition law setting out the 50 percent target by 2025. But Hollande took no concrete steps towards closing any reactors…
Centrist President Emmanuel Macron, elected in May, had promised to keep the target and Hulot, France’s best-known environmentalist, said in July it might have to close up to 17 of its 58 reactors by 2025 to achieve it.
RTE said in its 2017-2035 Electricity Outlook that if France went ahead with plans to simultaneously shut down four 40-year-old nuclear reactors and all its coal-fired plants as planned, there could be risks of power supply shortages…
Widely seen as the guardian of the Macron government’s green credentials, the popular Hulot – a former television documentary maker turned environmentalist – had in recent months repeatedly said France needed to close several nuclear plants.
But he received little public support from Macron, a strong supporter of nuclear, or Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, a former employee of state-owned reactor builder Areva…
Greenpeace said Hulot had already shown weakness in fighting fossil fuels and was now jeopardizing France’s energy transition.
“He should be a bulwark against the oil and nuclear lobbies,” the campaign group said in a statement.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower/france-postpones-target-for-cutting-nuclear-share-of-power-production-idUSKBN1D71TM
following links to Euan Mearns blog Duck Curve thread by Roger Andrews:
Nov 2017: EnergyTransition: Why France really had to postpone its nuclear reduction
by Craig Morris
(Craig Morris is the lead author of Global Energy Transition. He is co-author of Energy Democracy, the first history of Germany’s Energiewende, and is currently Senior Fellow at the IASS)
Just as COP23 was getting underway, French minister Nicolas Hulot said France was not abandoning its goal of switching partly from nuclear to renewables, just postponing it. Craig Morris says more time won’t help: nuclear may keep the lights on for now, but the French remain in the dark about nuclear’s conflict with wind & solar.
France has announced (report in French) the abandonment of plans first adopted in 2012 to reduce the share of nuclear from 75% to 50% by 2025. The reason given is that such a fast reduction would not be possible without more fossil energy in the interim.
In 2011, French candidate for the presidency Francois Hollande first proposed the semi-phaseout during the election campaign. The French then elected him to implement it. And then nothing really happened – no nuclear plants have been closed, and renewables hardly grew.
To make the math easy, let’s assume that France consumes some 500 TWh of electricity each year. Nuclear would then drop from 375 TWh to 250 TWh, so we would need to add 125 TWh from renewables to cover that decrease. In 2012, Hollande still had twelve years to do so. Renewables would thus have needed to grow at around 10 TWh a year. Instead, from 2013-2016 France added a mere 3.26 TWh annually on average from solar (1.2 TWh), wind (1.6 TWh), and biomass (0.47 TWh) (data source in French – years are out of order!)…
So just in terms of the amount of energy, replacing a third of nuclear with wind and solar would theoretically have been possible starting in 2012. But now, France only has seven years left, so the task would be daunting indeed…
In 2016, France had 1.6% solar and 3.9% wind power. Increasing that to cover an additional 25% at a ratio of, say, 1:2 would require another 8% solar and 16% wind, putting solar at around 10% of supply and wind at some 20%. And that won’t work with France’s inflexible nuclear fleet, which has never ramped by more than a third.
A recent post (LINK) by climate change skeptic Euan Mearns on the infamous duck curve illustrates the problem well. Mearns estimates that a 10% solar share of annual supply would peak at some 28 MW on a sunny summer day in France, with demand at 45 GW. His analysis doesn’t investigate what a peak of 2/3 solar would mean for nuclear, but clearly the fleet would be pushed down to serving a residual load of only 17 GW.
Reducing the nuclear fleet by a third from 63 GW to 42 GW would thus still mean ramping by around half. The French fleet has never demonstrated it can ramp by more than a third. And even then, all other power sources – wind, biomass, hydro, and gas (France will close its last coal plants in 2021, see President Macron’s tweet below) – would need to be curtailed entirely. It would be an expensive mess, not to mention a technical challenge…
The French have put so many eggs in the nuclear basket that they are stuck. Spiky wind and solar will break those eggs. A report in Platt’s Nucleonics Week from June 2016 (paywall) speaks of reactor operator EDF’s efforts to make “two-thirds (sic) of its French reactor fleet able to load-follow in 2016.” But that also seems to be the maximum, according to the report. In other words, the French fleet is already as flexible as it can be – and that’s not enough for even 10% wind and 20% solar.
So why did Hollande think a nuclear reduction was possible without fossil fuel?
The short answer is: he had no idea. People often assume that policies are based on some scientific finding or expert knowledge. But in reality, policymakers often adopt policies that sound good, and scientists then scramble to investigate what that might look like…
I have not found any expert who ever thought France could replace a third of its nuclear power (25% of total supply) with renewables by 2025…
https://energytransition.org/2017/11/why-france-really-had-to-postpone-its-nuclear-reduction/
31
should have made clear what I am mocking is how it’s usually the anti-nuclear CAGW mob are the ones lauding Macron as a “climate leader”.
20
Anecdotes and conspiracy theories. Who said climate change denial isn’t fun? 🙂
27
Getting Colder!
52
Maybe where you live.
27
Centuries of written records, stratigraphy, speleology, archaeology, geology etc obscured or chucked away by the Holocene denialists. What a hoot those guys are. And for added laughs we get vaporous terms like “climate change” used as scientific reference. Oh yeah, more fun than a root canal.
62
Adjust the records,
expunge the records,
these are the methods
of the propagandists,
the mann-ipulative,
dogmatist ‘n control
-freak Klimatariat.
51
mosomoso.
Are the butt-hurt when climate scientists find out things that don’t suit you political agenda. I am not sure how your comment is related to mine however.
I am a bit puzzled by “holocene deniers” – the earth is currently in the holocene hence my confusion.
25
Holocene deniers obscure or deny the inconvenient bumpy nature of the Holocene…although a few have now decided they need an Anthropocene. As for my political agenda, it’s all quite obvious from my references to “written records, stratigraphy, speleology, archaeology, geology etc”. Hombre, that’s Molotov cocktail stuff, isn’t it?
61
I have been doing an anecdotal none scientific survey of the BoM’s forecasts v’s actual recorded temperatures for Melbourne over the past two summers. My crude analysis is that the BoM forecasts are typically 2-3 deg C hotter than the actuals, this appears to be a propaganda tool to create an allusion of a hotter climate than reality to scare the public to believing their warming agenda.
I don’t know if the forecast records are maintained but it would be interesting to do a statistical comparison with official BoM data, forecast v’s records. If there is a distorted trend then the BoM can be held accountable.
32
well you must have some sort of notes or spread sheet or something? Maybe a feeling?
22
neil.
Well if you are claiming professional misconduct by the BOM, you better show your evidence. Otherwise you are libeling them.
13
People are tired of being ripped off so the government can subsidize a fraud .
Governments are the ultimate short term thinkers and as fast as the subsidy
con game was started it will end . We are nearly there .
Governments are working extremely hard at hollowing out the middle class who are
done with foolish , politically correct spendthrifts .
In less than 5 years you will not be able to find a politician that will admit to being
part of the global warming con game.
21
Global Warming (specifically AGW) is not a fraud, and is not a con. It is established science.
In 5 years time there will be just more global warming. I don’t see CO2 pollution decreasing in that time based on current policies. If politicians want to ignore or deny that scientific fact, so be it. Politicians come, politicians go.
00
So Harry, if it’s “established science”, what will the temperature be in 2020, 2030, 2050, and what are the error margins?
If the “established science” says it is AGW, is it CAGW? If so, what catastrophes, how many, and when? The answers should be readily available if the science is “settled”.
11
Robber.
You ask about four rhetorical questions. Maybe you should ask one question at a time and say what your point is instead of being rhetorical. Your questions are like demanding to know the exact number of people who will die from smoking-related illnesses in the next 30 years.
I have no idea what you mean by AGW and CAGW. You appear to be trying to change the subject.
You say something about “settled”. I did not mention that term. I do know it is a term used by climate change deniers but I am stuffed if I know what they are talking about. Perhaps if the climate change deniers give the context for “settled”, I will be able to figure out what they are talking about.
00
CO2 is NOT pollution.
01