The Green Blob must be hating this. It’s the worst kind of momentum shift…
In 2008 the main US Presidential contenders were all supporters or “the free market solution” for carbon (called cap n’ trade in the US). But in 2015 the political landscape cracked, and now they’re going out of their way to reverse that. It’s now seen as a bad thing to look like a gullible patsy for Big Green.
How times have changed.
U.S. Republicans Increasingly Sceptical Of Climate Alarm
Amy Harder and Beth Reinhard, The Wall Street Journal
GOP presidential candidates who had generally accepted the scientific consensus on climate change have said recently that it is unclear how much, if at all, humans are contributing to warmer temperatures.
Shortly after a conservative website on Wednesday posted 2008 footage of Sen. Marco Rubio backing a cap-and-trade program to combat climate change, his campaign roared back with a counterattack that included an entire web page aimed at debunking the video.
In media-speak, this is not so much about Republicans waking up to something, it’s Obama’s fault:
Mr. Rubio’s muscular response revealed how toxic the issue of climate change has become in the Republican Party under President Barack Obama, who has sought to make reducing carbon emissions to alleviate global warming one of his signature accomplishments.
Until 2008, many Republicans, including then-presidential nominee John McCain, supported cap-and-trade to address climate change. Once Mr. Obama won the White House, Republicans swiftly unified against nearly all of his initiatives, including a cap-and-trade bill that would have set limits on carbon emissions and allowed companies to trade pollution credits to comply.
As I’ve said before, having GOP candidates compete on this changes everything. The shift that occurred in the US in 2015 was big. There is an opportunity for sensible people all over the world to pick up this momentum and run with it.
Politicians now know this subject is a PR destroying time bomb, the time taken for each individual to ‘come out’ of the green closet will reflect on their political future with the public and the party, the earlier the better has never been truer as this will compound the image of leaders that had the courage of their convictions despite personal sacrifices much like our gracious host and her wonderful husband.
623
I think politicians are beginning to hear from the grass roots side that the only pain that anyone is experiencing from climate change is to jobs and the hip pocket. Keep pushing for what hurts the people the most isn’t going to do your career much good. Trump knows this and has taken the bull by the horns and Republicans are now running scared.
381
Yes Trump knows global warming is false. [SNIP 18C, sorry, we don’t have the resources to moderate that discussion. -J] Trump also knows that big donors have bought politicians for some times in the US and this has to be stopped.
Trump also knows that political correctness is killing America and thus he speaks his mind as the leftist howl and scream that he is not politically correct. Trump also knows that millions of people unemployed are not on the unemployment after the Obama Administration changed the unemployment reporting criteria.
Trump also knows that racism and intolerance are destroying our university system and that should be stopped. Trump knows that a lot of working class people and those on the bottom are being devastated by the one-sided trade agreements and have caused the loss of millions of jobs in America. Finally, Trump knows that the Republic cannot stand under these conditions and that’s why he says let’s make America great again.
271
It looks like Donald will “trump” his Democrat opponents later this year based on your comments. I mean he knows that GW is complete & utter BS, and may well convince many voters of that fact, and let’s face it, with the oil price currently below US$30/barrel, where does that leave Renewable Energy [RE]? – totally cactus!!! – RE is so overwhelmingly uncompetitive as a large scale energy source that you have to wonder how the likes of the EU can survive. As the poor get poorer in the EU you reach the point where anarchy kicks in. If the EU continues to economically deteriorate as it has been doing since the GFC, then expect total chaos.
171
I have sent many links to this website and to other websites regarding the climate change fraud, including the October 2015 UN admission that it is all about crashing capitalism, not about the environment to various of our politicians.
Not one has acknowledged.
202
On the web, when people agree with what has been “said”, they invariably don’t bother to say so, unless they feel that they can add something to the conversation.
Lack of response, on a popular and widely read blog, can therefore be taken as a sign of agreement.
232
It’s getting better. Now real science is coming out, despite the constant gag orders and refuting the nonsense.
link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/18/study-increased-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-has-increased-u-s-forest-health-in-recent-decades/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112715007756
Study: Increased atmospheric Carbon Dioxide has increased U.S. forest health in recent decades
Anthony Watts / 5 hours ago January 18, 2016
“Physiological and ecological factors influencing recent trends in United States forest health responses to climate change”
Highlights
• We review information on US forest health in response to climate change.• We found that trees are tolerant of rising temperatures and have responded to rising carbon dioxide.• No long-term trends in US drought have been found in the literature.• CO2 tends to inhibit forest pests and pathogens.• Projections of forest response to climate change are highly variable.
by Craig Loehle, Craig Idso, T. Bently Wigley
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.12.042 (Forest Ecology and Management) (h/t to Poptech)
Abstract: The health of United States forests is of concern for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, forest commercial values, and other reasons. Climate change, rising concentrations of CO2 and some pollutants could plausibly have affected forest health and growth rates over the past 150 years and may affect forests in the future. Multiple factors must be considered when assessing present and future forest health. Factors undergoing change include temperature, precipitation (including flood and drought), CO 2 concentration, N deposition, and air pollutants. Secondary effects include alteration of pest and pathogen dynamics by climate change. We provide a review of these factors as they relate to forest health and climate change. We find that plants can shift their optimum temperature for photosynthesis, especially in the presence of elevated CO2 , which also increases plant productivity. No clear national trend to date has been reported for flood or drought or their effects on forests except for a current drought in the US Southwest. Additionally, elevated CO2 increases water use efficiency and protects plants from drought. Pollutants can reduce plant growth but concentrations of major pollutants such as ozone have declined modestly. Ozone damage in particular is lessened by rising CO2 . No clear trend has been reported for pathogen or insect damage but experiments suggest that in many cases rising CO2 enhances plant resistance to both agents. There is strong evidence from the United States and globally that forest growth has been increasing over recent decades to the past 100+ years. Future prospects for forests are not clear because different models produce divergent forecasts. However, forest growth models that incorporate more realistic physiological responses to rising CO2 are more likely to show future enhanced growth. Overall, our review suggests that United States forest health has improved over recent decades and is not likely to be impaired in at least the next few decades.
122
Fits about here
Somewhat O/T link to a devastating look at the latest Wilson resurrected hockey stick
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/nearly-two-teams-of-hockey-sticks-used-in-massive-wilson-super-reconstruction/
11
Stephen Hawking says mankinds greatest risk come from…drum roll…technology and genetically engineered viruses….
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/most-threats-to-humans-come-from-science-and-technology-warns-hawking/ar-BBopmCM?ocid=mailsignout
Nuff said….
11
http://www.therebel.media/democrat_paris_climate_pact_will_force_working_people_to_pay
an interesting link
01
Could this be due to Trump’s comments on this topic and his popularity? Perhaps the other Republicans can see this is a vote-winning position to hold (until the wind changes direction).
453
Trump is mostly fact-free, but very entertaining.
Winter of 2014 was much colder for a lot longer. The Great Lakes froze over.
I do note he is getting info from NBC – what could go wrong?
However, you are correct that his comments, often close to the truth, have moved the discussions.
201
But Trump is not stupid. The MSM keep referring to Trump as a reality TV show personality; whereas, he made his money through real estate. What’s Obama’s claim to fame?
301
He’s just waiting for the Olympics committee to institute an event for Teleprompter Reading. He’d win the gold. sliver and bronze in a trot!
332
Special Olympics?……no wait, the competitors are talented and appreciate their country.
81
Why didn’t the US keep the UK tradition of “Author! Author!”? Might have kept teleprompting within bounds
31
Special talent ??
Crying , crying , alone and crying….Roy Orbison impersonator.
Turning the taps on at the drop of a hat . Call me cynical , but that performance made me squirm.
41
When he first got elected he did say some stuff about from now the Earth will heal, the oceans will stop rising, or some crap like that. He sprouted stuff like I have a dream. Only the bloke that said that actually did land man on the moon by the end of the decade. This bugger has done nothing but put spanners in the works.
The glut of oil has stuffed up his socialist agenda, sad.
61
Obama hopes his claim to fame will be saving the world from climate change. Little does he realize that his legacy will become that of the fool who allowed politics to subvert science as the false justification for attacking free market economics because he doesn’t like the fact that free markets are intrinsically ‘unfair’. Of course they must be and this is why they work, otherwise there’s no incentive to do better. I guess he doesn’t like evolution either …
341
Looks like he’s going to be the last President of the United States.
50
And to date, that is his real value. He has exposed the questions that the MSM tried to bury for a decade
Trump may be nominated, then he may even win the presidency – before either of those things come to pass, the MSM will go completely beserk. That may even be fun to watch
But I fear that if Trump fades (as I expect, unhappily) the questions he raises will be slowly buried again. Back to leftoid business as usual
211
John F. Hultquist,
Trump may be fact free but better that than living in the world of fools where all facts are apparently known, knowledge need not be sought or truly understood with human life confined by the unprovable consensus of theory.
Some politicians may appreciate that in the world of the wise, as long as there are holes in our knowledge and understanding, holding views on what is fact is foolhardy. Hard facts become ephemeral as both provable knowledge and our enlightened ignorance expands into the arena of new discoveries.
231
Trump is a clown, entertaining yes, but hardly leadership material. He seems to appeal only to the the fringe. That said, he’s correct on the global warming nausea.
618
Be careful who you call a clown, as those of the Left are usually the ones predisposed to portraying clowns and the like; Karma can be a wonderful thing.
111
They said that about Winston Churchill.
30
trump is hardly a CHURCHILL!
00
and i agree, he IS a clown
21
Trump has been written off by the Media, by Democrats and by Republicans since he threw his hat in the ring, but support has solidified around him amongst Republican voters. In typical US political fashion, the Republican candidates swing way Right until they have the nomination as the Democrat candidates swing way Left. Once they are candidates, they spend the run up to the election trying to take the middle ground.
What do Republican voters see in Trump? No policies are off limits depending upon who is funding like Hillary and most of the other candidates. He isn’t a career politician who is keeping a seat warm and voting Party politics until retirement. He has no problem kicking entrenched public servants out of cushy career jobs. Would I vote for him? I don’t know, but he is certainly turning politics-as-usual on its head in the US and causing many people to look at the political assumptions they have made for many years.
60
An email from CNN just now says that in New Hampshire Bernie Sanders now commands a 60% to 33% lead over the lying scheming crooked ditz.
If the election ends up being a choice of Sanders or Trump, it will be a contest of two extreme extremes.
That should prove interesting. If that is to be the choice, the Republic literally hangs in the balance.
30
Rod,
I never thought a Socialist could ever become President, but Obama proved me wrong, twice. The only difference this time is that Sanders actually admits that he’s a Socialist and Hillary can’t articulate the difference between a Socialist and a Progressive Democrat while Obama denied his Socialist tendencies.
I’m pretty sure that whoever the Republican nominee is will destroy the Democratic nominee in the debates. If Trump is the nominee, ratings will be high and the absurdity of the Democratic platform combined with the ignorance and hypocrisy of their candidate will be widely exposed.
It will be interesting no matter who the candidates are, but at this time, there’s so much pent up frustration with the current Democratic administration, it’s the Republican’s race to lose.
I don’t consider Trump as extreme right to the extent that Sanders is extreme left. He’s one of the least conservative of all the Republican candidates on the social issues. He’s the most pro free market capitalist in the field and Sanders is the most anti free market capitalist, but Trump’s position here is definitely not extreme in any sense.
71
Since Trump has gotten so much attention and since I’m one who is actually faced with deciding whether to vote for him or not, I want to weigh in on whether he’s a clown or not.
He’s not a clown a all, even though his antics may make him out to be one. He’s a serious contender for the Republican nomination. And he’s succeeding by doing exactly what Obama did, telling anyone he’s speaking to, exactly what they want to hear to get a vote and keep himself in the news and at the top of the polls. He’s quite shrewd. His antics are keeping him in the news in front of the voters and up in the polls He’s been playing to the conservative electorate’s anger very well. And of course, he’s angry and for that matter, so am I. But I know better than to cater to that anger because anger makes very poor decisions. I don’t see any evidence that Trump understands that point however. Far from a clown, he’s playing the whole thing to win.
His electability doesn’t look good to me and I hope the voters wake up soon enough to give him a better look. His only vision is to, “Make America Great again,” something easier said than done. He’s spoken of almost no plans except outrageous ones such as build a border fence and, “…make Mexico pay for it.
I don’t like him, in fact I fear him.
And trouncing Hillary will not be so easy when she’s already promising more free goodies to compete with Bernie Sanders and The Donald has nothing he can give away if he wants to fix what’s wrong.
Your guess is as good as mine about the future. But don’t make Trump out to be a clown. He’s not. He’s as much a problem to this country as Hillary is in my opinion.
12
Roy,
You said,
Technically, Hillary and Bernie have nothing to give away despite their empty promises, nor does giving things away fix anything, it only makes matters worse. It shouldn’t take much debate before the Progressive Democratic platform is revealed as the Ponzi scheme it is.
We probably have the economic leverage to get Mexico to at least share in the cost of a strongly monitored boundary fence (calling it a wall is just a generalization and layers of electrified razor wire is mostly sufficient), and probably even enough leverage to get them to build another along their Southern border, perhaps even with our help.
Relative to growing our economy, Trump is probably the best qualified, although he certainly will ruffle feathers along the way. He’s the only one on either side who has actually grown an economy in the form of a business and a multi-billion dollar one at that. I also don’t think he would flinch about firing (or demoting) a few entrenched civil servants at GISS or NOAA who are impeding scientific progress.
71
Neither did Obama have anything he could give away, yet he did make wild promises and that, in the opinion of people I’m sure are sound thinkers, is what got him reelected in 2012. So we shall see. All I can do is call things as I see them. And I make no pretense at being an expert politics watcher.
As for Trump, Mexico, the economy and so on, certainly he might pull off all that he’s promised. On the other hand we’ve seen that it’s not so easy to move congress and he’ll probably need Democrat’s votes to get his legislative agenda enacted. Remember, Obama, with both the house and senate controlled by his party, had a monumental job of getting Obamacare passed and finally resorted to bribery of two senators. One became the infamous Louisiana Purchase in just hours. So his confrontational, indeed so far careless approach to things works against that being successful, just as it did for Obama. Remember, Obama called Republicans together in his office and simply blew them off with the two word statement, “We won.”
Running a business and running the country are two different things. From his headquarters as Trump the businessman he can virtually dictate. But as president he cannot do that.
So I worry and I hope for the best. And I’m not so willing to put my bet on Trump. I’m not very happy about the whole field of contenders either.
01
The one thing I didn’t say is that the Democrats have their network in place ready to steal the election if needed. This is well documented but it apparently does me little good to point people to Judicial Watch where all the evidence is collected together and could make a workable court case if they could get a federal judge to look at it at the right time.
00
Did you see yesterday that Trump has enlisted Sarah Palin in his campaign. Shrewd man! She’ll bring in the voters he couldn’t get by himself from among the religious right. Or so he must think.
I gave up on Palin myself. She talks too much and says too little while doing it. That’s a real turnoff for me.
10
Roy,
While ‘Running a business and running the country are two different things’, you can’t run dozens of businesses as a dictator, you can only do this by surrounding yourself with smart people with varying points of view, provide high level guidance and delegate. While the buck stops at the top, a good leader never lets it get that far. These are basic leadership skills that wannabe Emperor Obama has never mastered, nor is it an expertise common among most politicians, yet it’s a trait that’s required to be an effective leader.
If Trump becomes President, he will have to disconnect from his business empire. It seems that he has already done this as Trump Organization, LLC rolls on while he’s doing nothing by campaigning. If his businesses relied on his dictatorship, he wouldn’t be able to run for President.
I’m never satisfied with the ballot choices I’m presented with and its always the case of choosing the lesser evil. Perhaps its because I’m neither an emotion driven right brain thinker (partisan Democrat) or a logic driven left brain thinker (partisan Republican), but use both halves of my brain to think (Independent).
10
I think you missed my point slightly, probably my poor choice of words.
Trump can and no doubt does set the direction for the companies he runs and then he depends on others to carry out those directions. He doesn’t have to convince anyone to go along in order to get things done the way he wants. He certainly needs to surround himself with capable people who will carry out his wishes. And I expect he listens to their advice — I doubt that he has any yes-men working for him as Obama does.
But as president he can’t run the country that same way, at least not if he follows the constitution and his oath of office. He has to take care that the laws be faithfully executed as they’re written and as the courts may interpret them (don’t remember the exact words off the top of my head). So if he has a legislative agenda (and I expect he will), he needs to get congress to go along with him. He cannot simply give direction to cabinet heads of any kind he wants as Obama has done for so long and he certainly can’t create new positions and hand them responsibilities like Obama either.
That’s all I meant by “dictate”.
As far as ballot choices go, it’s been a matter of choosing the lesser evil for me too and for a long time. I no longer remember when I found any party coming close to representing what I think should be the direction of my country. Republicans once had a better sense of who and what they are but Ronald Reagan’s last day in office saw the last of that go down the drain. And Reagan was not the perfect president either.
He hasn’t even mastered basic interpersonal working relationship skills. He’s never had an actual job responsibility in his life. A community organizer is just a provocateur, someone who stirs up people to cause trouble for someone else. It may be a useful skill to some people but it’s nothing compared to a fully mature man.
Obama was a bad mistake and I think there’s someone behind him who maneuvered him into position to get elected but I don’t know who. I could be wrong about that… …but that’s the appearance of it. Could h really have set himself up to be elected just when he was? He’s very smart and cunning but a long range planner? I don’t see it.
00
From reading your comments I can see that you’re an independent thinker who isn’t going to be led around by anyone or any fad. You and I are alike in that respect.
00
Roy
“someone behind him who maneuvered him into position to get elected but I don’t know who”
While there may well be a few holes in this “investigative journalism“, it is at the very least plausible and and quite frightening.
There was an American academic working in Moscow in 1996 when the US and Russia had decide to co-operate on the race to space. After his year long assignment his Russian hosts threw a farewell party for him. The vodka flowed freely, and the topic turned to politics. One of his colleagues then explained to him that America would soon have a black president, who was being groomed for the task at that very moment. It was not a prediction, but a revelation of a rumour circulating in Moscow. The colleague went on to explain that the individual was from Kenya and his name was Sotoro or something.
00
Perhaps.
I noticed in the 2016 debate he’s tightened-up quite a bit. His grasp of business economics and the consequences of the devaluation of the Chinese currency on US jobs and balance of payments left the MSM munchkins openly admitting their lack of understanding. His native understanding of the issues was thankfully bereft of the choking veneer of intra-beltway politics.
I suspect underestimating him as a clown or buffoon says somewhat more about the person who says it. That he is not the polished political sycophant is a given. One only has to contrast Trump-style with the silky oration of that thespian promising ‘change’ and less Washington government, that UN ideologue person they currently call POTUS.
240
What you see with Trump and what you might just be lucky enough to get with Trump.
Brietbart; Silicon Valley Elites Speak Highly of Donald Trump, But Only In Private
50
Starting with the cap & trade bill death in 2009, global warming has become and more and more partisan debate. It exactly overlays with big, central government vs. small, local government debate. With the Tea Party movement it became deadlocked.
Trump stands for Trump. But with Ted Cruz running a committee the big job losses in coal states, lots of politicians are finding their voice. Having some balance in (non-mainstream) media helps.
251
I watched some of the Democratic debate last night and they all parrot the rhetoric coming from the IPCC and the self serving consensus it fabricated as the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science. If the science gets fixed before the next election and the corrupt politics driving the lie is exposed, there’s no way a sane electorate would elect or re-elect anyone from any party who embraces the lie. Of course, the American electorate is far from sane as evidenced by the many people who support Sanders.
342
Or who REelected Obama, My jaw just dropped when that happened
340
Being a fool once I could understand from the US, especially him being the first black president. I could see that as being an attractive vote caller.
Re-electing him; I gave up on the US and it’s people ever being leaders of the world again.
Either the voting system needs an overhaul, or there is something seriously wrong with education.
340
It’s not the voting system so much as the abuse of the voting system and the reticence to prosecute vote/voter fraud. Also, in 2012, the Republicans ran a very weak candidate which is why we’re seeing Trump/Cruz/Carson today. The voters already spoke in the ’14 elections and they/we are out for blood, now.
80
I think its simpler than that – I’d wager if people asked senior high school teenagers these simple questions you would have a good feel for whether they actually understand politics:
Q1 – what is the difference between the Labor and Liberal part in OZ ( or Deomcrats and GOP in the USA )?
Q2 – What is Socialism?
Q3 – What is Fascism?
Q4 – Under socialism, what things are not allowed? ( hint – no ownership of private property, no rights as an individiual, unable to own firearms etc )
Q5 – Which country is still technically at war with its communist neighbour?
Q6 – Out of those two countries in Q5 , which country is the better place to live?
Q7 – How many people have escaped to Cuba, from the USA recently?
These are basic questions and the stuff 17 or 18 year olds *must* be able to asnwer if they are not to become cannon fodder….
191
Good comment, Steve. I do take narcissistic pleasure is destroying those infected with the Marxist virus. They target the susceptible youth. After all if you are not a Marxist you are selfish and a fascist.
I always think that David Nolan’s chart (Nolan Chart) is the best way yet to illustrate the real difference between socialism, fascism, totalitarianism and libertarianism. After all it comes down to personal (political) and economic freedom. The latter freedom strongly ties with how much of the product of your own labour is confiscated by force or threat of force by the state. Most of those who consider themselves pro freedom are not so much when the chips are down and their opinion of the role of the state is exposed.
Yes, taxation is a moral thing. The left is correct on that score -but how many challenge the morality of socialism?
81
The Democrat-lapdog US media turned the newspapers, magazines, and TV stations into leftist propaganda machines.
91
It’s unfortunate that the low information voter relies on a MSM that skews far to the left, truth be damned. White guilt may have swung Obama’s nomination and first term, but the MSM got him his second term. If he had to run on the truth, he would have never been re-elected.
181
Electoral fraud. He got more votes in some NE ridings than the total voting age population,
90
we saw the same thing in Canada with the re “election” of Elizabeth May in the riding of Saanich Gulf Islands. The population of Saltspring island went up for a week by over 700% (officially) just so greenies could get her drunken behind back into parliament.
81
Without compulsory voting, you can never be sure what you will get.
53
Ted
Ummm!
From Oz, with compulsory voting, you can never be sure what you get. Particularly with the Senate.
51
Hmm! I wonder just how much the success of Donald Trump might have to do with this. But one way or the other, even if the commitment isn’t exactly strong, it can’t help but be good news for future policy about climate change.
I also wonder when politicians will stop bending in the direction of the strongest wind that blows and develop a backbone we can count on. I suspect there are far too many positions representing political expediency rather than conviction.
231
Roy Hogue,
Never. Politicians must bend in accordance with the political wind.
It’s our job to make the neccessary changes to force the winds of change to blow in the direction of good science and reason. Once those winds gain strength, they’ll have no choice but to go along.
Abe
220
“The People” don’t want to have to worry about it. The thinkers know they have a poor grasp of many of the issues, and prefer that somebody else do the leading, providing the leaders are doing a reasonable job. The rest that tag along follow the bloke they think is in front. They are not all fools, but they depend on leadership.
In Australia over the last 30 years or more conservative politicians have declined to demonstrate leadership, probably as far as I can see because they fear that another conservative will stab them in the back. The bullies in the Hawke government would not have lasted five minutes if a conservative had got down in the gutter with them and slogged it out on their own terms. But that wasn’t nice, and any conservative who tried was quickly censured by his mates.
A real leader doesn’t bend with the wind. He makes the wind.
181
Marquis of Queensbury rules do not apply to street fighters when they get down into the gutters.
50
“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think”
– Adolf Hitler.
91
In our Republic we elect representatives and senators who are expected to do their job according to the best interest of their constituents, not simply follow the path of least resistance. We have a Republic with the express intent that while we can change our representatives and senators periodically, they should not be subject too quickly to the whims and especially the anger of the electorate. That system has of course broken down. But the intent is still for them to not buy into anything without checking it out for themselves. We were never intended to have a government that had to bend with every wind that blows.
The most misunderstood thing about America is to call it a democracy as so many do. It’s not and was never intended to be.
121
There is no collage degree required to become a politician. It’s unfair to expect anything from them that you wouldn’t expect from a surfy-bum.
60
posie arrangement degree? at which college?
10
Wasn’t there that Abbott, fellow?
190
I will not stand for socialism masquerading as environmentalism – Prime Minister Tony Abbott
231
That comment would not be allowed by ABC moderators.
131
Politics As Usual – Unusual Opportunity
It appears from this observation that it’s more of a political position than a reality check on the facts. By bringing the Climate Change ™ debacle into the forefront of the political debate leading up to the 2016 elections, the MSM will have no choice but to air both sides of the issue. This will give skeptics the opportunity to be heard. Prepare yourselves well for the comming storm. 😉
Abe
271
“There are times in a politician’s life when he is obliged to take the wrong decision. Wrong economically, wrong industrially, wrong by any standards – except one. It is a curious fact that something which is wrong from every other point of view can be right politically. And something which is right politically does not simply mean that it is the way to get the votes – which it is – but also if a policy gets the votes then it can be argued that that policy is what the people want. And, in a democracy, how can a thing be wrong if it is what the people will vote for?”
Jim Hacker, fictional Minister for Administrative Services in the TV program Yes, Minister
120
Rod
Have you ever listened to Peter Sellars and Co on “How to win an election or not lose by very much”?
Which predates Yes Minister I think.
10
Yes, this is precisely the problem. Science was subverted by politics and the first casualty is objectivity. Since there’s absolutely no common ground between the alarmists and the skeptics, only one side can be correct. It just happens that the Democrats chose wrong for emotional reasons while the Republican’s chose correctly for economic reasons. It’s just happenstance that the Republicans are aligned with reality on this, but not all, issues. This is a pattern we see in American politics that transcends climate science and is the root cause for how and why politics distorts the truth.
161
Yes Abe, if you have one of your primary candidates who is well informed lining up against the IPCC view then there is no choice, the American people finally get to hear the other side of the debate that has carefully been kept from them by a green compliant media. By god I hope they hear about how so-called action acts to impoverish poor people around the world and keep them that way.
131
I’m not convinced the media will comply with your expectations. I would more expect them to denigrate and obfuscate as much as possible. They are fully convinced they are right, I just can’t believe they’ll suddenly start to support the conservative “no catastrophe” side of the debate.
91
just like the Canadian media, which led a campaign of pure hate against our previous PM and look what we ended up with: a self absorbed brat interested only in taking selfies.
90
That observation is either delusional or written from a perspective so far removed from the situation that all details are lost. That unified Republican opposition the WSJ author speaks of gave Obama whatever he wanted in omnibus spending bills (see: John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell).
20
I don’t think it is the “party” as much as the candidates that’ve changed. McCain, Romney and especially Graham accepted the existence of global warming. On the other hand, Cruz tried to made a firm statement against the meme in the first debate but was cut off by the moderators. Rubio has always contended that if warming was occurring, he did not believe it to be catastrophic. In addition Cruz has hosted a series of devastating hearings in congress that made EPA and NGO officials look very foolish.
250
The people are much more skeptical despite (or because of ?) the MSMs best efforts leading up to Paris, therefore the politicians need to ameliorate their positions.
But I don’t trust the Jebs and Rubios on this issue. We must vet these people carefully. We must only give support to those with some real understanding of the science, such as Cruz and Carson, or those that intuitively know a scam when they see one, such as Trump.
161
Rubio appears to me to be a weather vane on CAGW. When Ted Cruz invited Judith Curry, Will Happer, John Christy and Mark Steyn to the US Senate to give testimony as to the sceptical viewpoint in Dec 2015, Rubio as the other key Republican member of the committee didn’t even bother to turn up, as he was apparently out campaigning. This allowed the Democrat committee members to dominate the questioning and divert all attention to their stooge witness.
By contrast Cruz appears to be a rock solid sceptic.
311
There has been 8 years of “no change” in the real world and 8 years of increasing shrillness about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) from the POTUS and fellow travelers.
Skeptics of catastrophism have appeared in front of congressional hearings.
Sure, there is politics, but Rubio and others have learned much in 8 years and have a right to change. The facts justify it.
Things such as carbon credits and cap & trade haven’t worked well – think money pits. Carbon capture and sequestration is still a dream. Electric cars are unwanted by almost all drivers. Massive sums have been wasted on wind and solar companies. Oil, gas, and food grains are at record levels with low prices. Storms and wild fires are not worse. Arctic Ocean ice is still there in summer. Australia and Texas have rain. I’ve missed a few.
172
Oh dozens and dozens, I think there’s a whole website devoted to the claims of global warmists at
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
What gets me is the lack of attention to scale, the “extra” energy (well it’s not extra, just more retained) amounts to just 0.6W per square meter, which is a christmas fairy light in a column of air of 1 x 1 x m10000 m (10,000 Cu M) an increase of just 0.15% over the normal flux and the warmists say that the earth can’t dissipate this extra 0.15% !
Do this experiment spread out some fairy lights over a field, just 1 for each square meter, and see if you can measure the temperature difference in a weather balloon 10 km above the field.
Then these fairy lights are expected to have all of the effects listed on the web link I posted, not just one but all ? Where is the energy supposed to come from to do all of this.
The worst outcome of CO2 enrichment is that because it is plant food, since 1990 I get to mow the lawn 20% more… which I’m not so keen on, but otherwise is very good for humanity.
182
And the weeds seem to grow 40% faster too.
140
You bet, along with my love/hate relationship with glyphosate the selective woody stemmed weed food, which in this part of the world encourages the growth of mostly prickles of various species.
However the CO2 increase is nice for the garden
21
Yep!
http://www.beefcentral.com/news/tough-tree-laws-not-backed-by-evidence-senior-ecologist/
And link
10
By co-incidence today WUWT carries an essay which reveals (to those who did not already know) the extent to which the whole CAGW narrative was driven by US politics.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/17/who-unleashed-climatism/
The genius of Maurice Strong was to establish the meme as an “issue” in the USA. Had this not succeeded the matter would have died in the late 80’s. He managed to play the vested interests of greedy “capitalists” and politicians of the western world and the neo-Marxist environmentalists NGOs
into a rainbow coalition which could suppress any loan rationalist who disputed their faux theology.
Their error was that the millennial crisis of “peak oil” never occurred primarily due to capacity of the market economy to innovate.
The article is worth reading for the paragraph on Tuvalu.
It population (10.8K) is 5% of my local (London) borough. Its GDP ($38m) is 10% if the annual revenue of Greenpeace.
They have the same status in UN as the USA (and for that matter Oz & NZ). That is the source of the corruption that infects the politics of the UN and the reason the whole charade is about to implode as those (though pitifully small)
numbers of people with the power to decide, awake to the deception that has been played upon them.
The moment the players realise the game is up the stampede for the exits will be gruesome.
In the words of George Smiley “when a cover runs, it runs like an old sock”.
It is my one ambition to live into the Anus Mirabilis when the a**holes driving this obscenity are cast into the abyss.
The best advice;
“crush you enemies, see then driven before you, hear the lamentation of their women”
(Conan the Barbarian)
151
What no one saw coming was fracking. It has made the US a nett oil exporter and forced the sudden halving of energy prices. Even Obama’s stopping of the pipeline has not slowed the momentum.
So without any warming, this admitted by the IPCC and thirty years of business as usual and no country actually drowned and the oceans not the slightest big acidic anywhere and the Polar bears fine, hurricanes even rarer, the whole scare has worn out. As I wrote, it may have been the Last Tango in Paris.
Whether Donald Trump’s refusal to try to please the left media is the catalyst or not, Global Warming was always more politics than fact. You can tell that because you know someone’s belief in the ‘science’ of man made Global Warming entirely from their voting intentions. The US is very tired of wimps and Hilary is tarnished goods. Her shocking performance as 67th Secretary of State to golf playing Obama has finished her career. She is now carrying more baggage than an Arab prince’s family.
242
Round and round we go.
20
I’m in the process of reading WG2-AR5 (Working Group 2) wbich is all about, supposedly, the economic impacts of Klimate Change..
it’s an eye opener. They, the impacts, can be summed up in two words:
Not Much.
I’m getting the distinct impression we’ve all ben had. Hugely.
51
“If global temperatures were to resume warming despite a reduction in solar activity and/or a negative PDO then the alarmist position might be vindicated. The alarmist camp is predicting such a resumption of warming. The Hadley Centre suggested 2010 but others have more recently suggested 2015. If there is no resumption of warming by 2015 then AGW is dead as a theory. It would not count in favour of AGW if any resumed warming were accompanied by increased solar activity or a positive PDO because that would put the solar driver back in
control.”
June 4th 2008
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396&linkbox=true&position=7
192
AGW hangs like a thread in the NH winter of 2015-16, a psychological tipping point is at hand.
172
How would a little beneficial warming vindicate the alarmist position?
61
They could say CO2 is about to ramp up temperatures a bit.
31
2017 is more likely to be the tipping point since 2016 is expected to be a little warmer as a byproduct of the current El Nino, unless the expected warming does not happen, which is a possibility given how the the current El Nino seems to be ending prematurely. Although, I fully expect the alarmists to claim that CO2 emissions caused the current El Nino to fall apart.
132
‘I fully expect the alarmists to claim that CO2 emissions caused the current El Nino to fall apart.’
That would be folly of the first order, but Ted Cruz probably has his answer ready.
Natural variables rule, there are no positive feedbacks within cooee.
61
Of course the alarmists are predicting warming and always have. That is why they call it the ‘pause’.
Things go up and things go down. However they have no explanation for their ‘pause’ except ‘natural variation’ which no one appears to be able to explain from their infallible models.
172
Then if things go down, what will they say? Or has it already happened?
The latest few years are so suspiciously close that it must be a fight to get 0.01C ahead and claim the hottest year ever? How much homogenization has it taken to stop it cooling? If one year is cooler than the previous, is that similar justification to say the world is cooling?
So you get claims like the hottest years are in the last decade, even if this simply means they are all the same. Doesn’t anyone even credit an instrumentation change of 0.5C in the last 100 years? Were global temperature records so good in 1916?
I guess if global temperature went down next, that would be an anomaly or La Nina or a decadic oscillation or a disturbed arctic jet stream or a jet stream returning to normal. If it goes up, that is exactly as predicted, just delayed.
82
Does the BOM get requests to ‘review’ their data, just to get another 0.1C? I think the weighting on Australian data must be very high given its land area dominance of the bottom 1/3 of the globe where only 2% of the world’s people live. Then there is Antarctica at twice the size and the largest share (42%) is claimed by Australia, so two Australias in data. The the vast oceans around Australia. It would not be surprising if Australia was responsible for 25% of world temperatures.
So how much of a tiny change would be needed by the BOM to get another tiny +0.1C from weighting hundreds of readings, perhaps allocating more area to the higher ones so more weighting. It is just where you draw the boundaries around and between the few stations really and there is no great logic behind that. So who would notice or care as they are fantasy numbers anyway, but maybe in years to come, the IPCC will be exposed as asking for the data they want. Has Australia been holding back the cooling?
After all, the IPCC was formed in 1988 by the World Meteorological Society so they could be part of the UN. Was it created in response to Global Warming, or was that the excuse? Who had heard of governments being responsible for Climate before then let alone Climate Change? Did someone make it up? Who had been concerned about drowning Pacific islands or Polar bears or man made extreme weather. It would have been thought ridiculous. There may be another ClimateGate coming, but presumably everyone will have retired by then.
72
Here is what UAH has to say about Australia this century
http://s19.postimg.org/539zid2yb/Australia.jpg
Of course, BOM’s homogenisation routine will do exactly what it designed to be used for, and will show a warming trend.
12
‘Then if things go down, what will they say?’
There has to be a verifiable dip in temperatures which all sides can agree upon. The hiatus is one thing, but global cooling will come as a huge shock to the Klimatariat and their warmist minions in media and politics.
‘…has it already happened?’
We are not quite there yet, but within a couple of years we might expect a paradigm shift in scientific thinking. In the meantime, on the ground another brutal European and American winter should see the death knell of the AGW theory.
‘I guess if global temperature went down next, that would be an anomaly or La Nina or a decadic oscillation or a disturbed arctic jet stream or a jet stream returning to normal. If it goes up, that is exactly as predicted, just delayed.’
Rest assured temperatures are not going up again for at least a couple of decades and the jet stream will remain wayward over the same period. There maybe a La Nina or it could go neutral, its hard to predict this far out, but a severe Nina could tip us over the edge.
62
One of the intriguing curiosities about the whole “climate change” thing, note I did not use the term “CAGW” here, is just what will happen with the processing and modelling of supposed temperature trends when global temperature falls can no longer be denied and the algorithms and models the climatologists use to “adjust” and”homogenise” and “infill” and create phantom stations to achieve the published outputs they desire, run into a scenario of falling temperatures for which they have never been designed or programmed.
[ Yeh! it is well known and has been openly admitted there where there are too few stations to cover a large area or the data is too corrupted, non existent phantom stations with made up data have been created and used in the algorithms that process the official global temperature data to get those algorithms to operate as the climatologists desire them to operate.]
When the recorded temperature data and all its homogenising and etc starts changing from a positive sign, ie; temperature suposedly increasing to a negative sign , ie; temperatures showing a definite falling trend, I suspect that very few of those algorithms and climate modelling programs will be capable of having any accuracy re temperatures at all or worse, will be shown to be incapable of dealing with even a small consistent global decline in temperatures.
That type of modelling / algorithm situation turns up over and over again particularly in the financial field.
A strong trend is recognised and the trend is incorporated into the models which operate extremely well until the trend stops or reverses and it all falls apart, not just falls apart but the whole computerised and modelled mess descends into total chaos.
From; The Economist; and financial modelling just prior to the Global Financial Crash
Of course that situation WOULD NEVER occur with climate modellers and the data adjusters and the algorithms they use to “adjust” global temperatures now would it?
Unlike the big financiers they are far to smart for that aren’t they ? [ sarc/]
Invariably there will be an attempted cover up but by then as we all know full well today, as disillusionment sets in amongst many of the participants in the great game of creating ever increasing temperatures despite what the recorded temperatures might be telling a tale of, there will be whistle blowers coming out of the woodwork to tell of the true state of affairs in the climate modelling and temperature adjusting practitioners.
The day might be near at hand where those high riding overweening self important stewards of the global temperature data and its processing will be seen to be nothing more than scientific integrity lacking shonksters who quite deliberately went about altering recorded data to justify their own ideological beliefs in a future global catastrophe from the unproven warming supposedly created by a minor greenhouse gas.
And that sort of comedown and the public contempt that will go with it is something those shonksters will carry with them to the grave and far beyond as an example to the science of the future of what was little more than a gigantic fr**d .
Quite some legacy a lot of the climate and global temperature data adjusters will likely carry with them to the grave isn’t it?
21
ROM,
If indeed there are places with no temperature increase in the last 18 years or so, we have a further problem for new proxy studies. In the calibration step the temperature needs a trend or some character before it can be used to measure a proxy sensitivity. Can’t do it with a flat line, form is y = constant.
This is not the same complication of hide the decline. It is a new emerging one.
Geoff
31
Regarding positive/negative PDO:
You are quoting yourself from 8 years ago. New information is available.
You should drop the PDO thing. You know or should know that the PDO is not a measure of temperature, it is a spatial index. The + and – do not indicate a sea surface temperature or any temperature. Compared to ENSO it is from a relatively small part of the Pacific Ocean. The PDO is an effect of something but I question if you can explain what that something is.
30
‘New information is available.’
Middleton had a guest post at Watts the other day, comments are instructive.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/14/has-the-pdo-flipped/
21
And this from H. Luedecke and C.O.Weiss
‘We find that 2 cycles of periods 200+ years and ~65 years determine practically completely the climate changes. All other cycles are weaker and non-periodic processes play no significant role.
‘The ~65 year cycle is the well-known, much studied, and well understood “Atlantic/Pacific oscillation” ( AMO/PDO ). It can be traced back for 1400 years. The AMO/PDO has no external forcing it is “intrinsic dynamics”, an “oscillator”.
51
If a 60 year climate cycle was discovered on Jupiter, does that mean the PDO is more than ‘intrinsic dynamics’ or a mere ‘oscillator’?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6985/full/nature02470.html
01
‘… there are close correlations between the PDO and the decades-long variations in the LOD, variations in the rate of the westward drift of the geomagnetic eccentric dipole, and variations in some key climate parameters such as anomalies in the type of the
atmospheric circulation, the hemisphere-averaged air temperature, the increments of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet masses.
‘These results imply that the climate can be partially driven by mechanical forces such as gravitational and magnetic torques, not just radiative forces as supposed by the IPCC.’
Scafetta 2010
11
I only wish that the skeptical witnesses had a chance to cross examine the stooge witness. Instead, the only questions he got were softballs from the Democrats on the committee where he had the opportunity to misinform by argument to a corrupt authority.
92
Ted Cruz is a front runner and has no faith in AGW.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_xVWfGjk0o
131
This is a very heartening development. After 18 years of nothing warming anywhere, people are starting to notice that there is no crisis despite being continually told that there is. Donald Trump might have given it a push-along, but even if the commitment of all candidates is not strong, it will help and push back the frontier of CAGW.
Political expediency may not be all that bad under the circumstances.
132
The mitigation of so called CAGW is the greatest and most expensive con of all time.
Even the NY Times admits that China has been emitting 1 billion tonnes more than previously disclosed.
Hansen is correct the COP 21 idiocy is BS.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/asia/china-burns-much-more-coal-than-reported-complicating-climate-talks.html?_r=0
132
This is such an encouraging article.
After years and years of patient campaigning, with no apparent progress, it seems at last that the cracks in AGW are starting to appear (at least in the USA). If the US leads who else will follow.
The US Presidential election could be interesting, especially if Climate Change becomes a defining issue between the Democrats and the republicans.
101
Peter C:
The Chinese, Japanese, Sth. Koreans, Indians, Indonesians, Vietnamese, South Africans are all expanding their coal fired stations, as are a lot of other countries.
The Spanish electricity controlling entity will not give any more subsidies for wind turbines or solar power. They have to take the current wholesale price. Very few will remain in a few years.
The UK government has ended subsidies for on-shore turbines. They have ruled out the Swansea tidal power scheme. It is true they still look to off-shore wind turbines and an incredibly expensive nuclear plant (if it ever gets built).
The German government has cut subsidies for new wind farms.
The Dutch have reduced subsidies for wind turbines (effectively stopping them).
The Danes are limiting the number of wind farms seeking building permission – currently zero.
The Italians, Greeks and Portuguese can’t afford subsidies for wind farms anymore.
The Poles and the Czechs are moving to stop electricity surges from german wind turbines disrupting their grids (i.e. forcing the germans to ‘sell’ the excess at a loss. Already there are times when they have to pay users to take it. That means a loss to the wind farmers, who are better off if they can shut down and be paid for the electricity they didn’t make. That is forcing up retail electricity prices so how long before the politicians realise it is unpopular?
What makes you think that the tide hasn’t already turned?
71
.
The wind of change starts with the public, and the politicians merely follow, as they often do. Not sure about the US, but in the UK the media blog comments for the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Telegraph have gone from luke warm to aggressively anti. If you read the comments, it is clear that public have realised that:
a. the climate is not following the predictions.
b. the debate is primarily partisan political.
c. they are being fleeced through increased taxes and costs.
The politicians on the right can see the frustration and anger of their voters, and are adjusting their views accordingly.
R
212
Most politicians have a very shallow understanding of significant issues. Remember the rubbish told by Ms. Gillard and Ms. Wong about carbon pollution. On the other hand Ted Cruz is very well informed on the subject and can debate well: his questioning of the Sierra Club President was a classic. Donald isn’t a politician, but seems to have the media guessing and some rapport with the general public; let’s see how they go in the primaries.
221
Speaking of the rubbish spoken by the unlamented Ms Gillard, who can forget her classic assification speech?
71
She epitomised ‘assification’, huge cracks were appearing in her public façade by then .
21
Off topic, but currently it’s 99% diesel and 1% solar generation on King island.
190
It’s a welcome change but don’t forget Americans are fickle people – they will turn on a dime and frequently, and often for the wrong reasons. People also have very short memories so they could change back. Let’s hope this one sticks. One thing they are now realizing is that the experiment with socialism has failed miserably. Too bad we in Australia haven’t learned that lesson yet.
151
‘After months of predicting a comeback for their preferred candidates, Republican establishment leaders now concede the first two contests of the presidential nominating race, in Iowa and New Hampshire early next month, are Donald Trump’s and Ted Cruz’s to lose.
‘That leaves many Republican traditionalists, who fear either frontrunning candidate would be a disaster in the November general election, pinning their White House hopes on a feat no Republican has pulled off in modern political history: securing the nomination without winning at least one of the first two states on the calendar.’
Oz/AP
100
“If global temperatures were to resume warming” would not change the fact that events already observed have shown that CO2 is not a primary driver of whatever warming has occurred.
132
Yes; the “underlying trend” is slow and beneficial recovery from the bottom decades of the LIA, late 19th C.
22
time to take some “gardening leave”:
18 Jan: ReutersCarbonPulse: Stian Reklev: Exchange operator ICE parts ways with China MD
Jeff Huang, Managing Director for greater China for Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), has parted ways with the company, sources told Carbon Pulse.
Huang, formerly with the Chicago Climate Exchange, headed US-headquartered ICE’s operations in China, overseeing the company’s activities in commodity and energy markets including carbon allowances.
He also led the bourse’s efforts to launch products associated with emerging carbon markets in Asia.
However, China and South Korea both restrict trading of CO2 allowances to government-appointed exchanges, making it difficult for ICE to make much headway in those markets.
Over the past couple of years, Huang has been a vocal supporter of designing China’s national ETS in a fashion that makes it attractive to financial institutions and other investors.
He is currently on gardening leave.
http://carbon-pulse.com/14318/
18 Jan: ReutersCarbonPulse: Mike Szabo: Two veteran London-based carbon traders on the move
Mark Owen-Lloyd has left Curzon Securities to focus on his own firm – Owen-Lloyd Futures – which he is trading out of the London offices of brokers Marex Spectron.
He said he is trading his own book and looking mainly at Brent crude and FTSE futures for the moment, but he plans to add EU carbon back to his portfolio soon.
Owen-Lloyd, who has previously worked for utility E.ON and CF Partners, added that he is still doing some work for Curzon, as well as some carbon-related consulting on the side.
Meanwhile, Benedikt von Butler left Swiss-based trading house Mercuria late last year and is currently on gardening leave, pondering his next move, he told Carbon Pulse.
Von Butler, who has previously worked for Citigroup and brokers CantorCO2e and Evolution Markets, and had handled trading and structuring in carbon and biomass markets from Mercuria’s London offices before he parted ways with the firm…
http://carbon-pulse.com/14322/
50
18 Jan: ReutersCarbonPulse: Ben Garside: HFC-23 CDM projects may not be that bad after all, study suggests
Controversial HFC-23 CDM projects might have maintained their environmental integrity on average because regulators under-credited some installations almost as much as they over-credited others, a study found.
The paper, authored by US-based think-tank Resources for the Future (RFF) and published on Friday, may help to salvage the reputation of the much-maligned HFC-23 CDM projects and their issued credits.
These CERs were banned from being used in a number of emissions trading schemes, for example the EU’s and New Zealand’s, due to claims that some factories had ramped up production of the gas solely to generate more credits, thereby pocketing more profits.
RFF examined the relationship the emissions reduced at 12 HFC-23 projects in China and Mexico between 2006 and 2013 and the amount of credits subsequently issued by the UN…
The analysis examined projects that have earned credits under the third, fourth and fifth versions of the CDM’s HFC-23 methodology, installations that account for the vast majority of issued units.
Regulators have since come up with a sixth version that applies even stricter crediting measures, though it is unlikely to significantly affect CER supply due to the low price of the credits – a trend that has made ongoing participation in the UN scheme financially unviable for many projects…
http://carbon-pulse.com/14329/
30
I have recently had correspondence with a NASA scientist I know about David Evans’ work. As I know him reasonably well at a personal, not professional, level and respect(ed) him as a person I thought that he would at least make some professional comment, whether supportive or not, about the theory put forward by David re possible transfer of trapped heat from CO2 to water vapour and thus to space.
I was amazed and disappointed by his vitriolic response and his criticism of David as a person, not of his theory, which I suspect he did not even glance at. Clearly, he sees his future tied to the Obama Government funding with bands of iron and would not even wish to be contaminated by looking at anything remotely connected to the “big oil deniers”, to use his words.
It has struck me, after reading this post of Jo’s, and seeing the information elsewhere in the media, that if the Republicans get the Presidency (especially if it is Cruz or the guy with the funny hair) he (the NASA scientist) may have to find quickly something else to do his research on or his funding might come to an abrupt end.
What delicious irony, if all these consensus scientists have to suddenly realise, officially, that the models are wrong and perhaps CO2 is a world benefactor after all. Can’t wait!
282
Meanwhile this article and graphs from the NY Times tells the full story about co2 emissions since 1990.
China’s emissions will be soaring until at least 2030 and India is only starting its fossil fuel program, although they intend to double coal consumption by 2020.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/12/world/asia/climate-goals-pledged-by-us-and-china-2.html?_r=0
101
Now I am not a psychologist in any way possible.
But in this whole 30 year long saga of the so called Climate Change Catastrophe, very little if any recognition is ever given to the way in which attitudes and the way previously supposed overwhelming factors, climate change ideology in this case are viewed.
The way in which the changes in attitudes to those various factors both good and bad, lets say “catastrophic climate change” again as an example, that the populace adopts is very rarely ever mentioned and I suspect rarely if ever studied or taken into account by those promoting some long term and still unproven but a rigidly inflexible proposition.
Most particularly the change in generational outlooks over the time, generational change being probably around 25 years, is never taken into account by the now rapidly aging promoters of what was for them a new ideology and a new and major factor in their [ financially beneficial driven ] opinion, that was going to seriously affect and inflict the human race far into the future.
I have posted on this previously here .
We of the older generation nearly always make the near fatal mistake of thinking and believing that our kids, the next generation will continue on with the societal structures, the clubs, the organisations and so much more our generation created.
We think, we believe, we hope that our kids, the next generation will pick up our social and societal creations where and when we leave the scene and they will continue those societal creations of our generation on as before.
They won’t!
They don’t
They are just like we were.
They will be out there creating and building their own generation’s societal organisations and structures and those structures will likely be very different in many ways that that which our generation created.
And they in turn, like us, will also wonder why what the societal organisations and structures they built and put so much effort into will be disregarded or discarded by the generation that follows theirs.
Then we have the extraordinary adaptability of the “Homo sapiens” species, humanity as we know it.
We adapt to most physical environments.
We can and do adapt to most mentally and intellectually challenging environments as well with equal ease.
The CAGW meme fits into the second mentality and intellectually challenging environments.
The Catastrophic AGW ideology is now some three decades old.
It caught and deeply influenced the older generations of some three decades ago who were just reaching breeding age.
The kids from that older generation have grown up with that CAGW meme being thrust at them from every angle for over two decades now.
Those kids now in their late teens or 20’s, have just adapted to the CAGW meme as a part and parcel of living in these times so why should they be any more concerned now with Catastrophic Climate Change, a catastrophe that is forever, like Fusion power, a couple of decades into the future and has been for over a third of a century past, than they should be concerned over say a Coronal Mass Ejection from the sun that would wipe out large parts of the global electrical power grid and consequently the communication systems, food and water supply systems, health systems and so much else when a power grid is disrupted or destroyed.
Or the uncontrolled influx of a vast mass of desperate people along with a scattering of some ideologically programmed mass killers of a quite alien and life destroying culture into their homeland.
Psychologically, the CAGW meme has run its course as the newest generations who have grown up with it being hammered into them nearly every day, just accept that it is just another of the innumerable items, whether it exists or not, that make up life’s rich tapestry that all the benefits and risks that living a life entails.
The politicians, those who are not of the arrogant, insular and self aggrandising and self satisfied elite, are acutely aware of the public pulse and no doubt in many quarters are quietly being told to back off this crazy CAGW meme as it no longer resonates with the public at large.
And in fact the public are becoming sick of it being rammed down their throats by all those, who the public are increasingly aware, will make a lot more money through further scams if they can keep the CAGW fear wagon rolling on for some time yet.
The CAGW / climate change meme is dead.
Generational change and all that entails psychologically has seen to that
Our only problem is that it will stink to hell for a long time yet and will only be gone for good when the last believer is interred and his / her casket is lowered into the grave.
183
CAGW is like a zombie…you have to keep fighting it back with science
The 20 somethings that have been surrounded with CAGW nonsense will listen, as long as you can provide science to back it up. This is why the CAGW alarmists try to saturate the social media with alarmism…
53
Original Steve
I beg to differ. Your final statement blows your first two statements out of the water and gets at the heart of the problem. The global warming scam was not created by scientific argument and it will not be demolished by scientific argument alone. It is all about PR and headline-grabbing, the more outrageous the better. Think James Hansen at the congressional hearing back in 1988 or whenever, and his outrageous claims about a future temperature increase.
You have to grab peoples’ attention to have any hope of shifting their opinion and the public does not respond well to scientific talk of lapse rates and forcings and error bars. In fact they turn off in droves when you start talking like that. The young ones are worse.
You need to remember that many high school leavers in the last few years have done stuff-all science or maths. You could tell them that 3+3=11 and half of them wouldn’t bat an eyelid. Blank looks is all you will get from them if you spout anything remotely scientific in their direction – as they go back to burying their faces in their mobiles. Anything you tell them will have to be via their mobiles to have any chance of sinking in.
You dream if you think you can win them over with anything other than a blitz of counter-headlines. The scam can only be unmade in the same way it was made.
How to get alternative headlines in front of the public is the big question.
72
Perhaps I should have siad fighting it science and a media blitz?
I have met some 20 somethings who are quite switched on, and seem to be inherently cynical about the world.
One of the downsides of the internet connected world is that there is a lot more info now available than ever before…and why they want to “filter” the truth so people cant get to it……are we Australia or China?
Anyway, I think the younger mob are more cynical than people give them credit for. Yes i think there are un-thinking who will be first to volunteer when the next deliberately-created world war comes along, and yes the MSM does a very good job in making the morally & ethically most abhorrent of things look sanitized.
I think the younger generation arent fools as they now have access to info – all the older generatuion had was being punded on by their parents “for the Empire” and State newsreels glorifying war.
[snip].
Now anyone who has studied “1984” or “Brave New world” ( ironically written by NWO insiders ) you will be familiar with the propaganda techniques used.
Social media is full of kardashian-style info – I have yet to see much of use so far. As such, the dim witted will always be swayed if they are foolish enough to believe what they read in the world of social media, the smarter ones are switched on enough to know better. Caveat Emptor.
I always find in interesting how the old maxim of “men lose their heads in a crowd and regain their senses one by one” applies – when you talk to a 20 something I always ask what they think about CAGW – the reply is often along the lines of “i kind of have to agree with the crowd in public, but have serious doubts privately”
There is hope, it will take soem time and effort constanly providing solid science but the message will sink in. The Lefties will retreating screaming their usual seagull like comments, but we can ignore them.
[Editorial discretion has been applied.] AZ
11
OS
I think you and I are on the same page, but I am vastly more cynical and pessimistic. I have worked with young people (16 to 22yo mainly) for 30 years and I despair at what I have seen in recent times.
I hear these young adults parroting global warming “facts” until my ears bleed. They have been – and continue to be – so thoroughly indoctrinated from kindergarten onwards in the myths of global warming that they cannot see the fallacy of what they have been taught. To them every weather event they witness is further evidence of global warming happening right now. It is not some nebulous event over the horizon as nuclear annihilation was to our generation, but a current fact as they see it. In their ignorance of climatic and weather history they fall easy prey to the official line that such and such an event has never been recorded before in the annals of human history.
Whilst I too can point to individual cases of climate sanity amongst the younger group, it is the mob that rules and the mob that votes in governments. The most worrying aspect is that the universities are churning out ranks of global warmists to propagandise yet more generations in every school for years to come.
I don’t believe that sceptics will gain the upper hand in the education system or the media any time soon. Our chances of presenting alternate facts and headlines to any generation is limited until nature intervenes on our behalf in a conclusive way.
As you say, we regain our senses one by one, and I believe our greatest hope is that reality will overtake their beliefs – likely one by one – until a tipping-point of reason is reached, when AGW will crumble spectacularly like the old Soviet Union did. I wish I could crank up the speed of change of that reality. Dare I say it – bring on the next mini ice age. Harsh reality cures many fantasies. Distasteful as it may be, it may well take an ice age to reimpose reality within our educational institutions and governments, and convince all but the hard core warmists in the community that climate change is normal and doesn’t need fixing.
21
Get at the 20 somethings, produce a flashy Utube cartoon, widely advertise it across social media and then make them pay $0.99 to view it.
21
Beowulf, just out of interest, what is the education level of the young adults of which you speak?
00
OriginalSteve
None of them tertiary-trained at that point. Mostly HSC graduates, which these days is meaningless in itself.
I had an assistant who did data entry for me one day per week, a recent HSC “graduate”. It transpired that he had done no maths, science or English since his earlier high school years, none of those subjects being compulsory any longer for the HSC. I can’t remember the official titles of the subjects he did for his HSC, but they boiled down to cooking and soccer-ball-kicking. He was quite a bright, capable kid, but lacking in education. At 19 he had no opinions beyond soccer, parties and girls.
An extreme example: two girls I knew, now in their late 20s,came from a totally hippie family. They had been steeped in green swill from birth. All of the family members used to chain themselves to coal trains or block coal ships in Newcastle harbour on occasion. Their kind is beyond all help.
I’ve dealt with others from GPS schools (elite private schools) who couldn’t write an intelligible sentence with a gun to their heads. Spelling was non-existent; grammar worse. I was appalled when I attempted to read some of their work – ‘attempted’ being the operative word. I was amazed that they could get through the HSC as functional illiterates. I expect their understanding of science was equally limited. They believed whatever AGW nonsense was directed at them often enough to take root in their skulls.
Individual academic levels varied widely from elite to fairly abysmal. Some did go on to further studies in vet science, engineering and law for instance, so they weren’t all dummies by any means.
Intellectual ability seems not to have a lot of bearing on AGW opinions I find. I suspect the philosophy they pick up at home might have more of an initial impact on the attitudes of the young, but that can be overridden by peer attitudes, the media and school bombardment. You’re up against a triple-whammy.
I’m not suggesting that the bulk of the younger generation will not ultimately be susceptible to facts, but for now you’ve got an uphill battle to plant those facts where they can effectively take root.
Obviously, the older they get and the longer their perspective becomes, the easier it will be to convince them of the deception to which they have been subjected as teens. Having said that though, I know plenty of adults – who theoretically should know better – who are rabid global warmists.
Cheers BW
21
Hillary Clinton Points To Snow In January As Proof Of Climate Change
“Hillary Clinton mustered her best Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.) impression during a grassroots event in Nevada on Wednesday afternoon when she pointed to snowfall in Nevada during the month of January as proof climate change is real.
She conflated the weather with climate change.”
110
Not only that, the area of Nevada around Lake Tahoe always sees snow in January (Incline, Mt Rose, even Reno) as do nearly all the other mountains in the state. Thinking that seeing snow capped mountains in January from anywhere in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico or California is at all unusual, much less the consequence of CAGW, illustrates just how out of touch with reality she is.
112
Amazing that anyone would vote for this pig ignorant fool. Just think that this donkey could be the leader of the free world. Let’s hope that US citizens wake up before they vote.
183
Absolutely right Neville.
41
I, for one, welcome our new alien overlords …
. . .
“Reporter Daymond Steer asked Clinton about the topic in 2007, and revived the issue when she visited the paper’s headquarters for an editorial board meeting. “Yes, I’m going to get to the bottom of it,” she told Steer enthusiastically.
Steer asked Clinton about her husband Bill Clinton‘s comments in 2014 that he “wouldn’t be surprised” if we’ve already been visited by aliens.
“I think we may have been [visited already].
We don’t know for sure,” she responded.”
Hillary Clinton Promises She’ll Investigate Area 51, UFOs
. . .
Forget already that Billary has already had plenty of opportunities already to “get to the bottom of it”.
71
Meanwhile in Australia the left of the Liberal Party are trying to get rid of their opponents:
The Australian
11:06AMJARED OWENS, SARAH MARTIN
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton vows to fight moves to purge conservative voices from the Liberal Party.
60
Are you online at the moment Tonyfromoz?
I’m in a bit of s**t fight and I’m looking for some reliable figures on LCOE of various types of generation.
This is the battleground.
Thanks heaps.
60
Rod, sorry, I’m late getting in here today.
It’s off topic I know, but interesting nonetheless.
I assiduously avoid arguments as soon as anyone mentions LCOE. Think of LCOE in the same manner as you would Climate Models. You can make them to suit the audience, or to suit a point of view. For every LCOE, there are a number of others, and not one of them ever is correct. Look at any recent power plant of any type and it cannot be correlated with any LCOE, no matter how they try to make it look like it is.
There are so many variables that it can never be taken to be accurate in any respect.
Each one consistently attempts to make the point that they are constructed to provide a level playing field with respect to plant construction, and none of the variables ever line up.
1. Coal fired power. – They consistently overstate the original cost of construction. They give it a lifespan of between 30 and I have even seen some as high as 40 years, when coal fired plants consistently can be taken out to 50 years plus. They will quote a Capacity Factor as low as they can get away with, sometimes even using rolling reserve CF as their standard. They sometimes use a decreasing CF, making the models more difficult to use, so they will use a set CF they claim as a standard, when some plants in the early years can run as high as 95%, and at the end of life down to perhaps 80%. They overstate the cost of coal, making it as high as they can conceivably get away with. They use the fallacious CCS, when it will never be implemented on the scale required, let alone any scale in reality. They overstate the maintenance costs.
2. Wind Power – They understate the original construction cost, and then do not take into account the subsidies paid by two levels of Government, virtual gifts that can sometimes halve the construction cost. They overstate the CF, using modelled figures of usually 38%, and sometimes as high as 42%. They then say the plant will keep this CF for the life of the plant, 25 years as the standard when some are barely making it to 15 years, with a constantly decreasing CF. They understate the maintenance costs, sometimes as low as 10% of what they are currently costing for their maintenance. They do not take into account the subsidies paid for every MWH of power being generated, and these are referred to in the US as Production Tax Credits.
3. Solar Power. (both versions PV and CSP) Again, understate the original cost of construction, high CF, staying the same for the life of the plant, again overstated as well. Low maintenance by comparison with what it actually costs. Also have credits paid per MWH delivered.
In all, whatever they can do to make coal fired power look expensive by comparison, they will do, and make the renewables look cheaper by comparison.
LCOE is a modelled construct that is rarely if ever even a close resemblance to what it actually is.
I never argue, because you can’t argue with these people. State any of the above, and risk being flamed. Not worth it.
Tony.
151
Thanks Tony. I apologise for plagiarising pretty heavily, if you wan to take a look.
I had earlier responded with this chart, but it seems to have been rejected by the moderators.
50
I’ll show you something here, using the LCOE data, not for costings but just for the total power generated.
A 600MW Nameplate plant (say 200 towers of 3MW each) at the modelled CF of 38% and the modelled life expectancy they will give it of 25 years.
Total power generated – 49,966,200MWH
Now the actual lifespan is usually closer to 20 years, and even here I’m giving it the best case scenario, and using the average CF, which is closer to 20%, and even that is also best case.
Total power generated – 21,038,400MWH. That’s only 42% of the modelled total using the LCOE data.
So now, to recover ALL their costs, they have a lot less electricity to sell, hence the unit cost per MWH increases steeply.
There is absolutely no way on Earth that a wind plant will generate electricity at it’s modelled 38% for the full modelled 25 years.
For a new build new tech coal fired plant of 2200ME Nameplate, (2 units of 1100MW each) using LCOE data of a lifespan of 35 years at a CF of 80%
Total power generated – 539,985,600MWH
Same plant lasting 50 years at a CF 82.5%, and I’m going low ball here, because for the first few years it will be around 925.%, and will gradually decrease over the years to that figure of close to 82.5%
Total power generated – 795,514,500MWH. That’s around 47% higher than the modelled LCOE data.
That effectively lowers the overall unit cost for the electricity, no matter what the costs may be.
Tony.
121
There is an upside here for coal fired plants.
I imagine that they are modelled to repay all their costs, (with an operating profit margin) over 35 years. After that the plant is paid off and every year that it operates after that is super profit. Eventually increasing maintenance costs will force its closure.
None the less there is an incentive for coal fired electricity plant operators to keep their plants going, especially if they can cash in on very high spot prices when the wind does not blow.
So maybe the coal fired plants will stay in commission for longer than 50 years and the electric power catastrophe will be postponed for few more years or even averted.
60
I have been looking at the King Is. electricty website, KIREIP, recently as it provides a display of the current generation and use. The station has 2 wind turbines, solar panels, diesel generators and batteries. For example, at the moment it is 100% diesel producing about 1600 KW, but for practical purposes solar is insignificant and it needs around a wind speed of 30 kph before the diesels shut down. It appears that the diesels are providing most of the electricity a lot of the time and it would be interesting to see some annual data. As to cost it was heavily subsidised.
40
how nice of the Gulf States to export their hydrocarbons while getting their own energy from solar???
as for her final garbled quote in the article, the need to ***”align the markets” reeks of more fixing the markets. love how she talks of what WE need to do:
18 Jan: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: Shift beyond oil ‘unstoppable’ post Paris, says UN climate
In an interview from Dubai where she is attending a clean energy summit, Christiana Figueres said leaders in the heartlands of hydrocarbons saw a clear business case to invest in cleaner energy.
“They are operating out of self-interest to ensure they keep the hydrocarbon resources they have for export and not waste them internally,” she said.
“They can produce energy much cheaper from the sun and export their hydrocarbons.”…
Loans worth US$46 million for projects in Africa and Caribbean were announced on the sidelines of the event – a drop in the ocean compared to the $53 trillion the International Energy Agency says need to be directed towards wind, solar and other green energy initiatives.
Funding would rapidly increase over the next “several years” said Figueres, suggesting $500 billion a year would be flowing towards clean energy projects by 2020…
After Abu Dhabi Figueres heads to Davos, a Swiss resort that hosts leading lights from business, politics, academia and media for a four-day meeting every year.
From the Alpine snows, she will travel to New York to meet top investors and fund managers and explain why they should care about the UN’s new climate pact.
“There is no sector that is not interested in the impacts of climate – no sector that has not woken up to the fact we have a transformational moment,” she said…
“After Paris we live in world where community of nations has decided what want and need now we need to ***align the markets to make that possible.”
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/18/shift-beyond-oil-unstoppable-post-paris-says-un-climate-chief/
40
btw I meant to write the “loans worth $46 million” in Ed King’s “Shift beyond oil ‘unstoppable’” suggests the clean energy summit has been another CAGW flop.
18 Jan: ClimateChangeNews: Alex Pashley: Climate change at Davos: What you need to know
“After the success of Paris, the question on the mind is what next? For some, it will be carbon pricing. For others it might be standards, or the speed of transition, or what technological costs will be acceptable,” the source said.
“The theme of the Fourth Industrial Revolution obviously has many different components, but some are very congruous with the evolution to a low carbon economy.”
Some 300 open discussions will be held, with about 100 webcast (see below), which is billed as the premier networking event. Closed-door discussions are equally big…
How to shift the trillions of dollars needed into clean energy investment to avoid dangerous levels of global warming is one key point.
Making banks and pension funds declare their exposure to risks posed by a warmer planet is another. Michael Bloomberg was appointed chair of a Financial Stability Board task force at the Paris summit…
Announcements may be few, nor are leaders likely to make firm commitments. But the event offers a candid space to take on the opportunities and challenges of countering climate change…READ ON FOR FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION GRAPH & SOME PROGRAM DETAILS
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/18/davos-climate-change-primer/
40
18 Jan: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: RWE puts £1bn onshore wind investment on hold
UK onshore wind farm projects worth £1bn have now been scrapped or put on hold by RWE Innogy following recent policy changes, the German energy giant has disclosed.
Up to £800m investment in 10 to 12 proposed wind farms in Scotland and Wales is on hold until ministers confirm whether any subsidies will be available to support them, the company said.
Hans Bunting, RWE Innogy chief executive, said it had “stopped all further investment” and completely frozen its development pipeline while it awaited an announcement from the Department of Energy and Climate Change…
The projects on hold are in addition to £250m investment in nine wind farms in England that RWE Innogy announced last year it was cancelling, due to the hostile planning environment and restrictions on subsidies…
He suggested the “industrial logic” behind onshore wind as one of the cheapest forms of renewable power would win through…
On Monday night, ministers vowed to press ahead with plans for the early closure of the RO scheme, reintroducing the proposals into the House of Commons after they were thrown out in the Lords last year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/12105831/RWE-puts-1bn-onshore-wind-investment-on-hold.html
30
What do taxing Uber, FIFA and Muslim donations have in common?
No?
Stuck?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yep, all brain gaseous emissions from the United Nations seeking to raise taxes to further its aims to become a global government:
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/why-the-uns-global-tax-proposal-is-a-dangerous-game-cw/2016/01/18/
No, I couldn’t make this stuff up.
91
Ahh I see someone else’s ABC picked it up as well:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-17/un-eyes-tax-on-football-tickets-uber-to-plug-aid-gap/7093986
I wonder when we will see the likes of Dunlop or Costello (the other one) at The Drum spruiking this as a great idea.
Yeah, always a fab idea having unelected bureaucrats tax citizens of the world… of course they’ll be acocuntable.
Where do I sign up?
30
“And just to make sure we all understand how serious and dangerous it’d be to stick to the traditional model, the UN notes:
‘Last year, a funding shortfall forced UN agencies to cut food rations to 1.6 million Syrians living in refugee camps, a move now seen as having partly triggered the mass exodus of refugees to Europe.’
That’s what you might call the straw grabbing. If it could have, you suspect the UN would’ve put its funding gap right next alongside the actual Syrian War in terms of its influence on the refugee crisis.”
At this point of reading the article, my brain semi-imploded at the stupidity of such a statement…
Ahem…not that long ago, a friend was working for the UN in an asian country off the coast of India.
Apparently when the UN “employees” trash a Toyota Landcruiser ( $100K vehicle ), they are just given a new one. Easy….
Now, considering most of the UN money comes from “donations” from the taxes we pay, one could safely assume that considering the UN effectively cant be held to account by those who fund it ( i.e. us ) then I vote we de-fund the UN completely immediately.
20
Well, their attitudes to Climate Change may have support here, but what about the rest of their nutbaggery (gun control) for anyone not voting on a single issue? I’m not really much impressed with Clinton or Sanders but the Repug candidates so far are just strange. Do they really think Donald Trumps Hair is viable?? 🙂
13
Apologies in advance for wandering( with the pixies) slightly; but I have a query for any US visitors:-
Last year I watched the reporting & excited speculation surrounding Jade Helm & the FEMA Camps/ WalMart “plumbing problems” along with all the convoys of hardware & vehicles & UN Inspectors with wary bemusement.
With B.O. still banging on about AGW being the greatest challenge & various side stories about the prolonged California foodbowl drought; is it possible that the administration is preparing for food shortages & civil unrest & keeping the ever handy universal villain AGW as an excuse for rule by decree?
{ Tin Foil Hat off now )
62
Irrational fears by lefty nutters of righty nutters mounting an armed or other means rebellion against policies imposed by lefty nutters dates back at least as far as Attorney General Janet Reno with the Bill Clinton regime.
BO may or may not be a true believer in AGW but he is a true believer in the left’s ideals, and the advancement of the UN policies and “international law” over national sovereignty anywhere, and the left’s long standing policy that the ends justify any means in advancing their “cause”.
41
Pattoh, there are an awful lot of logical thinkers who would 100% agree with that analysis.
Except its the ever present “terrorism threat” that keeps the developing global police state zombie lurching ever forward.
As Hitler said “if you tell a lie big enough, people will believe it”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
“The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler’s psychological profile:[5][6]
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.[7]
Does any of this sound familiar?
I think the “never let the public cool off” is one of the reasons why the “terrorism threat” is always being plugged, IMHO…
20
Trump jumped in and declared that Gloabl Warming was a hoax.
After the splash it could be seen that he had not sunk in deep water. In fact the water was not even ankle deep and his popularity rose. Now other Republican candidates are trying to catch up and are jumping in too.
I have not yet seen any of the candidates get down to explaining why the AGW is a hoax and why the hoax is so damaging to life in America (and other countries). The one who does that will get my appreciation and may become the next president.
111
TonyfromOz – care to critique?
16 Jan: UK Observer: Henry Zeffman: Tories face fight with Lords over onshore windfarm subsidies
Senior Labour peers confirm party will seek to strike out clause again if government closes Renewable Obligation scheme
The environment secretary insists that the measure will reduce household bills, but critics argue that because onshore wind is the ***cheapest low-carbon electricity, bills will go up unless windfarms are to be replaced by high-carbon electricity such as gas or coal…
The Observer understands that Labour will this week urge the government to produce new plans for carbon capture and storage…
Gordon Edge, director of policy at trade body Renewable UK, said: “It is a mistake to close the Renewables Obligation prematurely, but the government seems determined to press ahead with this policy change regardless. Further evidence is stacking up that onshore wind makes sense for consumers. ***onshore wind is one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity from any source, including fossil fuels, and it ***enjoys massive public support, so it has a big part to play in a competitive, low-carbon market.”…
A spokesperson for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “Our priority is providing secure, clean and affordable energy for hardworking families and businesses. We want to protect bill payers, ensuring technologies stand on their own two feet whilst also meeting our renewable energy commitments.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/16/onshore-windfarm-subsidies-tories-labour-lords-renewable-obligation
the writer is all of 21 years old & already receiving an award, providing fellowships at Observer, New Statesman & Murdoch’s Times:
Aug 2015: Guardian: Henry Zeffman wins £25,000 prize
Henry Zeffman, a 21-year-old PPE student from Oxford University, has won the 2015 Anthony Howard Award for Young Journalists.
The £25,000 prize, sponsored by Haymarket Media Group, was established in memory of writer, editor and broadcaster Anthony Howard, and will see Zeffman undertake three successive fellowships with the titles most closely associated with Howard: the Times, the Observer and New Statesman.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/01/anthony-howard-award-winner-announced
50
pat:
The Renewables Obligation is code for subsidising wind (and solar) by forcing their use in increasing amounts.
IF onshore wind is one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity from any source, including fossil fuels then there is no need to subsidise it, nor to legislate that it must be used. The resellers of electricity would be screaming at the electricity suppliers to use it. Instead it is about 3 times the cost of coal fired, but we all know that those stations emit Evil CARBON which makes unicorns sick.
70
and a critique for this one!
19 Jan: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: Hazelwood owner Engie launches push for 1,000GW of solar
ABU DHABI: French energy giant Engie, the owner of the Hazelwood brown coal power generator in Victoria, has launched a major public-private initiative that aims to ensure that 1,000GW of solar capacity is installed around the world by 2030.
The plan has been dubbed the Terrawatt initiative – the equivalent of one trillion watts of solar electricity, or one million megawatts – and it is the first significant engagement from the private sector to deliver on the ambitious climate target agreed in Paris in December by 195 governments.
The 1,000GW target might be below some of the more optimistic forecasts for 2030, particularly those by Greenpeace and others (and it should be noted that Greenpeace, which predicts up to 1,800GW of solar, has been the most accurate forecaster in the last 10 years)…
It might be dismissed as greenwash by some, and time will tell if it is or not…
What will the likes of Engie and others do with the massive, and massively polluting brown coal generators in Australia’s Latrobe Valley and elsewhere.
The end is inevitable, but when and at what cost remains the question. That is why major utilities have had to split their assets…
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/hazelwood-owner-engie-launches-push-for-1000gw-of-solar-36363
meanwhile,
18 Jan: Bloomberg: Abengoa Bondholder to Form Alternate Group for Debt Negotiations
by Katie Linsell & Francois De Beaupuy
Delta Alternative Management, a French investment firm and creditor to Abengoa SA, said it’s forming a group of small bondholders to participate in restructuring talks with the Spanish renewable-energy company.
The firm is talking with about six U.S. and U.K. hedge funds and being advised by law firm Brown Rudnick and consultant Talbot Hughes McKillop, according to a statement. It plans to lobby for bondholder rights separately from an existing group of noteholders including BlackRock Inc., Invesco and AIG, that’s advised by Houlihan Lokey Inc.
Delta is concerned that negotiations have been dominated by large investors, particularly bank lenders seeking more favorable treatment in a restructuring, according to the statement. It’s seeking a debt-for-equity swap, subject to the company’s business plan, and asked other investors to get in touch…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-18/abengoa-bondholder-to-form-alternate-group-for-debt-negotiations
30
pat mentions this:
It’s so good to have a true believer Company in charge of Hazelwood. How easy would it be for them to lead the push, and just close down that plant, or at least actually explain just why they are the OWNER of a coal fired power plant.
Hypocrisy, get thee behind me!!!
Umm, Engie was formerly GDF SUEZ, changing over in April 2015, and Engie is a French multinational electric utility company, headquartered in La Défense, Courbevoie.
Tony.
60
At first I thought this kind of puffery was simply cowardly PR (Hazelwood is an old, now inefficient, design for burning La Trobe lignite)
But we observed the Drax UK coal-fired station transform into using wood chips imported from North Carolina forests … any madness is possible
60
“In media-speak, this is not so much about Republicans waking up to something, it’s Obama’s fault:”
Gotta love US politics. President Obama supports something, therefore the GOPs cannot. They do not want to think for themselves, do they?
[Interesting comment, coming as it does, from somebody who rarely, if ever, thinks for themself] Fly
112
“[Interesting comment, coming as it does, from somebody who rarely, if ever, thinks for themself] Fly”
Oh look, a moderator joining the attack-dog club. Insults at 10 paces. You lot are pathetic.
Woof. Woof. Woof.
Seriously though, this is what is know as censorship by harassment. The moderators have been advised to discourage certain comments, so they attempt to use harassment.
012
Fly has a right to comment, just like the rest of us.
Harry do you still believe CO2 causes global warming?
The reason I ask is that Ted Cruz is about to become the leader of the free world and bring about a scientific revolution.
52
el gordo.
“Fly has a right to comment, just like the rest of us.”
No, Fly has no right to use ad hominems. They are supposed to moderate, not attempt to beat commenters up. The were too lazy to even address my comment.
[Harry, You used an ad hominem against the entire US Republican Party, quote: “They do not want to think for themselves, do they?”, unquote.
And yet, you complain when I allude to the fact that you make sweeping generalised statements, but fail to present any real evidence (scientific or otherwise) to support those statements.] Fly
17
Not so Harry. Fly’s job is to check things before publication, and sometimes mods add a comment to reduce the inflammatory effect of baseless rants or insults. Your comment contained no argument, nor fact, just an unsubstantiated insult. (Some would call that an ad hom.) As it happens, skeptics are the ones discussing evidence, and are also the ones who change their minds (I used to believe). So your comment “They [Republicans] do not want to think for themselves, do they?” was a sweeping generalization, and inasmuch as it applies to people reading here, pretty much wrong. Fly was merely correcting you, and reporting how you Harry the anonymous chicken cannot back up your belief with observations, and for you it always comes back to “trust” in your experts.
We’ll believe you think for yourself when you start commenting like you do.
Rather than Fly beating you up and avoiding your argument, you were too lazy to make an argument. Whine away about harrassment, but you’ve been in breach of blog guidelines for months, yet I publish you.
72
Playing the victim card as this cretin has done is typical of the childish behaviour of his cohort.
Just like Angela Merkel, Joanne has made this sorry excuse for a commenter welcome in her blog land. This is the sort of disrespect she receives from the mongrel.
I for one suggest and recommend that it is time for us to see the last of this Harry avatar.
82
“And the at the half the score is
Jo & Fly: 250
Dr. DeHavilland: 0
We’ll get back to the second half of action, right after this word from our sponsors … “
52
If fly, who is known for being somewhat sardonic, wanted to make a material comment, then he or she would probably do so in the regular way.
The fact that your comment was published, can hardly be called censorship. You are also not being harrassed. el gordo made a comment, in response to you, and now I have done so as well.
Two people (plus a sardonic comment from a moderator) hardly rates as harrassment. Methinks thou doest protest too much (William Shakespere).
82
Here is a politician who thought for himself, but his front bench forced him to rationalize.
Retiring Chief Scientist Ian Chubb said his conversations with the former prime minister had always been “rational and reasonable.”
“I was surprised at some of Tony Abbott’s public comments about climate change and some of his government’s initial responses and policies … because [Abbott] and I talked about climate change quite rationally and reasonably,” Chubb said.
“He didn’t necessarily agree with me, we tried to persuade one another, but his questions were primarily about the modelling and the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 and how to build policy around the range of the projections.”
72
Hows this …..?
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/chief-scientist-ian-chubbs-parting-words-science-must-always-trump-makebelieve-20160119-gm99bi.html
“”Don’t flinch” is outgoing Chief Scientist Ian Chubb’s parting advice for scientists facing a wide range of detractors, from climate change deniers to those against genetically modified foods.
Professor Chubb, who this week ends his almost-five year term, acknowledged in a statement on Thursday that scientists’ work “isn’t easy.”
“We know there are those who want only to be told what they want to hear. When they aren’t, they simply denigrate and disparage and dream up conspiracies,” he said.
“I can only say to scientists: don’t flinch. Do your work; do it according to the trusted methods of ethical science and talk regularly to the public … their support, and the weight and quality of evidence, must always trump make-believe.”
I just about choked on my weeties I was laughing that hard…..
“trusted methods” = homogenization?
22
Harry,
Partisan politics is always this way regarding controversial issues and climate science is about as controversial as it gets. The Democrats position is based on guilt while the Republicans position is based on economics. Neither side is based on science, although it just happens that the science is far more consistent with the Republicans position than that of the Democrats. The longer the Democratic idiocracy persists, the harder the fall for the Democrats will be when the truth is finally exposed. If you have any take away about how science works, it should be that the scientific truth always wins in the end and the scientific truth is that the effect of CO2 is overestimated by the IPCC by about a factor of 4 which is the difference between a potential inconvenience and the benefit of increased agricultural productivity to help feed the world.
In general, politicians rarely think for themselves. They only think about themselves and how they can stay in power. The appeal of Trump is that he thinks for himself and he’s not afraid to let you know what his thoughts are, political correctness be damned.
72
The Good Lord is about to pay a visit to DC this weekend with a word to the wise. Possibly deep enough to bury the POTUS and his lying scheming Clinton counterpart.
42
co2isnotevil.
No one has actually attempted to respond to my comment yet – just subject changes. So my point still stands.
I cannot evaluate your value comments about the US parties, so I cannot comment. You are using a lot of silly terms such as “Democratic idiocracy”, all insults do is expose your bias.
“climate science is about as controversial as it gets”
No, climate science stopped being controversial decades ago. It is established science. Any recent “controversy” in the public arena has been fabricated.
“truth is that the effect of CO2 is overestimated by the IPCC by about a factor of 4.”
Stop with the bogus claims. You know this is not true so why keep repeating it? I guess your handle “co2isnotevil” gives a hint about your agenda.
[Harry, do you have evidence that the “controversy” has been fabricated? If so, I am sure that Jo would be interested in presenting it] Fly
03
Harry,
Thank you for clearly illustrating the pathological problem common among warmist which is denying that there is a controversy. You can’t bury your head in the sand to avoid confronting the truth since denying the controversy doesn’t make it go away. Only applying the scientific method can resolve it and when you do this, its abundantly clear that the consensus is horribly broken. I can cite chapter and verse of papers that have serious errors which have been canonized by the IPCC (Hansen/Schlesinger feedback, Trenberth energy balance, Hansen/Lebedeff homogenization, etc.) and cite close to a dozen tests that falsify consensus hypotheses as they validate all of mine, but applying the scientific method will not convince you that your position is baseless, as denying the applicability of the scientific method is another trait common among warmists.
As a scientist, my agenda is only to get the science right. I use ‘co2isnotevil’ because 1) its easier to find with Google and 2) it’s the truth. I would be happy to engage in a serious discussion about the science with you, but based on your posting history,
it would be a waste of my time.
42
co2isnotevil.
“As a scientist…”
[Snip] Fly
05
Wind power;
The Wind turbine scammers never ever state or even admit to the amount of unpaid power they take from the grid to maintain their systems and operating motors and gearbox and bearing oil temps and etc in operating condition when the turbines are not generating any power themselves.
This unpaid for drawback of power from the [ fossil fired ] grid is as near as can be calculated, about 8% to 13% of a turbine’s actual operating output.
Ref; AWEO’s Energy consumption in wind facilities
Power output of wind turbines as Tony alludes to declines by about 2% to 4 % per year as the creep of the composite resins and fibre in the high intensity oscillating modes of the turbine blades as they sweep around from low near ground wind velocities into the higher wind velocities at height.
Plus the airflow disruption and consequent pulse loadings as the blade passes the supporting tower structure.
Plus temperature, humidity and solar UV effects on the composite fibre blades all of which are contributing factors to the deforming the critical to performance aerodynamic blade profile which leads to an economical generating life of around 15 years for an onshore turbine and about 10 to 12 years for an off shore turbine.
Ref; Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark
[by Prof Gordon Hughes ]
via UK’s Renewable Energy Foundation [ publications ]
From the Executive Summary
—————-
Fires are major cause of wind farm failure, according to new research
As I write this, here in western Victoria the temperature has reached 39 C an hour or so ago and the wind is gusting between 50 and 60 KPH and humidity is about 10% [ BOM station at the Horsham A/ F . ]
It is inevitable that sometime in the future a wind turbine located out in the rural areas and in mid summer, let alone a drought period, that a turbine somewhere will catch alight from lightning or mechanical failure and have the potential to cause a major far ranging bush fire.
And of course with the turbine nacelles being so high and out of reach of fire fighters, it will burn for hours whilst the wind blows burning embers for kilometres downwind.
The whole inevitable turbine fire happening could well prove to be a fire disaster rivaling any that we have seen in recent past years.
And it will be rural people who will expected to and have to fight that fire and pay the price possibly with lives and their property whilst the wealthy city wind farm scammers are comfortably and completely safe and out of harms way contributing nothing at all in any way towards stopping that fire and lamenting their loss of a turbine whilst sitting in their very expensive mid city A/C villas.
123
Ahh! Darn!
My post above # 40 was meant to be an addendum to Tony’s post at # 30.1
30
ROM:
There was a wind turbine caused fire in the SE of SA a few years ago. Haven’t got the details but it burnt out about 8000 hectares(?). Overheating leading to a fire. Turbines in SA are now supposed to shut down when it reaches 38℃.
51
to coincide with the fight over windfarm subsidies in the UK, the MSM has come up with the following, but something tells me they haven’t got the story straight!
19 Jan: Guardian: Arthur Neslen: Denmark broke world record for wind power in 2015
One of the main reasons for the record-breaking year was that 2015 was a particularly windy year…
On one day, 2 September, Denmark operated without any central power stations being switched on at all, using electricity exclusively from wind turbines, solar cells, local combined heat and power plants and imports from neighbouring countries.
On another windy day in July, Denmark produced so much electricity that it was able to meet all its electricity needs and export another 40% of its power abroad…
The Scandinavian country’s surplus wind energy is mostly sold to consumers in Norway, Sweden and Germany, while it imports hydroelectric power from Norway and solar energy from Germany.
The Danish government looks to be well on the way to meeting its goal of producing half of all electricity from wind by 2050…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/18/denmark-broke-world-record-for-wind-power-in-2015
19 Jan: UK Independent: Jess Staufenberg: Denmark sets world record for wind energy production
Country wants half of its energy to come from renewable sources by 2020
In January last year, this figure peaked with just over 60 per cent of Danes’ energy consumption in that month coming from the wind.
“These are incredible figures,” said Rasmus Helveg Petersen, Denmark’s climate and energy minister…
The announcement means the multi-party Danish government is currently on track to meet its 2020 target for 50 per cent of all energy consumption from renewable sources…
But Danish energy company warned that transport and homes need to be more rapidly electrified so firms do not have to pay a lot of money to dispose of wind power – a problem which would push up costs for consumers.
“If we keep putting up wind turbines, we will keep having low prices in the market, which means consumers would have to pay a high price related to their energy consumption,” said Lars Aagaard, director for Danish Energy.
“We would have an energy market with large price volatility where some times the price would deflate and at other times, the price would be sky-high. it would be an unstable system.”…
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/denmark-sets-world-record-for-wind-energy-production-a6818741.html
60
So Denmark has so much power from wind that it sells the surplus to Sweden and other countries for literally peanuts and then buys back hydro power from Sweden and Norway when the wind doesn’t blow for a huge markup.
Seeing wind power is so cheap it is almost” free” [ sarc] how come that Denmark has the highest household electricity prices at .304 Euro’s per kilowatt hour [ 2014 ] in the developed world?
Germany with its massive installation of wind turbines and solar, both of course using” free “energy to generate electricity has the highest industrial price of 0.152 Euros per Kw / Hr [ 2014 ]
Ref; Eurostat; File:Half-yearly electricity and gas prices, second half of year, 2012–14 (EUR per kWh)
80
“How come Denmark has the highest hopusehold electricity prices…. in the developed world?
The answer was given here:
At least I think that is the answer, if I could understand it!
70
Peter C @ #41.1.1
+ one!
50
Perhaps it only works in Danish?
20
.
The only one making $ is FRANCE
With Nuclear – running at maximum into red zone
While the UK freezing its little balbulls off:
Wind has failed
Solar has failed
Pumped has failed
When will the USA & Australian pollies start looking at the energy data
Wind & Solar are Useless
If they want to solve their CO2 pollution dream –
JUST GO NUCLEAR!
UK could be in strife as the diesel GENERATORS start up everywhere
60
pat, ROM, Peter.
Those combined heat and power units are either gas or coal fired. The largest coal stations get very high efficiency figures ~90% because the ‘waste heat’ is used to heat circulating warm water which heats the local houses, businesses and even de-ices roads. The small local ones are quite efficient but get stuffed up by the wind turbines dumping electricity at low prices, which means they have to shut down the generators but continue supplying heat, so emissions per unit of electricity GO UP because of wind.
I don’t know what the current prices are but some years ago they were selling electricity to the Norwegians at $26 a MWh and buying back at $83. It has been said that Denmark pays approx. $1 billion a year to Norway.
40
Confirmation Bias: Coolists rely on satellite data and warmist only have faith in adjusted ground based measurements.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/here-is-why-ted-cruzs-attack-on-climate-change-science-is-hilariously-wrong/
51
Reforming the “Oil Patch” of Canada!!!
http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/local-news/2016/01/18/wind-energy-has-issues/
Via a comment at SDA
30
As the politicians seem to have trouble with the science and the costs maybe the whole CAGA thing should be explained in terms of “intermittent voters”?
41
most of you will have heard the MSM go on about this Oxfam report as if it is gospel truth:
18 Jan: Financial Times blog: Chris Giles: Three reasons to question Oxfam’s inequality figures
The charity Oxfam made a big splash on Monday with a report saying that the richest 62 people in the world had the same wealth as half of the world’s population. Not only that but the richest 1 per cent of the world’s population owned as much in 2015 as the rest of the 99 per cent put together.
You have to admire Oxfam’s communication skills. This is the third year it has put out such a release, it is timed impeccably to coincide with the world’s plutocrats living the high life at the World Economic Forum in Davos, and mainstream media is far from bored. Google news currently shows 385 write-ups of Oxfam’s press release…
The better news is that in most people’s recent lives, the world has witnessed declining global income inequality and poverty. Those are the two big facts. (Max Roser’s website shows this and more)
So, no one should take the Oxfam numbers too seriously. But if you are inclined to, here are three additional reasons for caution.
1. The Oxfam numbers are made up….READ ALL INCL COMMENTS
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2016/01/18/three-reasons-to-question-oxfams-inequality-figures/
even BBC is cautious, altho it tries to link criticism to “free market think tanks”, instead of pointing to the flaws in the data:
18 Jan: BBC: Oxfam says wealth of richest 1% equal to other 99%
It uses data from Credit Suisse from October for the report, which urges leaders meeting in Davos this week to take action on inequality…
‘Misleading’
Some free market think tanks questioned the credibility of the figures.
The Institute of Economic Affairs’ director general Mark Littlewood said the statistics were “bogus”…
The Adam Smith Institute’s head of research Ben Southwood also said the data was “misleading”…
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475
ABC RN’s PM program doesn’t question any of it naturally. you can find their piece featuring Oxfam’s Australian CEO Helen Szoke, plus Cassandra Goldie from the Australian Council for Social Services online. it’s headlined: “Oxfam report says just 62 people now have equal wealth to half the world’s population”. ABC has multiple other links on the report, none critical.
50
UK Independent is still pushing the 2 Dec Oxfam report, which coincided with COP21!
19 Jan: UK Independent: Jon Stone: The world’s richest 1 per cent emits 175 times as much carbon as the poorest, study finds
The new research comes after an agreement about how much responsibility developed countries have for climate change
Someone from the richest 1 per cent of the global population contributes 175 times as much to climate change as someone in the poorest 10 per cent of the population, according to a new report.
The study, “Extreme Carbon Inequality”, drawn up by Oxfam, says the idea that developing countries emit more carbon is a “myth” and rich countries should be leading the way on climate change.
The research, which has been endorsed by “rock-star” economist Thomas Piketty and other academics, in particular points the finger at Americans as the biggest emitters of carbon…
The International Renewable Energy Agency said at the weekend that a rapid switch to renewable energy would be required to reach the goals of the agreement…
Tim Gore, Oxfam’s head of food and climate policy, said the recently concluded Paris talks should mark the start of new low-carbon economy.
“Climate change and economic inequality are inextricably linked and together pose one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century,” he said…
At the release of that report, John Roome, senior director for climate change at the World Bank Group, said the cost of eradicating poverty would increase as the impact of climate change became more pronounced.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-worlds-richest-1-per-cent-emits-175-times-as-much-carbon-as-the-bottom-10-per-cent-a6819766.html
2 Dec: Oxfam: Extreme Carbon Inequality
Climate change is inextricably linked to economic inequality: it is a crisis that is driven by the greenhouse gas emissions of the ‘haves’ that hits the ‘have-nots’ the hardest.
DOWNLOAD
Extreme Carbon Inequality: Why the Paris climate deal must put the poorest, lowest emitting and most vulnerable people first.
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/extreme-carbon-inequality/
(naturally ABC carried this report too…on 3 Dec)
link for the Oxfam report for Davos:
Oxfam: An Economy For the 1%: How privilege and power in the economy drive extreme inequality and how this can be stopped
DOWNLOADS
http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/an-economy-for-the-1-how-privilege-and-power-in-the-economy-drive-extreme-inequ-592643
50
It’s nice to know American politics are good for something other than lining the cat’s litter box.
31
not so sure about that
10
knock-on effects:
19 Jan: Reuters: Caroline Stauffer: Wind generators look to take over Abengoa Brazil transmission lines
Power companies with wind-generation capacity could take over transmission line projects in Brazil operated by Abengoa SA after the Spanish construction group’s insolvency filing halted work on the systems.
Candidates include groups like Renova Energia SA and CPFL Renovaveis SA that would lose revenue if the transmission lines go unfinished or remain inactive, three specialists with knowledge of the discussions said on Monday.
“Various generators are already meeting to see if they can make these projects viable,” said consultant Barne Laureano of Laureano & Meirelles Engenharia…
Renova and CPFL declined to comment…
http://in.reuters.com/article/abengoa-brazil-idINL2N15311D
11
given the topic of this thread, this seems a good fit!
eight months after the election, the experts manage an interim report!
something like 8 pollsters got it wrong because all of them failed to poll a representative group? LOL.
19 Jan: BBC: Election polling errors blamed on ‘unrepresentative’ samples
The failure of pollsters to forecast the outcome of the general election was largely due to “unrepresentative” poll samples, an inquiry has found.
The polling industry came under fire for predicting a virtual dead heat when the Conservatives ultimately went on to outpoll Labour by 36.9% to 30.4%.
A panel of experts has concluded this was due to Tory voters being under-represented in phone and online polls…
The result prompted the polling industry to launch an independent inquiry into the accuracy of their research, the reasons for any inaccuracies and how polls were analysed and reported…
An interim report by the panel of academics and statisticians found that the way in which people were recruited to take part – asking about their likely voting intentions – had resulted in “systematic over-representation of Labour voters and under-representation of Conservative voters”.
These oversights, it found, had resulted in a “statistical consensus”…
However, the panel said it could not rule out the possibility of “herding” – where firms configured their polls in a way that caused them to deviate less than could have been expected from others given the sample sizes. But it stressed that did not imply malpractice on behalf of the firms concerned…
I remember the audible gasp in the BBC’s election studio when David Dimbleby read out the exit poll results…
Pollsters didn’t ask enough of the right people how they planned to vote. Proportionately they asked too many likely Labour voters, and not enough likely Conservatives.
Politics is not a precise science and predicting how people will vote will still be a worthwhile endeavour. Political parties, journalists, and the public of course would be foolish to ignore them. But the memories and embarrassment for the polling industry of 2015 will take time to fade…
Joe Twyman, from pollster YouGov, told the BBC it was becoming increasingly difficult to recruit people to take part in surveys – despite, in YouGov’s case, ***paying them to do so…
On Tuesday, the Lords approved a bill which would create a new watchdog to regulate future polling by specifying sampling methods, producing guidance on the wording of questions and deciding whether there should be a moratorium on polls in the run-up to elections.
But the private member’s bill, tabled by Labour’s Lord Foulkes, has yet to be introduced to the Commons and is unlikely to become law ***due to lack of parliamentary time.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35347948
***Parliament hasno time to prevent such polling propaganda in the future yet, as Piers Morgan writes today in UK Daily Mail article, “Why I’m so embarrassed today for Britain. The same parliament that hasn’t banned a single UK citizen from returning after fighting for ISIS is seriously debating banning Trump from its shores” –
“They’ve allocated three hours of time to do this…
“British law-makers have concluded their own time is best served seriously considering a proposal to ban a man who may end up being the next President of the United States”
LOL again.
20
CAGW could wipe us out in 10,000 years, says Prof Stephen Hawking:
19 Jan: BBC: David Shukman: Hawking: Humans at risk of lethal ‘own goal’
Nuclear war, global warming and genetically-engineered viruses are among the scenarios he singles out.
And he says that further progress in science and technology will create “new ways things can go wrong”.
Prof Hawking is giving this year’s BBC Reith Lectures, which explore research into black holes, and his warning came in answer to audience questions.
He says that assuming humanity eventually establishes colonies on other worlds, it will be able to survive.
“Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next thousand or ten thousand years…
Prof Hawking’s first Reith Lecture will be broadcast on 26 January and on 2 February at 9am on BBC Radio 4…
BBC News online will be publishing the text of Prof Hawking’s lectures with accompanying notes by our science editor, David Shukman…
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344664
20 Jan: news.com.au: Stephen Hawking says scientific progress is a disaster to humanity
by AP and Network Writers, News Corp
Hawking’s warning came during a question-and-answer session at the BBC Reith Lectures at London’s Royal Institution on January 7…
His prophesy of doom came when a member of the audience asked him: “Do you think the world will end naturally or will man destroy it first?”
“We face a number of threats to our survival from nuclear war, catastrophic global warming, and genetically engineered viruses,” the research director at Cambridge University’s Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics replied.
““The number is likely to increase in the future, with the development of new technologies, and new ways things can go wrong. Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next thousand or 10,000 years”…
Most of the threats the human race faces come from progress in science and technology, he said…
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/stephen-hawking-says-scientific-progress-is-a-disaster-to-humanity/news-story/cff020b96cc2596996e5c99d1cbbbdcf
10
Ted Cruz is against renewables and this alone should win him lots of votes, but I’m not sure.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/terry-branstad-ted-cruz-defeat/
01
not a word on the passing of Prof Carter, but SBS picks up this trivia:
oohs & aahs – really?
20 Jan: SBS: AP: DiCaprio rips into Big Oil at Davos summit
Fresh off his Golden Globe win, Leonardo DiCaprio drew ooohs, ahhs and smiles from a crowd as he was honoured for his work against the climate crisis at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Then he ripped into Big Oil.
The Hollywood star of The Revenant on Tuesday announced his foundation was donating another $US15 million ($A21.69 million) to environmental projects, and pleaded with business leaders and other notables on hand to help battle climate change.
“We simply cannot allow the corporate greed of the coal, oil and gas industries to determine the future of humanity,” DiCaprio said to polite applause.
“Those entities with a financial interest in preserving this destructive system have denied and even covered up the evidence of our changing climate.”
“Enough is enough. You know better. The world knows better.
History will place the blame for this devastation squarely at their feet.”…
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/01/20/dicaprio-rips-big-oil-davos-summit
DiCaprio’s among them?
19 Jan: UK Telegraph: Lauren Davdson: Private jet flights to Davos soar by a third
The number of private business flights landing at the three airports nearest to Davos was 35pc higher last January – and could rise even more this year
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/davos/12108630/Private-jet-flights-to-Davos-soar-by-a-third.html
21
This could actually result in some recorded, very public, debates on AGW!
21
20 Jan: Canberra Times: Angela Macdonald-Smith: Solar power to ‘fill the void’ as coal power plants close: First Solar
***Jack Curtis, Asia Pacific manager for First Solar, AGL Energy’s partner at two major new solar ventures in western NSW, said the company had set up a low-cost local supply chain for key equipment, which would drive down the cost of future projects.
Speaking after the formal opening of the Nyngan and Broken Hill solar plants on Wednesday, Mr Curtis said costs for large-scale solar had already fallen about 30 per cent from 3-4 years ago, to about $120 per megawatt-hour on the back of only a few projects.
He forecast that costs would fall towards $70-$80 a megawatt-hour, without subsidies, within a similar time again, as the industry scale built up, improvements in the supply chain, and a reduction in the cost of funding as lenders became more familiar with the sector…
The two new plants, with a combined 155 megawatts of capacity and including more than 2 million solar panels, have more than doubled the country’s capacity for large-scale solar to 245 MW.
First Solar, which has built 165 MW of the total capacity, built the two plants and owns a 10 per cent stake in them. They will operate for 30 years and will pour an estimated $222 million or more into the rural regions through employment and maintenance servicing needs, according to federal environment minister Greg Hunt…
The 102 MW Nyngan venture and the 53 MW Broken Hill plant, which received $231.6 million of government funding, started up last year and are expected to power more than 50,000 average homes.
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which provided $166.7 million funding for the plants, has another round of funding underway for large-scale solar and last week announced a short-list of 22 projects vying for $100 million of funds.
First Solar is involved in Infigen Energy’s proposed Manildra solar project in NSW with a direct equity stake and through a funding deal. It also has looser links with two of the other projects applying for funding…
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/energy/solar-power-to-fill-the-void-as-coal-power-plants-close-first-solar-20160119-gm9lj7.html?google_editors_picks=true
***LinkedIn: Jack Curtis, Regional Manager, Asia Pacific at First Solar
Director, Board of Directors, Clean Energy Council, November 2012 – November 2014
Associate, Investment Banking, Goldman Sachs, 2007 – 2008
19 Jan: EMQ News: First Solar, Inc. (FSLR) Stock Rating Upgraded by Standpoint Research
Other hedge funds and institutional investors have recently bought and sold shares of the company…DETAILS
The company has a market capitalization of $6.21 billion and a price-to-earnings ratio of 10.84…
http://www.emqtv.com/first-solar-inc-fslr-stock-rating-upgraded-by-standpoint-research/143364/
00
The scientists have just released their data showing 2015 not only broke the record for hottest on record, it broke the record by a record margin.
And the El Nino rise is just getting started. 2016 is already expected to be hotter by the same margin again and we are unlikely to fall much below the previous record year, 2014, this century
All the temperature records agree on this; Japan MO, the UK Met, NASA, NOAA, Berkeley etc.
How many years of further temperature climbs will it take before the evidence is accepted. Republican Candidates can demonstrate their ignorance on the issue all they wish, they just dramatically increase the likelihood of a Democratic victory.
The Republicans like to kill themselves with guns, kill themselves with cars, kill themselves with cigarettes and kill themselves with climate ignorance. Is it any wonder the Democratic advantage is growing.
26
Lucky you are so smart David. How else could we control the worlds weather with windmills and solar panels?
Collective thinkers believe thermometers near airports give accurate results (after homogenization). 2015 was not the hottest according to satellites. When will the herd catch up with modern technology?
62
Well DavidR is obviously a lobbyist for the Democrats (if not a very good one), who hasn’t got the hang of subtle propaganda yet. Let him run. With such ineptitude he is doing a great job for the GOP.
But on the other hand, he could very well be a very good lobbyist for the Republicans, who is well versed in matters of psychology, and is deliberately making the Democrats look inept.
Either way he makes me want to vote for the GOP. Pity I am not an American citizen. Oh well …
52
Rereke,
I’ll be glad to do some Chicago-voting on your behalf (you know the old saw: “Vote early, and often!”).
With any luck, some of my dearly departed may also do some Chicago-voting; it makes more sense for them to vote to swing Illinois’ electoral college votes to the GOP, since Wyoming only has a piddly-little three e.c. votes.
My only concern is how many thousands-of-times over the Democrat Party can manufacture fraudulent votes to neutralize any votes my dearly departed and I can come up with. Maybe I should enlist Aragorn and his phantom army to assist (he’s still there in N. Z., isn’t he?)
Regards,
Vlad
42
Half the cast can be seen surfing on our inner city beaches in the summer. They like coming to us because the local reaction is, “yeah, whatever”.
11
The herd will catch up with modern technology when ‘modern technology” produces results that are considered accurate by others in the field.
This graph compares the 2 main ground based and 2 main satellite records over the past 36 years and as you can see there is no significant difference between them.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/uah/from:1979/offset:%200.28/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.14/plot/rss/from:1979/offset:%200.20
The satellite records aren’t wrong but they have much greater margins of error than the ground based records. If you look at the 1997/1998 El Nino you can see that the satellite records exaggerated and lagged the ground based records. However in the entire 36 year run the differences were immaterial, the satellite and ground based records are closely aligned.
Personally I don’t think we have the luxury of waiting for wind and solar power, if we don’t embrace Nuclear power very quickly we will have no chance of keeping warming below 3 dC. This is an area where the left ignore the science relating to nuclear power with the same gay abandon that the extreme right ignore the science relating to Anthropogenic Climate Change.
35
… “when ‘modern technology” produces results that are considered accurate by others in the field.”
Yes, because it’s not about statistical measures, it’s about opinions, and those can be bought — it’s the only way you can be sure of anything in science.
So the satellites and ground measures are the same but when the satellites get a high reading, it’s an error, and when the ground stations get a high reading (after adjustment) it’s A New World Record!
You are consistently inconsistent and in a non-random way.
The satellites don’t have 2 degree arbitrary adjustments. The surface stations do.
The methods for adjusting satellites are published and replicatable (scientific). The surface stations are a dog-s breakfast, and when only the best stations are used the trend is a lot lower.
You are almost right on energy — we don’t have the luxury of
waiting*using* for wind and solar.Yes, agreed that it’s a shame the genius democrats hate nuclear. How could that be?
73
DavidR,
LOL!
Of course we can’t see any significant difference between them. You’ve placed offsets in the data sets thereby piling them one on top of the other. This very act hides the differences that do exist in the data sets. Here are the RSS and GISTEMP LOTI data sets without the offsets.
As you can see, there are two clearly visible differences in the data sets.
1. The RSS data set consistently shows a lower temperature than Gistemp.
2. The rise in the trend line for Gistemp is more pronounced than the rise in the trend line for RSS.
The reasons for these differences are also the reasons why the satellite data sets are more reliable than any of the combined land-sea data sets like Gistemp LOTI.
First of all the combined land-ocean data sets merge land based near surface air temperature with ocean based buoy near surface water temperatures. Apples and oranges. The satellite data sets use only near surface, (lower tropospheric), air temperatures above both land masses and water masses. Apples with apples.
Secondly, the combined land-ocean data sets use instruments that are not evenly distributed over the surface of the Earth. Furthermore, the land based instruments are predominantly urban based, while urban areas only comprise about 2% of the Earth’s land areas. The satellite data sets use an evenly distributed grid constructed over the entire surface of the Earth, (except for small areas around the poles).
Just in case you haven’t figured it out for yourself yet, I’ll tell you why this is important.
By using a disproportionate amount of urban based temperature measurements you’re going to get higher temperatures overall compared to the evenly distributed grid pattern employed by satellites. This explains why the combined land-ocean data sets tend to be warmer overall than the satellite data sets.
On top of that, because urban areas expand both outward and upward, the air masses around these areas will tend to get hotter faster than rural areas when the Earth is in a warming cycle and they’ll tend to stay warmer even when the Earth is in a cooling cycle. This explains why the rise is more pronounced in the combined land-ocean data sets than the rise in the satellite data sets.
Abe
65
Abe,
All the data sets use anomalies against different baselines, so the offsets merely adjust for that. The actual measures are irrelevant. What the graph clearly shows is that the pattern of increase in all four data sets is very similar in terms of the increase and the variation over the years. The claim that the satellite data is showing something different is just not born out. Sometimes one shows a greater increase and sometimes another. If you use a scientifically acceptable 30 year trend line the difference is just a quibble, something like 0.14 +- 0.02 per decade.
Joanne, Don’t you think it is amazing that with all those ‘arbitrary’ adjustments, the records show virtually the same rate of increase and the same variance. This suggests that these adjustments have no significant influence on the long term trends.
27
David, you are changing the topic. Your claim was that 2015 is the hottest ever. We asked why people ignore satellite readings which show that it wasn’t the hottest. You reply that the surface temperatures are really just like the satellites. Non-sequiteur eh?
So lets use the satellite data if its just the same. And stop making unscientific claims about the hottest year ever when it relies on one data set which is adjusted up the kazoo, and is contradicted by other better data sets. And which doesn’t prove anything about the “Cause” even if it were the hottest year. Natural warming causes warming.
43
“Your claim was that 2015 is the hottest ever.” No, I did not make such a claim. All the scientific organisations (5) that provide an analysis based on surface temperature measures have stated that, with more than 99.9% probability, the surface temperature was hottest on record. The satellite estimates that are not based on temperature measurements, but make estimates based on other data do not. The satellite data interprets information from around 10 km up in the atmosphere where the temperature is -40 => -60 dC. So the only people claiming that 2015 was not hottest on record are those who refuse to accept the evidence provided by the ground based stations.
My point was that if you compare the datasets over the thirty-six year period since the introduction of the satellites, the trends and variations are essentially identical at about 0.14 dC / decade. All the data sets including the satellite records are adjusted for all sorts of reasons as is shown in the article linked to by Rod Stuart below. Satellite estimates are cobbled together from information provided by numerous short lived satellites and using frequent correlation just to get a coherent sequence.
The satellite record is not considered the authority for surface temperatures for several reasons:
1: It doesn’t measure surface temperatures.
2: It estimates temperatures 10Km up in the sky rather than actually measuring them
3: It has much higher levels of uncertainty than the ground based measurements due to the quality and distribution of its own data
4: The people who produce the RSS measurement reject the claim that the satellite estimates are better than surface measurements.
My point was that the Republican candidates referred to above choose to ignore the evidence.
24
You said: “The scientists have just released their data showing 2015 not only broke the record for hottest on record,”
It’s a bore when you deny the obvious. You made the claim and I replied with better data. You’re just weaseling out of it and hoping no one notices.
As for your attempt to argue that one homogenised thermometer in a box does a better job of estimating changes in temperatures over 1000km2 than a satellite — dream on.
Satellites don’t measure the carparks that the box thermometers do, but they estimate temperatures in the lower troposphere, — and that’s supposed to warm faster than the ground. If that’s not happening (it isn’t) the models are wrong and you can kiss goodbye to the carbon catastrophe in models. No water vapor amplification.
And if satellites are estimating temperature from 700km up why is estimating it from random changing stations on the ground with up to 1200 km smoothing so much better? Perhaps we need less satellites?
As for adjustments: Satellite data gets adjusted, and the same corrections apply to the measurements all over the world at the same time. With ground stations, who knows? At Gatwick we could adjust the temperatures according to flight number and jet type, what do you think? Thermometers in Perth get adjusted by 1.5C according to calendar date on a month by month basis, and then there’s the 1000 corrections that made the minima higher than the maxima. Hows that for “authoritative””?
Surface temperatures are a random salad, then they make it worse with invisible, unreplicatable adjustments…
62
If you have an open mind, and wish to know how the NOAA and NASA GISS press releases are bogus nonsense, and why then this explains the whole thing.
Somehow I suspect that it may be impossible for you to peruse this with an open mind.
52
Rod,
I am sure you read the entire article which shows how the Satellite records a re cobbled together and adjusted to make a coherent dataset. And I am sure you noted that the people who produce the RSS dataset reject the interpretation used by Republican candidates that ther was an ‘hiatus’ in temperature increases since 1998.
You did actually read the article didn’t you Rod?
—
And DavidR, if “the people” at RSS say something, that would be an opinion right, not evidence? You keep confusing the two… how unscientific. – Jo
45
DavidR.
Yes I saw that interview with Dr Carl Mears of RSS (I think it was on youtube). And I have read his blog.
15
It is also in the article referred to by Rod above. The article totally debunks the allegations about the effect of alleged data manipulation and shows the extent of data manipulation in the satellite records; essentially totally refuting Rods’ point.
14
A statement by the producers of the RSS data set rejecting the interpretations made by Republican senators is substantially more than ‘an opinion’. You have an opinion, I have an opinion, they, as the producers of the data, know what they are talking about.
Similarly you confuse a claim with a statement. The fact, that the producers of five surface temperature records have stated that 2015 was the hottest year on record with a probability of 99.9% is not a claim, it is a simple fact easily verifiable.
Even if you disagree with their statement, your disagreement with them is an opinion which you have to support. I have shown that all the surface and satellite temperature records show the same warming over the past 36 years. In the big picture it is the 36 year trend that tells the story of Global Warming, not which year is at the top of the league table of hottest year on record. However the fact that only one year in the 20th century was warmer than any year in the 21st century does tell an important part of the story.
—-
[Email coming regarding your other valid point. Fixed. — Jo]
15
DavidR ” they, as the producers of the data, know what they are talking about. ”
Which is an opinion. (Not evidence). I’ll apply your reasoning to Roy Spencer and John Christy ” they, as the producers of the data, know what they are talking about” too, but you disagree with what they say, and indeed all of them can’t be right about everything. It’s a lousy way to reason. It aint science.
I’m not going to argue the definition of “claim” v “statement” whatever — my point stands — you are the one who made the “Statement” then to defend it you changed the topic to bizarrely say that surface measurements are accurate because they are the same as satellite measurements, except when they are different then the surface measurements are “right”. And on and on it goes… still avoiding it.
“I have shown that all the surface and satellite temperature records show the same warming over the past 36 years.”
You’ve shown something irrelevant. Trends are not annual records. Adjust the scale. We’re talking about a tiny little 0.13C. There are differences — that is the point.
If surface = satellite, then accept the satellites.
The 36 year trend is not enough, and has no cause and effect support for AGW. It should be increasing — not flattening off. The 36 years of warming is at the same decadal rate as the 30 years around 1880. The models are wrong.
What ever happened to the idea that weather is not climate? That one season (with an elnino) tells us nothing about “the cause”?
51
Well this is a problem for Ted?
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/20/ted_cruz_is_not_eligible_to_run_for_president_a_harvard_law_professor_close_reads_the_constitution/
Those Tea Party people may find the whole Obama Birther contreversy coming back to bite them.
00
Problem is most Republicans aren’t able to articulate a need to look for facts and observe the positive about humans.
And there’s the side-show of Donald Trump, a hypocritical flake, but charismatic I suppose.
Canada just elected a charismatic lightweight who is strongly for the blame-humans-for-runaway-warming-that-isn’t-and-can’t-happen scam, as is the Premier of BC.
(She’s a soft conservative, perhaps a “wet” in the words of a rare conservative who actually understood things and cared about people – Margaret Thatcher. Of course the media pilloried her for standing up to control freaks of the unions and the localhousing councils, and she was betrayed by the Conservative party she was leader of. Ronald Reagan cared about people and was a good orator, as I suppose a TV pitchman should be, but his understanding of things was shallow.)
00