Don’t tell me that cold is nice and the climate was ever ideal
A few scientists thought that the climate was stable and well behaved during the Holocene until we invented coal power and the Ford Model T and everything fell apart “unprecedentedly”.
But 8200 years ago things apparently got pretty wild. See the GISP graph below where there was a three degree fall in temperatures suddenly (circled in red below). A new study found that at the same time China and California also cooled. Strangely, this cooling effect probably did not produce calm, happy days for the Californians at the time. Instead it looks like they got 150 years of intense winter storms and a lot of wet weather.
UPDATE: This graph shows the ice-core data up until 1855. The last 150 years (1705 to 1855) are highlighted in red to show the warming as the Earth began coming out of the LIA. Obviously that red line would continue up further if it was drawn to the present.
Looks like real climate change….
The reason for the sudden snap is possibly that a couple of massive glaciallakes in North East America collapsed and suddenly drained out into the Atlantic, dumping a bucketload of freshwater there. That is said to have changed a few oceanic currents and raised the seas by 2 – 10 feet. (1 – 3m). The effects appear to have been found around the world, also weakening the monsoons in Asia, and strengthening them in South America, while increasing drought in Africa.
And since we have stalagmites in Australia, hopefully someone can study our caves and tell us something about our own, largely unknown paleohistory. We may not have many deciduous trees to get nice tree rings from , but we certainly have caves.
Wet and stormy weather lashed California coast…8,200 years ago
The weather report for California 8,200 years ago was exceptionally wet and stormy.
That is the conclusion of a paleoclimate study that analyzed stalagmite records from White Moon Cave in the Santa Cruz Mountains published online Jun. 20 in Nature Scientific Reports.
It’s like an Easter Island moment for an advanced economy: somehow “cheap” energy can’t compete in a free market without government subsidy. A Nation of Serfs have forgotten what a free market is. Will cheap desirable stuff sell itself, or not?
The contradictions mount. Electricity and gas prices are hitting escape velocity:
The wholesale electricity spot prices was about $35 a megawatt hour during 2011, rose to $58 after the carbon tax was introduced and is now about $130 as gas prices push up energy generator costs.
Not surprisingly 70% of Australians want cheaper, more reliable electricity. Only one person in four would rather cut emissions than cut the bill. Yet the agitprop telling people that renewables are “cheap” has been so pervasive that fully 38% of Australians think the government should raise the renewable energy target, and 23% think it should stay the same. It follows that around 4 in 10 Australians apparently hold the bizarre idea that wind and solar are cheap and yet in need of government support, as if there are no investors willing to put money into supplying something that 100% of people want at a price cheaper than what they currently pay. So screwed is our national commentary that a large slab of the nation think a cheap and highly desired product can’t profit without complex schemes and assistance.
Message to Australia, if renewables were cheap they wouldn’t need a RET, LET or CET scheme. People would just buy them!
No wonder there is policy gridlock. The situation won’t be resolved until the propaganda bubble pops and the national debate advances to the point where people know how expensive renewables are. Find me one country in the world running on wind and solar that has cheap electricity and no interconnector supplying coal or nuclear powered electrons. Exactly.
The answer for the Liberal-conservatives is clear, unless they get the message out that renewables are a hideously expensive deadweight burning a hole in our wallets they can’t possibly win this debate. As long as the nation blindly drinks from the Kool-aid-Cauldron the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing — locked into endless cycles of “uncertainty” and hip-pocket pain.
Welcome to the clean green future — pack the whole family under one electric blanket while boat loads of our cheap coal set sail for China.
A few weeks ago I received a pamphlet from the ACT government on energy-saving tips. For winter it featured a picture of a family all in overcoats and beanies, huddled under an electric blanket.
Welcome to your clean green future huddled under an electric blanket, and reverting to wood fires to keep the house warm.
The Finkel report aims to provide incentives for all energy sources that produce electricity with lower greenhouse gas emissions, but the suggested benchmark means a high-efficiency, low-emissions power plant with carbon capture and storage would not qualify. That is why plenty of people think this is a backdoor attempt to block coal and even gas with an effective “tax on coal”.
The crisis has arisen because of the over-reliance on wind and solar power. In South Australia, combined with the closure of two coal-fired power plants, one in SA and one in Victoria, it has destabilised the whole grid. Added to that is the shortage of gas and the lack of storage for renewables.
Meanwhile, despite the domestic opposition to coal, we send our coal to Japan and China to be used in high-efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired generators to produce cleaner and cheaper power where people don’t have to sit inside wearing beanies under an electric blanket.
What is the sound of a dying planet? Translating hard facts into feeling is the issue of our age – and it is the task Climate Symphony have appointed themselves. A collective of artists and scientists, the London-based team are inspiring action by transforming climate change data into music.
Wait til you see what it can do. This is a pretty powerful tool:
“Climate Symphony has developed a side-project – calling out lies in politics.”
“We want to create a formal record,” she says, “A method of fact-checking the things Trump is saying, of finding distortions. It’s revealing. You’re looking at it, and listening to it, and you find that it’s distorted. It’s all distorted.”
Musikiness could replace the US GAO. (Who needs auditors). But I worry about what happens if they use the wrong key.
Finally, twenty years late, EcoWorriers care about transparency and “hard facts”:
“…it isn’t just background noise… music is the data. “These are still hard facts – that’s the beauty of it.”
The data used is derived from a range of sources, all with the emphasis on transparency.
Climate data has been accumulated from NOAA and Nasa (sic)…
But what if the symphony is using adjusted data and it’s wrong — It’s not the sound of a dying planet, but a homogenized one?
I bet raw data would sound better. (Do you want to tell them or should I?)
Still, this may be the tool the Goddard Institute of Space has been waiting for to make their climate models work.
Borromeo and her team at Climate Symphony, including co-director Katharine Round and composer Jamie Perera, chart this data across musical notation, working with meteorologists, conservationists, sound artists and investigative journalists. Every bar of music in Climate Symphony is equivalent to one year of scientific data – with recordings amassing a total of 20 years from 1994 to 2014.
That’s a lot of “experts”. (Wonder who paid for them.)
Climate change is an area of politics in which facts are all-too-often purported as fiction.
In this case the facts are purporting to be “music”.
With these concern about transparency in politics, Borromeo stresses that Climate Symphony is committed to peer-reviewed science.
Yes, because all good artists are committed to supporting the grant-machine, sorry, establishment.
I’m glad these people are not building our bridges.
From public rallies to government legislation, Borromeo hopes that “any and all of these things” can arise from the project. Her message is simple: “Existence is resistance.”
Existence is resistance? It takes so little effort to be a reactionary these days — just keep breathing.
The warmists now want to transpose,
Climate data into work they compose,
For alarmists and greens,
As homogenized, means,
In their symphony, anything goes.
So things don’t look so good, no matter where we look. Yes, the victims in the animal world include scary apex predators that pose obvious threats to humans, like lions, whose numbers have dropped from 1 million at the time of Jesus to 450,000 in the 1940s to 20,000 today—a decline of 98 percent. But also included have been unexpected victims, like butterflies and moths, which have declined in abundance by 35 percent since the 1970s.
Is this a mini extinction?
…the only reason we know about mass extinctions in the first place is from the record of this incredibly abundant, durable, and diverse world of marine invertebrates, not the big, charismatic, and rare stuff like dinosaurs.“
So you can ask, ‘Okay, well, how many geographically widespread, abundant, durably skeletonized marine taxa have gone extinct thus far?’ And the answer is, pretty close to zero,” Erwin pointed out. In fact, of the best-assessed groups of modern animals—like stony corals, amphibians, birds and mammals—somewhere between 0 and 1 percent of species have gone extinct in recent human history. By comparison, the hellscape of End-Permian mass extinction claimed upwards of 90 percent of all species on earth.
When mass extinctions hit, they don’t just take out big charismatic megafauna, like elephants, or niche ecosystems, like cloud forests. They take out hardy and ubiquitous organisms as well—things like clams and plants and insects. This is incredibly hard to do. But once you go over the edge and flip into mass extinction mode, nothing is safe. Mass extinctions kill almost everything on the planet.
Demand enough renewables and you might as well ban coal
There’s a lesson Australia needs to learn from South Australia. When intermittent renewables reach a certain percentage of daily average supply they make baseload power unfeasible. The situation develops into an impossible dead end that can only be solved with container-ships of cash.
The intermittent supply of wind and solar is the immoveable problem. It eats into the daily chart of the cheapest stable electricity supply — which is coal fired. Coal can’t be ramped in and out in minutes. It is a creature that runs best non-stop, efficiently, smoothly, at a high capacity factor (meaning it works best when it is producing around 90% of it’s design limit continuously).
Tom Quirk points out that sometime after these intermittent renewables hit 30% of the average daily supply, as they have in South Australia — locally sourced coal power becomes uneconomic. There are times during the daily cycle when renewables are providing almost all the demand. There is little demand left for the massive coal turbines to supply, so they spin on pointlessly, but costs remain, and profits are zero.
In SA, the owner of the last coal fired station was still willing to pour in money, but even large cash injections didn’t change the daily bad news cycle, and the coal station was closed.
If the electricity markets were left to run free, and compete purely on price, coal would provide the baseload (unless we had nukes) and obviously, electricity would be cheaper. But no amount of word mangling can dress up the situation. The insistence on having a large slab of intermittent power forces coal out of the system, and that forces prices up.
— Jo
The Levellers
Guest post by Tom Quirk
The claim that there is an opportunity for coal burning power stations depends on the extent of renewable energy sources.
The Blueprint target of 42% renewables destroys the opportunity to build baseload coal burning power stations independent of the choice of technologies.
This is because the Blueprint analysis uses the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE). LCOE is the net present value of the unit-cost of electricity over the lifetime of a generating plant using a particular technology. It is often taken as a proxy for the average price that the plant must receive in a market to break even over its lifetime.
A key factor in calculating the levelised costs is the utilisation of the plant expressed as the capacity factor. Levelised costs are referred to in the Blueprint. In particular an appendix shows a comparison of levelised costs for a wind farm and an ultra-super-critical coal burning plant having similar levelised costs. This is misleading,
There is a good illustration of the difficulty of levelised cost comparisons from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) in the United State[1] where assumptions are made about plant utilisation expressed as the capacity factor. These are based on regional analysis. This is shown below in Table 1, extracted from the EIA report on levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for new generation resources for 2022.The comparison with Australian states shows very different values for capacity factors and the comparison shows the importance of analyzing the particular electricity system and not a regional average.
Table 1. Estimated and measured Capacity Factors
Plant type
Capacity factors
Dispatchable Technologies
EIA*
2022
Victoria
2012
South Australia
2012
Conventional Coal
77.5%
33.2%
Conventional Coal with 30-90% CO2 sequestration
85%
Natural Gas-fired
Conventional Gas-fired Thermal
?
29.0%
Conventional Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
87%
14.2%
Conventional Combustion Turbine
30%
Hydro
16.0%
0.0%
Non-Dispatchable Technologies
Wind
41%
38.0%
33.1%
Solar PV
25%
14.2%
Hydro
60%
*Energy Information Agency (United States)
The difference in the capacity factors for coal fired plant is that demand in Victoria was 85% coal fired supply but only 2.5% wind while for South Australia coal supplied 17.1%, wind 26.6% and solar PV 3.8% of demand.
So the claim that there is an opportunity for coal burning power stations depends on the extent of renewable energy sources in the region being examined. It is clear that there is no opportunity for base load power in South Australia. A 33% capacity factor for 1203 MW of wind farms in 2012 gives variations from 0 to 1200 MW. But with average demand of 1493 MW and demand variations during the day from 1000 MW to 1800 MW wind farms can drive out baseload supply.
The Blueprint target of 42% renewables therefore destroys the opportunity to build baseload coal burning power stations independent of the choice of technologies.
More than 20 Coalition MPs spoke against the Finkel report last night, including Tony Abbott, all concerned that the priority is for cutting emissions and not electricity prices.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott was a sharp critic of the clean energy target and made interjections throughout the discussions.
“He was the most sceptical about it — he said it wasn’t going to cut prices or provide certainty for consumers,” one Liberal said.
“He was probably the strongest critic throughout the whole meeting.”
One of the senior Liberal figures who took notes on the meeting said last night that about 32 people spoke and about one-third of them were not in favour of the Finkel proposal, while one-third supported the clean energy target and another third asked questions or had suggestions for changes. Victorian Liberal MP Russell Broadbent, who has held his marginal electorate against determined assaults from Labor, was one MP who argued fiercely for a policy outcome that focused on affordability.
People keep hoping bipartisanship will finally solve the climate question, but this is a neverending loop as long anyone is talking about using windmills to change the climate. How many reruns of the same pointless dilemma will we do before we find the Ship called Bipartisan is docked in a town where no one uses a solar panel to prevent droughts, cause rain, or “save Greenland” from being … green?
Commenter Sophocles asks: Whenever you’re told a reform is going to be `cheaper’ start demanding proof. Loudly. Numbers.
In one of the most massaged spin-doctor sales messages in Australian history, the Finkel Report is here to “take the politics out” and solve our energy instability and out-of-control prices. But it’s actually an aggressive green-left weather-control program where cost and stability are secondary to the unspoken but main aim which is to slow storms in 2100. If Finkel were really aiming for stability and price control he’d let the free market run, get the government out of our electricity grid and look at the evidence that shows that solar-panels and wind farms don’t, won’t and can’t work as global air-conditioners for us or our grandchildren.
Australians, read this line and weep:
“Modelling for the Review estimates that by 2030, 42 per cent of electricity demand will be met by renewable generation.”
This is where South Australia is currently at, but it has a lifeline to coal power in Victoria whenever it needs it. What happens when the whole National Grid needs a lifeline? Pull out your wallet…
How much does an undersea cable to New Zealand cost? It’s only 2,000km.
Solving our energy stability is really easy and very cheap and if that was his aim, Finkel is not-even-trying. Government efforts to control the planetary climate have created the blackouts and driven cheap electricity providers out of business. Finkel’s “solution” is more of the same but in a different flavor. It’s all things to all people, “finally here” and we’ll all get free icecream, but please, nobody ask how much electricity would cost if the Government got out of the way. Nobody mention that wholesale coal-fired volts are 4c per kilowatt hour.
If you like your coal you can keep it (under the ground)
Technology Neutral. My Foot!
Importantly, the scheme would be technology neutral — that is, all forms of electricity generation would be eligible, including coal with carbon capture and storage or gas — provided they are below the emissions intensity threshold.
Finkel has nothing against coal, as long as people meet conditions that defy laws of chemistry. Supposedly coal fired stations must stuff a massive volume of a beneficial aerial fertilizer into small hot hole underground. New “carbon capture” coal plants would cost something like 60% more to build yet waste around 40% of all the energy they generate. Carbon capture is a secret code for “death to coal plants”, and not surprisingly, in real life, they crash and burn in financial fireballs.
What do you call “paying a lot more”? That’s your “reward”
Finkel-spin says that electricity will be cheaper than a hypothetical worst case scenario:
Consumers will be financially rewarded if they agree to manage their demand and share their resources such as solar panels and battery storage. Prices for all consumers, not just those who own solar panels or batteries, will be lower than they would otherwise be;
Welcome to your renewable future — managing demand means not having the air-con on when it’s really hot and you really need it. And what kind of prices are “lower than they otherwise would be”? Any kind. Theoretically any infinitely high price is still lower than it otherwise would be compared to an infinitely-plus-one-plan. It all depends on the modeling.
If you believe your annual electricity bill will fall by $90 every year for the next decade, you will believe anything.
This politically attractive forecast of falling electricity prices mirrors the equally ridiculous modelling result that emerged from the Warburton review of the renewable energy target released in 2015. We were asked to believe wholesale electricity prices would actually fall if the RET were retained in its then current form, with a target of 41,000 gigawatt hours by 2020. (This was adjusted to 33,000GWh.) That’s right — electricity prices were going to fall between 2015 and 2020.
But take a look at what has happened to wholesale electricity prices — and, with a lag, retail prices — in the context of the ongoing RET, an outcome completely divergent from the one the modellers assured us would occur.
Wholesale electricity prices have soared from $50 a megawatt hour on average to about $150. Retail prices are being raised across a number of states by between 15 per cent and 30 per cent. A household facing an annual electricity bill of $2000 a year easily could be slugged another $400 to $600.
Fake News is everywhere — no sensible word left unspun
The Finkel Review supposedly puts “energy security and stability centre stage“. Ask any electrical engineer how to do that and they’ll tell you to increase spinning inertia — meaning coal, gas, nukes, and hydro — these, especially coal, are the cheap, easy masters of security and stability. Instead Finkel puts “emissions reductions” under everything and “stability” is just the secondary billion-dollar-ball-and-chain, dragged along in the hunt for the sacred weather controlling electron.
At the ABC the report is improbably “taking the politics out” by adopting a green left option that Australian voters have rejected.
If perchance, you don’t think we should be forced to buy expensive electricity in order to change the weather the ABC won’t call you “sensible”, “pragmatic” or “sane”, you’re “pro-coal”. In ABC-land politicians don’t criticize the report, instead pro-coal backbenchers “undermine it”. It’s a nuance thing. Luckily the ABC are full of national energy-grid geniuses, so they can tell the difference.
Not surprisingly, there is rebellion in the ranks
— some Coalition backbenchers are warning that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull could, once again, be confronted with open rebellion on climate policy.
Yes, well. We’ve been there before. How many political careers shall we break on the carbon wheel?
The daft threat politicians convey,
Is that ‘carbon’ will cause a doomsday,
So expect for electric,
Whether warmist or skeptic,
All exorbitant increases pay.
Tomorrow Chief Scientist Alan Finkel is delivering a report that could potentially split the Liberal Party. Turnbull was tossed out by the party in 2009 because he supported the bank-friendly emissions trading scheme. Now the debate is back again in a different guise — called a LET scheme (low emissions target), or a CET scheme (Clean Energy Target). Details are scant at the moment. On the plus side, it appears it’s not necessarily a trading scheme (code for banker driver fiat currency) and it’s aimed at “emissions” directly instead of “renewables” (which makes it slightly more direct and gives the market a tiny bit more freedom, except of course, the market can’t choose “Nukes”.). On the downside, it’s still a pointless waste of billions of dollars in a futile attempt to slow storms for our grandchildren. If it succeeds in reducing emissions, it will reduce airborne plant fertilizer.
Tony Abbott has warned the federal government it would be making a big mistake if it adopted a low emissions target that made it hard to build new, more efficient coal-fired power stations. The former prime minister expressed his “anxiety” around reports concerning chief scientist Alan Finkel’s review of the national energy sector. His worry is that the Finkel report, due to be delivered on Friday, will recommend a scenario whereby renewable energy is at 70 per cent by 2030.
The nation’s biggest coal-fired power stations will have to give at least three years notice of any plans to shut down, as part of a strict new rule that seeks to avoid the sudden closure of vital electricity supplies. … will recommend the tough new rules in order to avoid a repeat of closures that have hurt the national electricity market.
Will companies that start losing money want to stick around and spend more to try to fix them, or just give up sooner? Will investors in Australian electricity “price in that risk” and pay less for electricity assets from now on? Perhaps companies will notify the market they are closing, then “see what happens” and not close — we could have the certainty of long standing constant closure orders so that companies retain the right to say at any time — “It’s over, and we gave you three years warning”.
Libs pick up an election losing Labor-type policy, Labor says “that’s OK”
Labor is offering to keep an open mind about the Liberals adopting long Labor policy. How “generous”.
The Labor leader has written to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to promise the opposition will approach Chief Scientist Alan Finkel’s review recommendations with an open mind, reports AAP.
The answer is always a scheme that costs us money and makes an unmeasurable difference to the climate:
Australia’s chief scientist, Alan Finkel, will hand down his long-awaited energy reform report to the Council of Australian Governments tomorrow, which is likely to favour a low emissions target scheme (LET).
Will they repeal all the other schemes, or quadruple-up the complexity?
The two major parties are closer than ever to agreeing on the LET, with Bill Shorten this week writing to the Prime Minister conceding that he would be willing to accept a LET, despite advocating for a tougher emissions intensity scheme (EIS).
Mr Butler said he hoped Mr Shorten’s “olive branch” would mark the end of the political dispute over climate change.
What “olive branch”? It looks like the Libs adopting a policy that helped the Labor Party lose the last two elections:
“We’ve heard very clearly from the business community that they’re concerned about the energy crisis emerging,” Mr Butler told ABC’s RN program this morning.
The energy crisis is the creation of crazy regulation to use power sources to change the climate. The answer is the free market.
“Expert after expert is telling us that there is a lack of certainty around energy policy so we have to do all we can to sit down and resolve that with the government”.
The “lack of certainty” is solved if the government gets out of the energy market, not by playing more politics with it.
The fakery includes describing what voters rejected, as “the centre”:
According to Mr Butler, the party’s offer to move to centre on climate change would come with conditions.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott has proved a staunch opponent of an LET, warning yesterday that the policy would eliminate high-efficiency coal-fired power stations.
“The Liberal Party has to be the party of cheap power, let Labor be the party of expensive power,” he told 2GB radio yesterday.
Repeat after me. Wholesale coal fired electricity is 3 to 4c a KWhr. Why is it illegal for coal fired power to be sold in a free market to Australians who want it?
Apparently, what electric cars need is not better performance but better subsidies:
Australia’s electric car market was unlikely to take off beyond its current tiny niche unless the federal government introduced subsidies to encourage consumers, says Nissan’s global chairman Carlos Ghosn.
It’s a micro-mini-market for electric cars in Australia:
Despite record sales of new cars, just 219 of the 1.2 million new vehicles sold in Australia in 2016 were electric, even that was a 90 per cent drop from the previous year. Battery powered cars represented only 0.0018 per cent of the total market.
People buy cars to get places. Governments “buy” cars to change the weather.
One of the justifications for subsidies was that sales of electric cars were not driven by consumer demand, but by governments’ desire to reduce emissions.
How rich is the State of California?
In California, sales of Nissan’s Leaf Electric vehicle, which retails at US$30,680, attracts a US$2,500 clean vehicle rebate, a $7,500 federal tax credit and gets some preferential treatment on high occupancy vehicle lanes.
You know a car is bad when it is allowed to go in “bus” lanes.
In the new Analytical Tool of Weaponized Outrage, anyone who talks about a group “laughing” at them is, ergo, ipso fantastico, channelling Hitler. Sasha Abramsky does word analysis and finds both Hitler and Trump used the word “laughing” therefore Trump is a neoNazi, white nationalist, fascist (who is, by implication, probably planning to do mass-gassings.)
Define “perilous”? It used to mean, you know “danger”.
Who is in peril here — Only the socialist parasites who need a symbolic supranational committee to suck funds from the free west in an effort to change the weather and provide two-week 5-star conference junkets for cult believers.
On September 30, 1942, shortly after the death camps began gassing Jews, Hitler declared, “In Germany too the Jews once laughed at my prophecies. I don’t know whether they are still laughing, or whether they have already lost the inclination to laugh, but I can assure you that everywhere they will stop laughing. With these prophecies I shall prove to be right.”
On June 1, 2017, Donald Trump announced that he was pulling America out of the Paris climate accord. “At what point does America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us as a country? We want fair treatment for its citizens and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers. We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore, and they won’t be. They won’t be.”
It’s not a direct quote from Hitler, but it’s perilously close
Define “direct quote”? There no two words used together in the same order. I’d say both were speaking “English”, well, except for Hitler.
The scariest thing is that Abramsky is telling students what a “quote” is:
…as a lecturer in journalism, I know that were a student of mine to try to pass such words off as original, they would be flying perilously close to a plagiarism citation.
At this rate, pretty soon the whole English language will be unusable due to copyright restrictions.
Everyone saying “they’re not laughing now” will need to cite Hitler, 1942.
Abramsky argues that any elected leader who says they want to pursue economic policies to help their own citizens is mimicking Hitler:
It’s not a huge leap from this passage to one from a speech that Hitler gave to party loyalists in Munich on February 24, 1941: “It is intolerable for us to be the puppets of other nations and to have them prescribe for us, for example, what economic policy we are to pursue. We are carrying out the economic policy which is most advantageous to the German people.”
I’ll leave readers to spot all the other past instances where elected leaders talked about their countries being laughed at, or where a policy would not be in their own economic interest. Let’s test Abramsky’s theory. How many of them went on to launch wars and set up genocidal concentration camps?
The “Hitler” demonization gets the full fantasy treatment complete with unattributed “rumors”, psychic guesses, and magical language insight:
Throughout Trump’s presidential campaign last year, he was dogged by rumors that he kept a book of Hitler’s speeches on his bedside table. Several of his appointees have links to far-right, neo-Nazi organizations. He has, time and again, retweeted white-nationalist and fascist tweets. He struggled to disavow support from arch-racist and former KKK leader David Duke. And his Svengali, Steve Bannon, is obsessed by nationalism and seems nostalgic for a sort of Third Reich world, in which powerful nations and races impose their might on helpless, and thus rights-less, nations and races.
National policy is not discussed in terms of jobs, employment and GDP, it’s decided by twitter tests. A fake account was set up with Mussolini quotes and eventually Trump retweeted 160 characters that included the deadly words “It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.” Since this was a Mussolini quote, Trump can therefore be called a “fascist white nationalist” in the cult-analysis.
The Gawker website said it had created “a Twitter bot that would post quotes from the writings and speeches of… Mussolini” at Mr Trump until he eventually retweeted one.
Last year, we set a trap for Trump. We came up with the idea for that Mussolini bot under the assumption that Trump would retweet just about anything, no matter how dubious or vile the source, as long as it sounded like praise for himself. (It helps that that a number of Mussolini’s quotes sound plausibly like lines from Trump’s myriad books.) The account, @ilduce2016, was created by Gawker senior writer Ashley Feinberg and Gawker Media Editorial Labs director Adam Pash. It has tweeted solely at Donald Trump, multiple times a day, since December 2015.
It is just advanced trickster namecalling, where even spending two seconds clicking “retweet” on a non-controversial message gets cited as a “link”, an “echo” and support for a “rumor” that someone admires systematic massacre.
A few hundred years ago witch hunters used the same techniques.
The best way to kill off the Climate Debate is to do what Team-Alarm has done for years — stop talking about whether it’s real, and just project forwards, detailing the collapse. For twenty years others have been saying “the debate is over”. Now the tables are turning. The debate really is over, skeptics won, and what’s left is to watch it continue to unravel. Clive James argues that it won’t collapse like a house of cards… (an extract from the new IPA book Climate Change: The Facts 2017.)
To take a conspicuous if ludicrous case, Australian climate star Tim Flannery will probably not, of his own free will, shrink back to the position conferred by his original metier, as an expert on the extinction of the giant wombat. He is far more likely to go on being, and wishing to be, one of the mass media’s mobile oracles about climate. While that possibility continues, it will go on being dangerous to stand between him and a television camera. If the giant wombat could have moved at that speed, it would still be with us.
The mere fact that few of Flannery’s predictions have ever come true need not be enough to discredit him, just as American professor Paul Ehrlich has been left untouched since he predicted that the world would soon run out of copper. In those days, when our current phase of the long discussion about man’s attack on nature was just beginning, he predicted mass death by extreme cold. Lately he predicts mass death by extreme heat. But he has always predicted mass death by extreme something.
The scientists who created this grand-swamp-of-failed-predictions should be the first ones to pay — after all, it’s their speciality, and not only have their predictions failed completely. But so far the payback for climate gullibility has not cost scientists much, but it has cost politicians:
When he left Copenhagen, Rudd scarcely mentioned the greatest moral challenge again. Perhaps he had deduced, from the confusion prevailing throughout the conference, that the chances of the world ever uniting its efforts to “do something” were very small. Whatever his motives for backing out of the climate chorus, his subsequent career was an early demonstration that to cease being a chorister would be no easy retreat because it would be a clear indication that everything you had said on the subject up to then had been said in either bad faith or ignorance. It would not be enough merely to fall silent. You would have to travel back in time, run for office in the Czech Republic instead of Australia, and call yourself Vaclav Klaus.
Climate Gullibility costs newspapers:
The print media, with notable exceptions, is on its way down the drain. With almost no personnel left to do the writing, the urge at editorial level is to give all the science stuff to one bloke. The print edition of The Independent bored its way out of business when its resident climate nag was allowed to write half the paper.
In its last year, when the doomwatch journalists were threatened by the climate industry with a newly revised consensus opinion that a mere 2C increase in world temperature might be not only acceptable but likely, The Independent’s chap retaliated by writing stories about how the real likelihood was an increase of 5C, and in a kind of frenzied crescendo he wrote a whole front page saying that the global temperature was “on track” for an increase of 6C. Not long after, the Indy’s print edition closed down.
Clive blames the media for propagating the pernicious myth (me too) but thinks this is an accident because people still hold the mainstream media as worthy of reading:
Few of those people have been reading the sceptical blogs: they have no time. If I myself had not been so ill during the relevant time span, I might not have been reading it either, and might have remained confined within the misinformation system where any assertion of forthcoming disaster counts as evidence.
Clive doesnt’ say it, but perhaps if the “free press” restores itself for a while to true freedom (where news outlets compete to scoop each other for the truth) — perhaps the next FakeScare will be harder to get going.
The effect of this mountainous accumulation of sanctified alarmism on the academic world is another subject. Some of the universities deserve to be closed down,…
If only, academia deserve to be forced to run on pure philanthropy. That might sort them out.
Clive warns against predictions:
Modern history since World War II has shown us that it is unwise to predict what will happen to ideologists after their citadel of power has been brought low. It was feared that the remaining Nazis would fight on, as werewolves. Actually, only a few days had to pass before there were no Nazis to be found anywhere except in Argentina, boring one another to death at the world’s worst dinner parties.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, on the other hand, when it was thought that no apologists for Marxist collectivism could possibly keep their credibility in the universities of the West, they not only failed to lose heart, they gained strength.
I would point out that there were few research grants for Nazi’s in 1946, but there is always an ocean of collectivist dollars for people researching the advantages of Big Government. Therein lies the boring truth… “follow the money”.
This is an exclusive extract from the essay Mass Death Dies Hard by Clive James in Climate Change: The Facts 2017 edited by Jennifer Marohasy, published next month by the Institute of Public Affairs.
The Leader of the free world leads the way out of the hollow bureaucratic pointless puffery of an agreement that was never going to change the weather.
The people of the free world never voted to join the Paris agreement. Trump has just said the obvious — he’ll look after US citizens first, and renegotiate a deal that helps the environment and doesn’t punish the leading polluters.
The members of the climate cult reacted the way cult members do. A Greens MP in Australia called the President of our greatest military ally a “climate criminal“. Al Gore said it’s reckless, and indefensible, and apparently the “planet has suffered” sayth the spokesperson for the Third Rock from the Sun, Leonardo Di Caprio.
Tom Steyer says Trump is “committing a traitorous act of war against the American people.”
As the Wall Street Journal wrote this morning: “The reality is that withdrawing is in America’s economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.”
One by one, we are keeping the promises I made to the American people during my campaign for President –- whether it’s cutting job-killing regulations; appointing and confirming a tremendous Supreme Court justice; putting in place tough new ethics rules; achieving a record reduction in illegal immigration on our southern border; or bringing jobs, plants, and factories back into the United States at numbers which no one until this point thought even possible. And believe me, we’ve just begun. The fruits of our labor will be seen very shortly even more so.
On these issues and so many more, we’re following through on our commitments. And I don’t want anything to get in our way. I am fighting every day for the great people of this country. Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord — (applause) — thank you, thank you — but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers. So we’re getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine. (Applause.)
As President, I can put no other consideration before the wellbeing of American citizens. The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.
Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.
“…could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs”
Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need — believe me, this is not what we need — including automobile jobs, and the further decimation of vital American industries on which countless communities rely. They rely for so much, and we would be giving them so little.
According to this same study, by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal — and I happen to love the coal miners — down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that.
“It fails to live up to our environmental ideals. …, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States … the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.”
Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals. As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States — which is what it does -– the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.
For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years — 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries. There are many other examples. But the bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.
Further, while the current agreement effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America — which it does, and the mines are starting to open up. We’re having a big opening in two weeks. Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places. A big opening of a brand-new mine. It’s unheard of. For many, many years, that hasn’t happened. They asked me if I’d go. I’m going to try.
China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it: India can double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours. Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants.
In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers thse jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries.
“The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement — they went wild; they were so happy — for the simple reason that it put our country, …at a very, very big economic disadvantage.”
This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States. The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement — they went wild; they were so happy — for the simple reason that it put our country, the United States of America, which we all love, at a very, very big economic disadvantage. A cynic would say the obvious reason for economic competitors and their wish to see us remain in the agreement is so that we continue to suffer this self-inflicted major economic wound. We would find it very hard to compete with other countries from other parts of the world.
We have among the most abundant energy reserves on the planet, sufficient to lift millions of America’s poorest workers out of poverty. Yet, under this agreement, we are effectively putting these reserves under lock and key, taking away the great wealth of our nation — it’s great wealth, it’s phenomenal wealth; not so long ago, we had no idea we had such wealth — and leaving millions and millions of families trapped in poverty and joblessness.
The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries. At 1 percent growth, renewable sources of energy can meet some of our domestic demand, but at 3 or 4 percent growth, which I expect, we need all forms of available American energy, or our country — (applause) — will be at grave risk of brownouts and blackouts, our businesses will come to a halt in many cases, and the American family will suffer the consequences in the form of lost jobs and a very diminished quality of life.
Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that; this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and this is an incredible statistic — would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes.
As the Wall Street Journal wrote this morning: “The reality is that withdrawing is in America’s economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.” The United States, under the Trump administration, will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth. We’ll be the cleanest. We’re going to have the cleanest air. We’re going to have the cleanest water. We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work and we’re not going to lose our jobs. We’re going to grow; we’re going to grow rapidly. (Applause.)
And I think you just read — it just came out minutes ago, the small business report — small businesses as of just now are booming, hiring people. One of the best reports they’ve seen in many years.
I’m willing to immediately work with Democratic leaders to either negotiate our way back into Paris, under the terms that are fair to the United States and its workers, or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers. (Applause.)
So if the obstructionists want to get together with me, let’s make them non-obstructionists. We will all sit down, and we will get back into the deal. And we’ll make it good, and we won’t be closing up our factories, and we won’t be losing our jobs. And we’ll sit down with the Democrats and all of the people that represent either the Paris Accord or something that we can do that’s much better than the Paris Accord. And I think the people of our country will be thrilled, and I think then the people of the world will be thrilled. But until we do that, we’re out of the agreement.
I will work to ensure that America remains the world’s leader on environmental issues, but under a framework that is fair and where the burdens and responsibilities are equally shared among the many nations all around the world.
No responsible leader can put the workers — and the people — of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage. The fact that the Paris deal hamstrings the United States, while empowering some of the world’s top polluting countries, should dispel any doubt as to the real reason why foreign lobbyists wish to keep our magnificent country tied up and bound down by this agreement: It’s to give their country an economic edge over the United States. That’s not going to happen while I’m President. I’m sorry. (Applause.)
My job as President is to do everything within my power to give America a level playing field and to create the economic, regulatory and tax structures that make America the most prosperous and productive country on Earth, and with the highest standard of living and the highest standard of environmental protection.
Our tax bill is moving along in Congress, and I believe it’s doing very well. I think a lot of people will be very pleasantly surprised. The Republicans are working very, very hard. We’d love to have support from the Democrats, but we may have to go it alone. But it’s going very well.
The Paris Agreement handicaps the United States economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country’s expense. They don’t put America first. I do, and I always will. (Applause.)
The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions of dollars through tough trade practices and, in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance. You see what’s happening. It’s pretty obvious to those that want to keep an open mind.
At what point does America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us as a country? We want fair treatment for its citizens, and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers. We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won’t be. They won’t be.
I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.
I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris. (Applause.) I promised I would exit or renegotiate any deal which fails to serve America’s interests. Many trade deals will soon be under renegotiation. Very rarely do we have a deal that works for this country, but they’ll soon be under renegotiation. The process has begun from day one. But now we’re down to business.
Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris Accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called Green Climate Fund — nice name — which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments. So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else. Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime.
The Green Fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion — nobody else is even close; most of them haven’t even paid anything — including funds raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism. That’s where they came. Believe me, they didn’t come from me. They came just before I came into office. Not good. And not good the way they took the money.
In 2015, the United Nation’s departing top climate officials reportedly described the $100 billion per year as “peanuts,” and stated that “the $100 billion is the tail that wags the dog.” In 2015, the Green Climate Fund’s executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020. And nobody even knows where the money is going to. Nobody has been able to say, where is it going to?
Of course, the world’s top polluters have no affirmative obligations under the Green Fund, which we terminated. America is $20 trillion in debt. Cash-strapped cities cannot hire enough police officers or fix vital infrastructure. Millions of our citizens are out of work. And yet, under the Paris Accord, billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our jobs away from us. So think of that.
There are serious legal and constitutional issues as well. Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the U.S. economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives. Thus, our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty. (Applause.) Our Constitution is unique among all the nations of the world, and it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it. And I will.
Staying in the agreement could also pose serious obstacles for the United States as we begin the process of unlocking the restrictions on America’s abundant energy reserves, which we have started very strongly. It would once have been unthinkable that an international agreement could prevent the United States from conducting its own domestic economic affairs, but this is the new reality we face if we do not leave the agreement or if we do not negotiate a far better deal.
The risks grow as historically these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time. In other words, the Paris framework is a starting point — as bad as it is — not an end point. And exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability. Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.
As President, I have one obligation, and that obligation is to the American people. The Paris Accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world. It is time to exit the Paris Accord — (applause) — and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens, and our country.
It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — along with many, many other locations within our great country — before Paris, France. It is time to make America great again. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Scoop: Trump is pulling U.S. out of Paris climate deal
President Trump has made his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the decision. Details on how the withdrawal will be executed are being worked out by a small team including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. They’re deciding on whether to initiate a full, formal withdrawal — which could take 3 years — or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme.
CBS News also reported that Trump is telling allies about his decision. The move marks a dramatic departure from the Obama administration, which was instrumental in crafting the deal. It also makes the U.S. an outlier among the world’s nations, nearly all of whom support the climate change accord. But Trump’s decision fulfills an original campaign promise he made just over a year ago to “cancel” the accord.
Trump was elected on this promise, and now people are shocked that he might keep it.
Donald Trump = Death Star:
….
Big Energy companies put profits aside to become planet saving charity groups:
Friends of Earth attacks them anyway:
….
…
Fan of The Science uses best reasoning:
….
LA secedes from the United States:
….
Hours of fun!
Dear Donald, send one of your tweets,
That the U.S. won’t take up their seats,
At the Paris accord,
Which the skeptics abhorred,
But adored by the warmist elites.
Oh the irony. What if “fossil fuels” were driving the climate debate, but on the Warmie side?
Fossil fuels is a misnomer, there is no collective fossil industry, just a bunch of massive multi-conglomerates competing. And the biggest competition for oil and gas comes from coal. Gas wins two ways: not only do “carbon schemes” help gas and oil compete, but the more windmills there are, the more gas we need to cope with the intermittency.
William Kay joins some interesting dots. Rex Tillerson, he argues, is a dark knight, painted as the enemy of climate deals yet pushing Exxon belatedly into the BP and Shell mould as another giant gas company that lobbies for carbon credits. The war waged on skeptics for their “fossil fuel” funding was a red herring to distract from the real direction of the lobbying.
Let’s cut to the chase. The coal lobby and the natural gas lobby are dueling over the captain’s share of the U.S. electricity-generating market. As The Donald would say, “The stakes are yuge.” Americans spend almost $400 billion a year on electricity.
Recent figures have natural gas fueling 34% of this market and coal 31%. Percentages fluctuate monthly. Twenty-sixteen was the year natural gas surpassed coal. When the climate caper gained traction, in the late 1980s, coal enjoyed a near-60% market share, while natural gas held only 10%. With this in mind, one plotter around Trump’s table looms ominous.
Tillerson….
As the pitchmen from the 250,000-member Texans for Natural Gas, or from Europe’s GasNaturally meta-coalition, never tire of telling us, gas-generated electricity emits about half the carbon dioxide per watt than does coal-generated electricity. Wielding this fact, BP and Shell emerged, by the early 1990s, as the most effective and deep-pocketed climate crusaders. Until Tillerson, ExxonMobil was the major Big Oil climate holdout.
Gas needs to be recognised as a “climate industry”:
Natural gas is the Climate Industrial Complex’s dark horse. The Climate Change Business Journal does not even recognize natural gas, per se, as a climate industry. The authors discuss only the gas industry’s efforts at reducing fugitive methane emissions and at carbon capture and storage. To purists, the $1.5-trillion-a-year Climate Industrial Complex consists only of the makers and mongers of solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, bio-fuels, etc. There is no room in their inn for a “fossil fuel” industry whose existence predates the climate campaign.
As I said in 2009 The Exxon “Blame-Game” is a Distracting Side Show. But then I was talking about how big government outspends big oil to push the global warming theme. I still think banks and governments are bigger drivers than gas and oil, but it is tantalizing to wonder if fossil fuels had a hand in creating the anti-fossil fuels agitprop.
Back to 2017 and Tillerson is Secretary of State. Hm.
The EU Ministry for The Management of Nice Weather says that the artificial price of carbon credits must rise a magnitude or two if they are going to have any chance of meeting their “climate” target. In some senses they are right — the price of carbon would have to be very high to get people to shift energy sources, because the ones that produce carbon dioxide are so blissfully cheap. On the other hand, this assumes that the IPCC models are right and that economies would survivc this brutal management.
They don’t seem to mention what this will do to electricity prices.
The cost of emitting carbon dioxide must rise to $50-$100 per tonne by 2030, much higher than the current price in Europe of less than $6, if countries are to meet climate pledges made under the Paris Agreement, economists said on Monday.
Under the Paris deal, more than 190 countries pledged to keep planet-warming well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) to stave off the worst effects of climate change.
The Commission on Carbon Prices, a group of 13 leading economists supported by the World Bank, said in their report that carbon dioxide prices would need to be $40-$80 per tonne by 2020, rising to $50-$100 per tonne the following decade.
Next up, The Ministry for Daylight Savings pledges to slow the rotation of the Earth.
WASHINGTON – Multiple news agencies, including Reuters News, are now reporting that President Donald Trump has privately informed several officials in Washington DC that he intends to withdraw from the UN Paris climate pact.
President Trump has privately told multiple people, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, that he plans to leave the Paris agreement on climate change, according to three sources with direct knowledge.
Why this matters: Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could to do unravel Obama’s climate policies. It also sends a stark and combative signal to the rest of the world that working with other nations on climate change isn’t a priority to the Trump administration. And pulling out threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal, given how integral former President Obama was in making it come together in the first place.
Caveat: Although Trump made it clear during the campaign and in multiple conversations before his overseas trip that he favored withdrawal, he has been known to abruptly change his mind — and often floats notions to gauge the reaction of friends and aides. On the trip, he spent many hours with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, powerful advisers who back the deal.
Paris was always pointless
If the US is in or out of Paris, in a hundred years no one could tell by studying the weather.
In a January 16, 2017 Prager U video titled, “The Paris Climate Agreement Won’t Change the Climate,” Bjorn Lomborg explains that “the agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming.” (Full transcript here)
“Using the same prediction model that the UN uses, I found that [Obama’s] power plan will accomplish almost nothing. Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century — the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just -.023 degrees Fahrenheit,” Lomborg explained.
“The actually promised emission reductions under the Paris agreement literally gets us just 1 percent of the way to the 2 degrees target,” he noted, adding “99% of what would be required is put off until after 2030.”
A Red Herring just flew through the Climate Change Gravy Train
Anthony Sharwood hopes to derail the killer argument about Golden Gravy Train:
Scientists Getting Filthy Rich On Climate Change? Here Are The Facts
This train has no gravy on it.
Get ready to rethink the role of carbon. Sharwood comes armed with facts like a non-quote from an anonymous climate scientist friend in Tasmania who says he’s only earning $80 k and who, “impressively”, said he’s in it for “love not money”. He reckons he could’ve been earning $200k in IT. (Not in Tasmania, buddy).
So forget radiative transfer and moist adiabatic lapse rates, science is now decided by the love test. Who loves science the most? Maybe the skeptics who are working for nothing, eh?
Sharwood and HuffPo naturally miss freight train of money.
As for poor Climate Scientists, no one said they were raking it in, but compared to the rest of the scientific industry, they get rock star treatment. What other branch of science gets two-week Olympic sized conferences each year, plus television interviews, red carpet awards, and documentaries?
And these guys are the ones who can’t predict anything. Wall Street doesn’t want those kind of modelers.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
Recent Comments