you're reading...
Arctic/Antarctic, CO2, CO2 mitigation?, European Union, General Topics, Industrial Strategies, Loony Toons, Settled science?, These items caught my eye, US politics, Windfarms

These items caught my eye – 22 June 2013

1: Self-delusion on auto emissions; 2: The ‘Great Renewables Scam’ unravels; 3: Climate Change: The Cost Of “Bold Action”; 4: Global Warming — WHO MADE IT STOP?; 5: Sea ice, beluga whales, and polar bear densities in the Gulf of Boothia; 6: The Green Madness Of Connie Hedegaard – Make Your Own Climate; 7: The propaganda juggernaut (part 1); 8: The Fallacy of Trapped Heat; 9: Global warming theory lacks a falsifiable hypothesis and climate policy lacks Conditions of Success; 10: A cooling consensus ; Please remember to read the comments, as the information (and the links) contained in them often put the main article into context..

Self-delusion on auto emissions

Posted on June 22, 2013 by Roger Helmer MEP

Last December the Commission published a report on auto emissions which seems to me to be fairly explosive, yet so far as I know it got remarkably little publicity.

Over the last ten years, the official figures for auto emissions fell by 15%. A triumph for EU emissions policy! A victory in the fight against climate change! Except that this report shows that they didn’t. We’ve been kidding ourselves. This report shows that at least a third, and quite possibly up to half, of the claimed emissions reductions were the result of manufacturers exploiting “flexibilities” in the testing procedure.

Click here to read the full article

The ‘Great Renewables Scam’ unravels

Posted on June 21, 2013 by Peter C. Glover

Peter C. Glover

Energy insiders have long known that the notion of ‘renewable energy’ is a romantic proposition – and an economic bust. But it is amazing what the lure of guaranteed ‘few strings attached’ government subsidies can achieve. Even the Big Oil companies bought into the renewables revolution, albeit mostly for PR reasons. Like Shell, however, many quickly abandoned their fledgling renewable arms. Post-2008, they knew, the subsidy regimes could not last. Neither was the public buying into the new PR message.

Now it was just a question of time before Europe’s world leading pioneers of solar and wind power, Germany and the UK, decided they had had enough of the self-inflicted economic pain. And all the signs are – as Germany’s solar sector just went belly up and the UK is made aware of how much every wind job actually costs – that the slow implosion of the renewables revolution is under way.

The plain fact is that installing solar panels, especially in the northern hemisphere, makes about as much economic sense as Iran heading up a UN Human Rights Commission (which it has done by the way). Equally, the viability of windfarms has always been the renewables industry’s worst kept secret.

Click here to read the full article

Climate Change: The Cost Of “Bold Action”

Posted on June 22, 2013 by Katie Tubb

This week, President Obama stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin and declared that “the effort to slow climate change requires bold action.” Some in Congress say we need to take such bold action now by taxing carbon dioxide.

But according to a Heritage Foundation analysis of the Boxer–Sanders carbon-tax bill, such a global warming mitigation policy would cost Americans dearly:

The carbon tax is just another progressive “sin tax” that, as it turns out, would hurt everyone who uses energy or needs it to run their businesses or buys things that require energy in order to be made.

Click here to read the full article

Global Warming — WHO MADE IT STOP?

Posted on June 21, 2013 by evilincandescentbulb

Why did global warming stop? In a nutshell, we began by renaming natural climate change and called it a global emergency. We listened to the awesomeness of the United Nations as they demanded that all Americans place their faith in global warming specialists. It is these specialists who took the temperature of the entire globe and worked together to provide the remedy that was needed to stop it from warming. President George Bush (43rd President of the United States of America from 2001 to 2009) refused to go along. It could have been bad. Instead, now we learn that global temperatures have fallen and no one believes just having red lights on and sirens blaring is all it took to stop it.

In 2009 the BBC took a truth pill and admitted it, that back then, “Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade.” We are at 16 years now and going on 20 with no end to the cooling in sight. The UN’s warming specialists never did anything but declare the entire time that something was warming the globe and humanity’s fingerprints were all over it; and, they predicted the warming would continue and get worse.

Click here to read the full article

Sea ice, beluga whales, and polar bear densities in the Gulf of Boothia

Posted on June 21, 2013 by polar bear science

As I discussed in my last post, the Gulf of Boothia subpopulation in the central Canadian Arctic has the highest density of polar bears anywhere in the world. The question is, why?

For example, is the sea ice in the Gulf of Boothia region so markedly different from its nearest subpopulation-neighbor, M’Clintock Channel (Fig. 1), that it accounts for the wide disparity in polar bear densities between the two? The differences, remember, are dramatic: Gulf of Boothia, 18.3 bears per 1000 km2 vs. M’Clintock Channel, 1.9. And while M’Clintock Channel may be low in part due to recent over-harvests (see footnote 1), even the density before over-harvests occurred in M’Clintock Channel were only 4.7, compared to 10.4 bears per 1000 km2 in Gulf of Boothia (see Table 1 in previous post).

Today, I’ll take a look at sea ice and ringed seal habitat in the Gulf of Boothia and M’Clintock Channel, as well as information from a study on polar bear diets, which together shine some light on why the Gulf of Boothia is such a great place for polar bears.

Click here to read the full article

The Green Madness Of Connie Hedegaard – Make Your Own Climate

Posted on June 21, 2013 by Tory Aardvark

A world you like. With a climate you like, according to unelected EU Climate Commissar Connie and her dwindling band of Green followers, the human race can pick and choose the climate by simply believing in climate religion.

The ongoing decline of Green climate religion is creating some absurd scenarios that are continuing to cost the citizens of EU prosperity, affordable energy and jobs as the Green boondoggle comes apart, the most absurd is not actually the notion that the human race can selectively pick the weather of its own choosing, and ultimately the climate, but, the massive policy confusion inside the EU Commissariat on Climate Change.

The dawn of realisation that nobly leading the way to a Green economic disaster is not an example the rest of the world has any intention of following has dawned on finance ministers in the Brussels Kremlin, but has been missed completely ignored by Comrade Connie and her new friend, Britain’s Climate Change Fool Ed Davey, for whom every day is Groundhog day 2008, with a prosperous Green economy, zillions of Green jobs, electric cars, and a European landscape covered with Green religious symbols monuments to Green folly aka wind turbines.

In the run up to COP18 last November, Hedegaard was pushing fear stories of global climatic apocalypse using the much beloved and completely erroneous, warmist science of event attribution and muttering darkly about the human race being able to select the climate of its own choosing.

Click here to read the full article

The propaganda juggernaut (part 1)

Posted on June 21, 2013 by climatefraudwatcher

Google ‘cooling tower’ in google images and the first three images of cooling towers are as follows.

Google ‘Global Warming’ in google images and you won’t have to scroll down too far before your first images of cooling towers appear as follows.

Click here to read the full article

The Fallacy of Trapped Heat

Posted on June 21, 2013 by Chiefio

I was pondering the problem of lighting a sphere and figuring out how much energy arrives where. This led to two interesting web pages (that I’m trying to find again). One was a scholarly look at it from a “climate science” perspective, that proceeded to list a load of critical things that would be simplified out of the problem. The other was an animation rendering paper that found an ‘almost right’ and good enough method for calculating lighting that gave much faster rendering times. The Animation Folks took on the problem in a much more complicated way (even though it was a dramatic simplification of what is used now in rendering). The “net net” for me was that clearly since ‘it has to look right’, the animation folks did a LOT more work on the problem. This implies that the “climate science” folks are leaving out a load of reality. Reality that matters, or it would ‘look right’, and the animation folks would not need to do such complicated things. But the details on that will need to wait for another day, when I have the URLs in hand.

What it did do is remind me of just how complicated the world is and how much the details matter. Was there a way to garner some useful information from that perspective?

Click here to read the full article

Global warming theory lacks a falsifiable hypothesis and climate policy lacks Conditions of Success

Posted on June 21, 2013 by The k2p blog

In Science – to be considered a science – it is the formulation of the falsifiable hypothesis that is critical and ought to determine the subsequent collection or generation of data.

A fundamental requirement before setting out a new policy or embarking on any new course of action should be to define the Conditions of Success (CoS) prior to starting. This is usually so in industry and business – usually explicit but sometimes implicit – especially where investment is to be made or resources are to be used in implementing the new course of action:

1. What are the objectives to be achieved, and
2. how will we be able to measure if we are on track.

Click here to read the full article

A cooling consensus

Posted on Jun 20th 2013 by economist

GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the
past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years.

GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: “Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections”.

Mr Cohn does his best to affirm that the urgent necessity of acting to retard warming has not abated, as does Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, as does this newspaper. But there’s no way around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases. The reality is that the already meagre prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.

Click here to read the full article


Comments are closed.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Follow me on Twitter

Flag Counter
%d bloggers like this: