by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
Political Insiders weigh in:How Much of a Role Will Climate Change Play in the 2016 Presidential Race? [link] …
Hillary Clinton takes pragmatic tone on fossil fuels, climate change [link]
Guardian: Britain’s first ‘energy positive’ house opens in Wales [link]
China struggles to contain the environmental damage of its rapid growth [link]
Corn growers rally over EPA’s rule to cut ethanol production [link] …
People who live near fracking sites suffer higher rates of heart conditions and neurological illnesses [link]
American power plant CO2 emissions fall 12% from 2008-13 [link]
Tata Steel Announces 720 Job Cuts Due To High Energy Costs & Strong Pound [link]
India’s confidently green road to Paris [link] …
EPA distorts health benefits of mega-costly clean-air rule | [link]
Met Office’s @markpmcc dispels those myths about Heathrow record high temp being untrustworthy [link] http://bit.ly/1K9Q3cz
Muslim scholars highlight threat of climate change [link]
STUDY: Premature power plant closures will inevitably increase electricity costs. [link]
“The One New Technology That Could Get Us A Better & safer Iran Deal [link] … use thorium, which can’t produce atomic weapons
The Latest Sign That Coal Is Getting Killed [link]
CassSunstein on the right way to measure the social price of carbon. [link]
Presidential #GreenChemistry Awards: Algenol wins one for algae-based CO2-to-fuel reactor [link]
Tackling energy #subsidies: What role for intl institutions? [link]
The case for sucking #CO2 out of the atmosphere. [link]
British green policies kill one person every seven minutes in the winter [link]
Norwegian #Hydropower Could Make #Norway The #Green Battery Of Europe [link]
Africa’s climate insurance scheme expands, eyes aid agency clients [link] …
The @NRDC payed big role in CA water crisis: “The most amazing truth about California’s water crisis” [link] …
“States consider defying Obama climate rule | TheHill” [link] …
“How plastic waste can stop global warming – The World Economic Forum” [link]
Regenerative agriculture needs to be centered around livestock in order to be optimized. [link]
An ill wind in Ontario [link]
Chinese Unveil Mysterious 3D Printed Houses – Built Out of Unique Material, Able to Withstand Devastating Earthquakes [link] …
How do we feed 9 bn w/out threatening water supply? Great #TedTalk from Jon Foley [link]
To control the public, education was changed into propaganda after Stalin emerged victorious at the end of WWII to unite nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) into an “Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths“
Here is assurance for the outcome:
Finally, six years after Climategate emails surfaced in late Nov 2009, the Sun’s pulsar core is gaining attention as the creator, destroyer and sustainer of every atom, live and planet in the solar system and controller of planetary motions and climates:
From that link:
Wrong! Brad Plumer doesn’t have a clue how to do research.
Sure, we know how to do it, at astronomical cost…but of course cost is never a factor if we face the end of the world /sarc
I believe it is “the end of human civilization, as we know it”. Since there is “civilization change”, you cannot be actually wrong with such a prediction. That leads to “the end of the world, as we know it.”
The great “unknowable” is one kick butt sales tool.
We worked out how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere back in 2007 AND how to recover costs at the same time! The technology involved using hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor to mix deep nutrients into the sunlit mixed layer of the ocean where the ensuing phytoplankton-based ecosystem would would suck CO2 out of the air and convert it to faecal and skeletal material which would ultimately fall to the bottom. A new billion dollar fishery would be created in the process which would pay for the installation.
No-one was interested. It became obvious that the whole CO2 thing was about spreading the faith not solving the problem. More info at http://ecofluidics.com/
“People who live near fracking sites suffer higher rates of heart conditions and neurological illnesses”
People that believe in dangerous anthropogenic climate change probably do too.
Having recently toured much of the area in question….from the visual evidence I would say the median age of people living near fracking sites is 10-20 years older then the national average.
Who would have thought that the elderly would suffer from heart disease and Alzheimer’s?
Sunstein raises the point that when using the social cost in national cost-benefit analyses, such as for the EPA, whether it should be the global or national benefit that is considered on the benefit side. If every carbon-producing nation just used national benefit, the true benefit would be hidden, because there is much of it in nations that are not emitting much and don’t need to make reduction policies. As I have mentioned before, putting dollar values on costs/losses is not fair anyway as it marginalizes areas like Africa that represent only a couple percent of global GDP, but more than 10% and a growing fraction of the world’s population that some project to be over one third by 2100. These are the questions. It will take some thinking beyond where the debate currently is on social costs. Whether it is national or global costs, and how to evaluate those costs and benefits fairly are issues to consider. It’s not just GDP dollars.
Everyone who studies these issues seriously agrees that it’s not just GDP dollars. Therefore the models apply some utility functions. Unfortunately that adds yet another level of subjective choice to the analyses which tend to depend on too many subjective choices even without this point.
Anyway, we can use Sunstein’s $36/tonne as an example of mitigation versus none. Let’s take a rising 650 ppm in 2100 as unmitigated and stabilized 450 ppm by 2100 as mitigated. The difference between these is about 3000 GtCO2 emissions. At $36/tonne, this is about $100 trillion in total cost by 2100 in today’s dollars (today’s global GDP is about $60 trillion). This is the difference made by mitigation. So, the next question is how much does mitigation cost? AR5 WG3 provides that number too. For the 450 ppm scenario, it adds up to about 5% of GDP by 2100, so maybe $3 trillion in today’s dollars. So for $3 trillion, we can alleviate climate change costs by $100 trillion, and it is at least $100 trillion because the no-action scenario has a continuous increase beyond 2100, while the mitigation scenario does not. Seems like a no-brainer. Why is there a debate on whether to mitigate or adapt?
Because most people aren’t socialists. Costs to “society” aren’t the same as costs to individuals. Go back to the drawing board, if you really care about CO2/climate, and aren’t just using the climate thing as a stalking horse for a socialist agenda.
Something that benefits the world to the effect of $100 trillion is even going to come back to the capitalist countries via international trade. It is not just socialists who want to improve the world’s economic health.
It’s only socialists who are willing to throw out the entire Industrial Revolution, and the system that nurtured it, for your imaginary “benefits the world to the effect of $100 trillion”.
The mitigation cost is within the noise of GDP growth. 0.06% per year. This does not collapse the global economy as many skeptics claim when they don’t have the numbers. Many are taken in by this economic alarmism that is preached without any numbers, and they just believe it with no skepticism at all. Find the evidence that reducing emissions over several decades has any significant impact on GDP rather than just believing what they tell you. The bigger cost by far is what is going on with climate change.
So your “experts” say.
How much it costs depends on how it’s done. When somebody quotes me a cost without telling me what it’s for, I start by considering it a scam. Prove it’s not.
No it’s not.
Find your experts and numbers on the cost of mitigation. They don’t exist anywhere that I have seen. You can’t have a discussion without an expert on your side, and only people like Steyn promoting your view.
No, show me what your “experts” say about how their “mitigation” will be done. And what the cost will be to each payer. I’m not interested in socialist “cost to society” BS.
Again you are asserting it is just unaffordable to shift from fossil fuels in the next few decades, and no one has shown that with actual numbers. In comparison to GDP growth it is affordable, and pays off. The IPCC has referenced several studies on the mitigation scenarios and the assumptions behind them.
No I’m not.
I’m not interested in your socialist cant. Tell me about the costs to individuals. You can’t, because your “analysis” doesn’t take account of them.
Can you predict the fossil fuel markets decades ahead? We don’t know whether it will be cheaper to not be using them in the 2050’s, or if green energy and nuclear prices will undercut them anyway. Whatever happens to those, it does not seem that there is a path where energy can be much more expensive than now, and if there is, the skeptics need to point it out as a specific warning rather than say don’t even try.
Wrong! There are plenty of “path[s] where energy can be much more expensive than now,” including just about any “path” where government is allowed to interfere at random. By which I mean almost any interference, since government has an abysmal track record of predicting the outcome of its
Nope. Any government interference is guilty
until proven innocent.
“Why is there a debate on whether to mitigate or adapt?” Because these numbers are in dispute. Lomborg’s group, which has four Nobel Prize-winning economists, comes out that mitigation returns far _less_ than it costs. How did you decide which economists you prefer? You don’t get to claim consensus on this one.
Lomborg also agrees that mitigation is a very small fraction, maybe a few percent, of GDP growth. He prefers a world where we are continuously throwing money at adapting to climate change rather than just ending it for less cost. His logic appears off because he is not considering the long-term value of a stable climate, but at least he advocates research for moving off fossil fuels even if not advocating the necessity.
They aren’t buying it, yimmy. Try some other numbers. Nobody except little green no-brainers is going to believe that $100 trillion return for a $3 trillion investment BS, yimmy.
It’s reality, but that is disconnected from what they have heard before, so they just need to do more research on the economics now before arguing.
JimD, I said that Lomborg’s group considers mitigation to be a very bad deal, one of the worst deals on the list of major world problems they considered. You answered that how? Do you get your money back or you don’t? You don’t like their philosophy, so it doesn’t matter if your approach loses vast amounts of money according to them? “rather than just ending it for less cost.” No, for much more cost, according to them. Sometimes it makes sense to rent, and sometimes it makes sense to buy.
Maybe you can answer their numbers, but pretending that their numbers are the same as yours isn’t going to work.
He is for mitigation, replacing coal with gas, improving energy and fuel efficiency, and research into shifting from fossil fuels and even geoengineering. He seems against wind and solar, but that is a short-sighted view based on trying to make the shift today rather than over decades.
A good recent critique of Lomborg’s views here.
Nice sleight of hand – comparing total “carbon price” vs. *annual* GDP costs.
If in fact the cost is 5% of GDP per year – even disregarding the compounding and opportunity cost – the total cost until year 2100 is more like $170 trillion. If the compounding and opportunity costs are added in, the number goes far, far higher.
I also like how you only look at the atmospheric CO2 – when in fact carbon pricing is based on emissions – which in turn is much higher.
Sheerly pathetic analysis in every way.
No, 0.06% of GDP per year. WG3 Table SPM.2. This accumulates to 5% in 90 years. Perhaps you have explained where all the skeptics have been doing the mathematics wrong. Wherever you are getting this from, you need to go back and tell them about what WG3 actually says.
“Something that benefits the world to the effect of $100 trillion is even going to come back to the capitalist countries via international trade. It is not just socialists who want to improve the world’s economic health.”
Hilariously delusional statement; “It is not just socialists who want to…”, socialists have never improved the worlds economic health despite how much they may dream to. Who has truly improved the world’s economic health? Capitalists of course. Of the socialistic economies; on the left hand there’s myriad examples of severe dystopian societies; on the right hand there’s a few soft socialistic economies, most have tiny populations. All of these are mostly subsidized for defense by the west thereby freeing up massive amounts of currency for social engineering. Take all the subsidy away and they would either be part of the Soviet Union or what may become the new Soviet Union when the west can no longer afford its massive defensive umbrella, that day is probably coming unfortunately.
We didn’t know there was a critique of Lomborg in THE GUARDIAN, yimmy. That settles it. We are now eager to cough up the mere $3 trillion. Your work here is done. You can move on now. Those characters at WUWT desperately need saving. Harangue them for a few years.
Wow, amazing how uncritical reading of SPMs yields garbage.
Let’s look at this supposedly strong analysis.
According to WG3 SPM.2 – the annual costs for mitigation in order to achieve maximum 450 ppm CO2 in atmosphere is, as you note, 0.06% of world GDP. World GDP in 2013 (GWP) according to Wiki is a bit over $75 trillion.
0.06% of $75 trillion is only $45 billion.
How much is being spent right now on anti-CO2 emissions?
In 2013, renewable energy spending alone was $214 billion.
Why do you charge renewable energy spending against GDP? It is part of GDP. Even green energy people are paid salaries with good money that they can spend in the economy. If they were providing their energy for free and you want to just pay their salaries, that would be a GDP loss, but not if they are selling their energy and breaking even.
I’d also note that the UN climate folks have been pushing for $1 trillion in greenhouse emissions reduction spending PER YEAR.
Talk to the hand.
“A good recent critique of Lomborg’s views here.”
“Find your experts and numbers on the cost of mitigation. They don’t exist anywhere that I have seen.” You aren’t listening, JimD. Lomborg group has four economists with Nobel Prizes. They outrank whoever wrote your wonderful critique. Doesn’t mean they’re right, but it sure means that the rest of us don’t need to pay attention to your claim that only your numbers count. You have no consensus on this, not a bit of one.
To my mind, all you are doing with your claims is demonstrating that you only see the part of an issue that you like.
It’s an audio file. Listen to it. His Nobel prizewinners are economists and advocate geoengineering for example. None of them nor Lomborg deny AGW.
==> “They outrank whoever wrote your wonderful critique.”
You might try listening to the clip and coming back with your substantive criticisms of the arguments presented.
That people tend to trust the “expertise” of those experts that they agree with is a trivial reality.
Some joker has just declared that reality is trivial. And it wasn’t willy. Where is willy? I hope he is OK.
“A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study calculates that the new regulations will cost our economy another $51 billion annually, result in 224,000 more lost jobs every year, and cost every American household $3,400 per year in higher prices for energy, food and other necessities. Poor, middle class and minority families – and those already dependent on unemployment and welfare – will be impacted worst. Those in a dozen states that depend on coal to generate 30-95% of their electricity will be hit especially hard.
Millions of Americans will endure a lower quality of life and be unable to heat or cool their homes properly, pay their rent or mortgage, or save for college and retirement. They will suffer from greater stress, worse sleep deprivation, higher incidences of depression and alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse, and more heart attacks and strokes. As Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) points out, “A lot of people on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum are going to die.” EPA ignores all of this.
It also ignores the fact that, based to the agency’s own data, shutting down every coal-fired power plant in the USA would reduce the alleged increase in global temperatures by a mere 0.05 degrees F by 2100!”
They need you to do some evangelizing/haranguing over at WUWT, yimmy. Those sinners just don’t get it.
OK. It’s not trivial. A poor choice of words.
It’s ubiquitous, (and unremarkable in that sense) and well explained by our understanding of human psychology and cognition.
The joker just provided an example of a trivial comment:
“It’s ubiquitous, (and unremarkable in that sense) and well explained by our understanding of human psychology and cognition.”
Calling me after having blatantly misread might be suboptimal, Don Don.
Unless X in “X is a trivial reality” comprises everything that exists, a claim with X as a specific entity does not imply that reality is trivial.
Don, I hope you are at least a little skeptical of a study done by the Chamber of Commerce.
“You might try listening to the clip and coming back with your substantive criticisms of the arguments presented.” Joshua, say I’m not an economist. Say I’m an economist, but not one of the tops in my field. Why shouldn’t my reaction to all this be, I don’t understand the issues well enough, I don’t know which of you is right. But these guys have Nobel Prizes and you don’t, so probably I should ignore you. Or if you have some top experts on your side (Krugman, Nordhaus…, they don’t actually need Nobel Prizes) so I won’t ignore you, but I will ignore your suggestion that the other side has been refuted – Nobel Prizes, remember?
A lot of what I do in climate science is judging things where I don’t have the expertise or the time or the inclination to judge the details on my own. Most of us are in that same boat, and we do the best we can. But I have little sympathy for someone who picks the experts he likes, says they’re so convincing that they are right and the other side doesn’t really exist – all the while knowing that there are experts just as eminent who say that he is totally wrong. Why should I listen to him? More: why should he listen to himself? Makes no sense.
The joker disagrees with you, willy:
“OK. It’s not trivial. A poor choice of words.”
You like to waste time playing word games, willy. This should keep you busy for a while:
That _____ is a trivial reality.
Fill in the blank with all the realities you can think of and get back to us.
I hope you are a little skeptical of the alarmist EPA-Greenpeace crowd, joey.
Don takes on an army of trolls and wins handily. Dem talking points are no match for agile thinking.
Perhaps instead of throwing hypothetical numbers and bogus studies around we should look at the experience of, well, Germany for instance. How has their move away from fossil energy reduced their CO2 emissions, use of fossil fuels and energy prices. 0.06% of GDP? I rather think not. And what is the cost of the energy system disruption that the Energiewende has caused?
It’s all a lovely idea and when we have the technology to move away from fossil fuels we’ll do so but it just isn’t feasible right now. In the meantime all these hypotheticals are a waste of time and energy.
do try to up your game
“That people tend to trust the “expertise” of those experts that they agree with is a trivial reality.”
is not the same as “reality is trivial”
See below for a couple of suggestions about what Joshua was saying
That people tend to trust the “expertise” of those experts that they agree with is a trivial fact.
That people tend to trust the “expertise” of those experts that they agree with is an uninformative fact.
” a trivial reality” modifies “that people tend to… ”
That is a trivial fact or trivial reality or trivial observation.
There is a lot in reality. everything in fact. Some of reality is not trivial some is trivial.
That we debate on Judith’s blog is a reality
That debate is largely trivial
Its a trivial reality.
but kinda fun…
I haven’t said that “reality is trivial.” I said a trivial reality.
Actually, I don’t disagree with willard. What willard writes is obviously correct:
It is a poor choice of words if it leads to a misunderstanding that could have easily been avoided. That doesn’t imply that your misunderstanding is correct, or that willard’s more accurate interpretation of my words is wrong.
> The joker disagrees with you […]
Another blatant misreading, Don Don. I also think it was a poor word choice, but not because of your misreading. That it was a poor word choice does not imply that what I’m saying is wrong, BTW.
Even by troglodyte’s standards, this is quite suboptimal. You must be out of shape, Don Don
Et tu, stevie? You little navel gazers are funny. I pull one of your little chains and a whole bunch of you jump.
The form of the jokers comment is wrong. He admitted it. Now that he got a little support from fellow navel gazers she wants to backtrack. Pathetic.
“That _____ is a trivial reality.”
Put on your little pointy philosopher hats.
That X=X is a trivial reality.
That birds fly is a trivial reality.
That atoms have mass is a trivial reality.
That trolls troll is a trivial reality.
That reality is reality is a trivial reality.
Put all statements of reality in there and the meaning is the same. It’s implication, boys and girls. Go ahead. Enjoy yourselves. Get back to us if you find something that doesn’t work.
Just for fun, look up what Feynman has to say about it. I might help you, if you can’t find it.
> Put all statements of reality in there and the meaning is the same. It’s implication, boys and girls.
Are you suggesting that any statement about reality is analytic, Don Don? Took troglodytes a few hundred years to rediscover Berkeley, but that was worth the wait.
Your new misreading falters on the ground that lots of specific statements of reality are contingent (look that one up if you please), including the one you misread first.
That _____ is a trivial reality.
That Don objects is a trivial reality
That Don misreads is a trivial reality
There are many trivial realities. many things that while real, are also trivial.
Here’s the point Don.
J*shua says many things one could argue with. A better strategy is to avoid the brandovian approach
Watch this, wee willy:
“That people tend to trust the “expertise” of those experts that they agree with is a trivial reality.”
The joker, whose name we can’t mention, wants us to believe that this statement is trivial:
“… people tend to trust the “expertise” of those experts that they agree with…”
What does the little fella offer in the way of evidence to show that it’s trivial?
Answer: It’s reality.
Nobody forced him to put that word in there, willy. There is no other word in that sentence that conveys any statement or implication supporting the alleged triviality of “… people tend to trust the “expertise” of those experts that they agree with…” Our little friend said that it’s trivial, because it is reality. Maybe the little fella was thinking that when things become recognized as reality, they become trivial. Maybe he read Feynman, on theorems. Anyway, I am trying to help the little fella avoid these kinds of mistakes. You are not helping.
Please Steven, with all the cryptic BS that you put out you shouldn’t be interfering in my fun. The little fella whose name we can;t mention made a mistake. All he had to do was to not mention “reality”. Think about it.
Guys, keep your bickering on this thread, not on the new risk assessment thread.
Thanks, Judith. Maybe you should make it a regular feature: Week in review- bickering thread
. All he had to do was to not mention “reality”. Think about it.”
and all you had to do was say that.
instead, you mis interpreted him.
here’s why . because if you had said.
J*shua.. I think you meant to say
“That people tend to trust the “expertise” of those experts that they agree with is trivial”
then we would all have wondered if brandon had a sock puppet named Don.
I haven’t said that reality is trivial (as you falsely asserted).
Nor was I arguing that the phenomenon I described is trivial because it is a reality (as you falsely asserted).
Why are you repeatedly misrepresenting what I said?
> What does the little fella offer in the way of evidence to show that it’s trivial? Answer: It’s reality.
Another misreading, Don Don. “It’s reality” is not evidence to show anything: it’s part of the claim. Some even call it the predicate. Look that other one up.
If you paid any due diligence to what this “little fella” has been telling Denizens over the years, you might have guessed that he was hinting at motivated reasoning. He usually refers to Dan Kahan’s work, but since we’re at Judy’s:
I hope you can see the relationship between the claim you misread in so many ways and motivated reasoning. You’re just a little bit out of shape, that’s all.
Here’s a suggestion. If I write something that is ambiguous in some way, perhaps instead of assuming that you know what I mean (and proving to be mistaken in those assumptions, repeatedly) – just ask me to clarify. I’ll do my best.
You characters are too easy. I wasn’t making a serious comment. Serious comments on this blog are generally trivial. I don’t care about what the joker (whose name we can’t mention) says. I just wanted to find out why our ubiquitous willy was absent. Didn’t take him long to rear his little head. Got you too, Steven. Thanks for playing. Now let’s stop. I think Judith is getting annoyed.
> I just wanted to find out why our ubiquitous willy was absent.
1. It’s summer time, Don Don.
2. Go over there:
Search for my name. Notice the time stamps.
Sometimes, ubiquity’s not enough.
Renewable energy spending is targeting the precise goals of mitigation spending.
Or are you attempting now to separate the two activities?
Mitigation of fossil fuel emissions is precisely why there is so much renewable energy spending – at least supposedly.
Or are you going to now attempt to argue that mitigation costs are going to be lower?
Economic forecasts – especially so for areas with zero data like mitigation – are some of the few things are useless with regards to predicting reality as climate models.
The costs are also often defined as investments because this is not free money for the renewable industry. They have to pay it back when they generate revenue. Investments don’t count against GDP because this money is put into the system to be spent.
So — the administration gives a calculation for the social cost of carbon. This is the same administration that calculated that Obamacare would save every family $2500 a year. Oops. That it would save the govt money. Oops. That everyone who wanted to keep his doctor or insurance could do so. Oops. Same administration that said the 800+ billion stimulus would all be spent on shovel ready jobs. Oops — no shovel ready jobs. Same bunch that lied repeatedly about Benghazi, the IRS crimes, immigration (even lied to a federal judge’s face), in addition to dozens and dozens of other lies on all manner of topics. Same administration whose EPA has been dishonest and lawless on a number of different matters including climate change.
Excuse me, but I don’t trust the administration’s calculation re: the social cost of carbon. Liars have no credibility. Especially repetitive liars.
The IPCC uses international studies. Nothing to do with Obama.
“This month, the administration provided a big part of the answer with a new report from its Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon,”
Absolutely Stanton. These lies are not unique to the U.S. I posted an article recently that comes to mind; Lies, Damn Lies, and Green Statistics. The left has proven to have great capability in gerrymandering numbers to represent a fraction of true costs. But that’s standard operating procedure, even with numbers used in science.
The previous article being of German origin.
The interagency panel also used international studies.
Little yimmy trusts international studies. Nothing to do with Obama. International stuff is golden. Albania to Zimbabwe. Very reliable.
Political reality being what it is, the notion that the US will expend significant resources today to potentially benefit Third World populations at the end of this century is, to put it mildly, unwarranted.
I am skeptical of ideological groups like Greenpeace, but why should I be skeptical of the EPA? The people who do the research and write the reports and formulate the rules are not political appointees.
“The people who do the research and write the reports and formulate the rules are not political appointees.”
Naive or disingenuous? Their bosses certainly are political operatives.
Here you go, joey:
The EPA Administrator put on a pathetic performance of ducking and dodging. Look at that BS and tell us why we should have confidence in the EPA’s competence and objectivity..
The EPA Administrator put on a pathetic performance of ducking and dodging.
So Don, with the link you concede she upped her game?
I have no idea of who Gina McCarthy is but I take it from the links I saw that she is a political appointee who is tasked with carrying out obamas policy and that she hasn’t been long in her position as she does not seem very knowledgeable.
Has anybody get any links that show her in a better light so I can see the whole context?
Here is a lazy (me) man’s link to a Gina M. snowjob. I think this is the best she can do. It’s the end of snow as we know it.
That’s nothing, in 2009 our govt managed to pass the worlds first legally binding climate change act during the first October snowfall in 74 years…
Is Gina one of those people whose job relies on obamas patronage?
Here she is praising the Pope’s wonderful climate encyclical:
She’s a good Irish Catholic, when it is convenient. She doesn’t object to Maher mocking Il Papa. We don’t know what she thinks of the Pope’s views on choice, gay marriage, etc. But we can guess.
It looks like those who predicted deaths from Global Warming were right, and can now attribute deaths to the theory:
“The cold weather death toll this winter is expected to top 40,000, the highest number for 15 years.”
Policies reacting to global warming that increase energy poverty kills people.
Though the record shows humans, even ‘experts,’ ain’t
good at prediction, BIG social/political engineering by
top-down policy gurus, leaps on, UN, EU, IPCC, WMO,
et AL. Cui bono? … Well we know WHO.
So what fer good decision analysis in the EU and what
the Euro has wrought?
Instead of nation states they form a dirigiste empire. The (very) disparate parts can be connected by a vague green religion and only a vague idea of what new pottiness is being imposed by intellectuals in Brussels or Strasbourg. A Peronist pope will be the perfect spiritual overseer. Eurovision provides the cultural bonding.
Germany should exit.
Angela Merkel turned up at Greek immigration. The immigration officer asked: “Occupation?” Merkel replied: “No, just visiting.”
Seems Angela had to remind the Irish about not spending a penny. Now they only Euronate.
Homogenisation is to Eu politics as it homogenisation
is to ACORN temperature add-justments. With the aim
of cultural et AL homogenisation, optimistically called
harmonisation, about 70% of new legislation in the
member states of the heavily centralised EU, in one
way or another, originates in Brussels.
Green policies in the wirer of 2013-2014 resulted in a very low number of winter deaths. Good to see they’ve altered their green and mean policies and are back to murdering the elderly in record numbers.
Pingback: Week in review – energy and policy edition | Enjeux énergies et environnement
manipulated data versus correct data
NOAA’ S own data(NCEP) which does not show year 2014 is the warmest.
As can be seen the data NOAA is conveying to the public is nonsense to put it nicely. All manipulated.
Thorium, maybe used in “pebble bed” reactors, sure seemed to make sense to me a decade ago – a great place for US ‘leadership’. Or Chinese.
The article says we should “offer Iran all the thorium plants it can use, absolutely free.” If we only knew how to build one ..
Been done already: (preview: it worked)
“The MSRE was a 7.4 MWth test reactor simulating the neutronic “kernel” of a type of inherently safer epithermal thorium breeder reactor called the liquid fluoride thorium reactor. It primarily used two fuels: first uranium-235 and later uranium-233. The latter 233UF4 was the result of breeding from thorium in other reactors.”
Justin – it may have worked wonders for you. Not for me.
Appears as if modern religions understand that CAGW is a religion they need to co-opt.
If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. :)
Chinese 3D printed houses – made of a secret material. 3D printing excels for prototypes or small series. It is too expensive for large-scale manufacturing. Happy to know that China does not need many new houses.
They have lots of empty houses, cities even.
Images: China Ghost Cities
Myth of China’s Ghost Cities
From the bio of the “myth” post:
“Wade Sheppard ….is an ethnographic journalist who currently writes for the South China Morning Post …”
His post sounds like propaganda.
Sounds like the myth busting is based on how one defines”ghost” cities.
If they are built in advance of expected occupation, the write has a point. If they sit for more than a couple of years without being used, then he’s just spinning the story.
An ill wind in Ontario [link]
It is truly an ill wind that does not blow someone some good. Wind turbines are an ill wind to some as the health impact population base grows larger. A large population has individuals who are health impacted, some severely, and some will perceive themselves to be health impacted because of an emotional or behavioral condition.
How does one address those who are medically impacted and those who suffer from emotional issues and distress? The usual mechanisms to address grievances has been through litigation, and, when a particular jury’s heartstrings are plucked, someone will win the litigation lottery. Most litigants will not. There are times when class action suits get rewarded like the silicone breast implants larceny which remains the quintessential wrong science/wrong medical&trash science/ hearsay & mega-boon for the lawyers. Litigation not addressing anything other than lawyer’s bottom line.
There is always the legislative approach to address public grievances which is what is being attempted in this Ontario situation. The science on which the Ontario Government relies upon to say “there is no problem” has and will continued to be challenged since the present array of reports say: just what I want them to say. Ultimately, studies of the IWT health impact upon a large population will be able to tease out what is fact and what is fiction. Until then, Ontario Green’s crafted climate change legislation will continue to ride rough-shod over citizenry because the end justifies the means. Nobel Cause Corruption. Ontario’s citizen’s Green agenda burden.
The great majority of Ontario’s power is hydro and nuclear. Adding wind makes no sense. More expensive and less reliable. Green madness.
When the world gets hot we can use those wind turbines as giant fans. They will be on all the time thanks to motors running on fossil fuels. It will be great for eagle feather collecting and land sailboat races.
Think positive. :)
I realize your are joking, but it’s worth noting that wind turbines cause local warming.
Electric energy generated by wind turbines is energy diverted from cooling the earth’s surface.
Clinton’s position will deflect some of the skeptical arguments and differs from what we’ve been hearing from our President. It’s less divisive.
Interesting article about re-engineering Norway hydro to accomodate/buffer intermittency from continental Europe renewables. There are going to be some serious efficiency losses on those long transmission corridors, even if they use high voltage DC.
“Right now, the US Department of Agriculture pays farmers to conserve land — we could tweak those programs to incentivize further carbon sequestration through restoration of wetlands or grasslands.”
This is doable now. A Midwestern farmer sells a 99 year easement and the land is kept in grass. My theory is the turf rebuilds its mass headed towards where it was before it saw a plow 150 years ago. Call it soil banking. Arguably the land gains value slowly over time, becoming richer. This cleans up watersheds, and adds wildlife habitat. Deer and pheasants may be hunted. Buffalo could be introduced which co-evolved with grasslands for good reasons. I’d guess restored grasslands are pretty drought resistant.
New Hampshire used to have an interesting property tax policy called ” current use”. If the owner kept the property in certain use categories like farming, forest, open space, etc they would get a very large tax break. If they then sold the land for development they would have to pay the higher taxes retroactively. The goal of the policy was to keep the land out of development. Note that New Hampshire has no state income or sales tax but very high property taxes. I don’t know the current situation there – I discovered this back when I was looking to buy a farm or orchard in New England. We used to have beautiful farms in New England. The farms here in Califrornia are hideously ugly – flat, desolate, dusty, junk strewn, cold, hot, water-wasting desert food factories.
Minnesota gives the lowest property tax rate to agricultural land. However problems occur when residential housing expands into rural areas. Development may occur as a farmer sees up to $40,000/acre potential for new lots (Prime Renville County farmland about $7,000/acre). You can also run into cases where the city council is pro-rural. Rich horse owners like living in the country and having a short commute to Minneapolis. Environmental concerns can slow or stop development of some parcels. Another Achilles Heal is access to trunk sewer lines. Somewhat like California, we don’t have much beyond some hobby farms. Most profitable farmers work many acres. Thousands is not unusual.
I forgot to say “good idea”, which it is. :)
You are correct about the effects, though I understand soil building is very slow. I remember from my soil science class so many years ago that the Midwest USA has some of the deepest soils on the planet, formed over thousands of years by the soil building effects of the perennial grass/grazer combo. I loved that class but I don’t pretend to have the expertise of a real farmer. The benefits to soil conservation, dust reduction, wildlife, recreation, and aquifer recharge would be almost immediate.
SW Minnesota has about the best farmland. Irrigation is generally not needed for corn or beans. Yields are excellent, but rainfall is always the determining variable. Aquifer rebuilding might be a benefit of soil banking. I have a thought that grasslands benefit local precipitation as opposed to annually pulverized topsoil. Being able to supply more moisture to the air. There’s also flood control benefits with more natural drainage creeks. With some care, creek lowlands would naturally become holding ponds, (thank you very much beavers) which would also seem to help with local precipitation and the duck populations. So the nature hippies in Minnesota will look at sensitive land near creeks and then write checks. Yes they work for the government. My dad said once, We love those hippies. They keep thinking up new ways to give us money.
“Political Insiders weigh in:How Much of a Role Will Climate Change Play in the 2016 Presidential Race?”
The results of this “poll” shows that a vast majority just don’t think Climate Change is a problem of the magnitude that will determine how they vote. This confirms the findings of the UN poll of almost 8 million people that found these results:
Yet POTUS and his minions decree that Climate Change is the biggest problem facing mankind and his agencies (NOAA, NASA, EPA, NSF, etc.) spend billions to support his agenda.
This is insanity by any definition.
Yes, the left leaning media, who’s totally signed up with the agenda, is constantly crying wolf and consequently producing the same result as the Aesop Fable. People are desensitized; this is fine with me. The more outrageous the fear mongering the more desensitized the public will get. This is what one would expect when the “settled” science is based on models that haven’t proven to be reliable. There needs to be much better observable evidence.
The Dems are going to use this, and inequality, to bludgeon Republicans and fire up the base – voter turnout determines the outcome. Maybe we are headed to Venezuela.
The EPA/ corn article does not give the whole picture. First, anything beyond the original 10 % blendwall (for octane and oxygenate) is just energy/ ag politics. E15 and E85 are both in that category, making little real sense. EISA07, which among other things opened up the E85 CAFE loophole, envisioned that the ethanol would be cellulosic. (Remember Bush and switchgrass.) Not corn. That has not turned out well. Several processes (Range Fuels, Coskata) did not work at all. Others don’t yield as expected and are too expensive by a factor of two even with oil at $100/bbl. Today’s cellulosic ethanol capacity is less than one tenth what Congress anticipated for 2015 back in 2007 when it authorized $1.5 billion in cellulosic direct subsidies plus $1.10/ gallon. The only two cellulosic plants (Abengoa and POET) use corn stover feedstock, which is better plowed in to enrich the soil.
EPA is trying to react to cellulosic ethanol reality, especially after losing twice in court to the refiners on unrealistic annual mandates. Essay Wishful Thinking. The farm lobby wants to fill the cellulosic void with corn, and stay on the ‘makes no sense’ energy gravy train. They should be told to get off.
US Hydro Report
ORNL Scientists Generate Landmark DOE Hydropower report
The hydropower report is available at http://nhaap.ornl.gov/HMR/2014.
These may be helped by applying air surge tanks as being developed by Norway.
Kaspar Vereide, Leif Lia & Torbjørn K. Nielsen (2015): Hydraulic scale modelling and thermodynamics of mass oscillations in closed surge tanks, Journal of Hydraulic Research, DOI: 10.1080/00221686.2015.1050077
WTI around $51.
“Hillary Clinton takes pragmatic tone on fossil fuels”
If her lips are moving, then she is more than likely lying.
Gov. Brown Talks Papal Visit, Plans for ‘Courageous’ Climate Change Action
Brown said climate change issues “bring back” his “experiences as a young Jesuit seminarian back in the 50s.
How to Counter Religion’s Toxic Effects
Wilson’s classic, On Human Nature, challenges the world’s science enterprise to explore the underlying genetic and cultural determinants of religion, which, he argues, “are powerful, ineradicable, and at the center of human social existence.” Wilson contends that the human mind necessarily creates morality, religion, and mythology and empowers them with emotional force. “When blind ideologies and religious beliefs are stripped away,” he theorizes, “others are quickly manufactured as replacements.” His strategy for countering toxic religion then is to rationally harness what he calls the “mythopoeic drive” to inspire humanistic social outcomes and to concede that “scientific materialism is itself a mythology defined in the noble sense.”
Wilson’s newest book, The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth illustrates a way to harness the mythopoeic drive. The book takes the form of a letter to an imagined Southern Baptist preacher from whom he seeks cooperation on dealing with global environmental threats. His strategy here makes no attempt to change the pastor’s commitment to God’s revealed word. Rather, he redirects the pastor’s understanding of scripture as creating a duty to save humanity from global warming. The implied logic here is that God loves humanity and wants us to save ourselves from self-created threats. But to earn the preacher’s trust Wilson must concede that he too shares the mythopoeic drive. In order to cooperate, he and the pastor must learn to understand and tolerate the fact that each must make decisions that align with their respective mythic frameworks. Thus Wilson reduces the philosophical chasm to a routine matter of religious tolerance in a pluralistic society. He is then able to say to the pastor: “You and I are humanists in the broadest sense: human welfare is at the center of our thought.” And while the book is Wilson’s monologue, we can imagine the pastor responding: “You and I are God-fearing in the broadest sense because we care about humanity’s future.”
At this point some readers may wonder, what in the world is going on here? Does Dennett really believe that the scientific study of religion will empower us to make secular humanists out of committed Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims-however “gently and firmly” we argue? Does Wilson really believe that science has mythic premises, and that his Baptist pastor is a humanist? Have these honored senior humanists somehow lost their way down a primrose path?
E.O. Wilson Genetic Destiny
We have to recognize the power of religion, but we need to have ritual without God. That, to me, is very unsatisfactory. We need a real myth. The one I adopted is scientific materialism as a mythology and whatever we can make of it.
I think this statement is false:
“… human welfare is at the center of our thought…”
That is an assumption and possibly a projection.
What are the “toxic effects” of religion?
That article was by a secular humanist describing a strategy how to coopt traditional religions (which they disdain) to their purposes.
CAGW is the primary mythology for that purpose.
E.O. Wilson Quotes
“Science and religion are the two most powerful forces in the world. Having them at odds… is not productive.”
“People need a sacred narrative. They must have a sense of larger purpose, in one form or another, however intellectualized. They will find a way to keep ancestral spirits alive”
“The creation myth is a Darwinian device for survival.”
― Edward O. Wilson, The Social Conquest of Earth
“If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos.”
― Edward O. Wilson
“Possibly here in the Holocene, or just before 10 or 20 thousand years ago, life hit a peak of diversity. Then we appeared. We are the great meteorite.”
― Edward O. Wilson
“I will argue that every scrap of biological diversity is priceless, to be learned and cherished, and never to be surrendered without a struggle.”
― Edward O. Wilson
“The predisposition to religious belief is an ineradicable part of human behavior. Mankind has produced 100,000 religions. It is an illusion to think that scientific humanism and learning will dispel religious belief. Men would rather believe than know… A kind of Darwinistic survival of the fittest has occurred with religions… The ecological principle called Gause’s law holds that competition is maximal between species with identical needs… Even submission to secular religions such as Communism and guru cults involve willing subordination of the individual to the group. Religious practices confer biological advantage. The mechanisms of religion include (1) objectification (the reduction of reality to images and definitions that are easily understood and cannot be refuted), (2) commitment through faith (a kind of tribalism enacted through self-surrender), (3) and myth (the narratives that explain the tribe’s favored position on the earth, often incorporating supernatural forces struggling for control, apocalypse, and millennium).”
E.O Wilson believes in carrying capacity limited to 200 million humans, and that human life should not be accorded an unique value. ( That’s what the biodiversity agenda is about.)
“I once asked the great ecologist E.O.Wilson how many people the planet could sustain indefinitely. He responded, “If you want to live like North Americans, 200 million.” North Americans, Europeans, Japanese, and Australians, who make up 20 per cent of the world’s population, are consuming more than 80 per cent of the world’s resources. We are the major predators and despoilers of the planet, and so we blame the problem on overpopulation.”
Yes, I got that. I was wondering aloud. :)
I do like E. O. Wilson, but I think he is just a tad off the mark on this one. He is confusing latent function with motives with respect to religion. Religion exits because we humans are profoundly aware of our mortality and need something to help us cope with the eventual loss of everything and everyone we have ever known, including our lives. The tribalism stuff is just a side effect.
Arguing with the thin air, I don’t think ethical systems unhinged from religion are going to work as there is little agreement about what is ethical. Unfortunately, the intersection of values between religions, for those that have one, is not sufficiently large to avoid conflict. As an example consider the differences between, say, ISIS and your average NYC liberal. For a less extreme example, consider the difference of opinion between an middle eastern Arab resident and a working class American on the origins of conflict in the middle east. Wide gap. Hold on for a wild ride.
Energy in Depth responds to claims made regarding health in PA
Scientists Push For Presidential Debate Dedicated To Climate Change, Energy, Water Tech, Health Issues
Since Brazil Relaxed Energy Prices, Electric Power Companies Suffering
The government increased electricity prices in the first quarter by as much as 50% in some parts of the country, leading to a tripling of defaults on energy bills. With the economy in the gutter, big power companies are now faced with clients — mainly retail — ditching their bills.
Interesting. In my experience, few people, even the middle class, have air conditioning in their homes. However, I have seen news articles that say it is growing rapidly, but from a small base. About 11% of Brazilian households had AC in 2007. Most AC is in businesses, especially large retailers, supermarkets, and malls. I hate heat, so when I am in Brazil I usually head to a mall just for relief. High electricity costs would hurt other businesses like manufacturing, which they can hardly afford given their overall political and economic conditions and their lack of global competiveness. They are joined at the hip to China right now, selling commodities, so the slow down has really hurt, which has aggravated the political situation. I feel terrible for them – the average person, and that means below middle class, really suffers.
“Denial in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary is either devious or insane.”
Amusing that you find such a wild-eyed, non-scientific screed a paragon of objectivity. Let’s see what else he writes, shall we?
“neither God nor nature nor human-driven technological inventions are appropriate strategies for saving us from ourselves.”
“We have been ignoring the warning signs for decades and it has not only caught up with us but surpassed our ability to mitigate the disastrous consequences of seemingly blissful ignorance.”
“We have forfeited the luxury of a gradual transition and are now in crisis. If you know a climate denier, educate him or her. If you are represented by one, replace him or her. Burn them before they burn us. Scientific data do not constitute a conspiracy but willfully conspiring to perpetuate a system that is suicidal, if not genocidal, is criminal. And as it stands now it will be the crime of the century.”
Apparently disagreeing with this gentleman about the magnitude of the problem makes one a criminal.
“… Burn them before they burn us. Scientific data do not constitute a conspiracy but willfully conspiring to perpetuate a system that is suicidal, if not genocidal, is criminal…”
This person should get some help. I don’t know if he has generalized anxiety disorder or OCD, but he needs help.
“Denial in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary is either devious or insane.”
Meh, giving the co-opted meaning more weight by associating it with the original meaning. Mangled.
Typical non sequitur drivel from the monolithic group think tank, HuffPost.
Jim D, someone should ask Lance Simmens why he isn’t upset over President Obama’s decision not to use the full legal and regulatory authority that he and the EPA have available to them under the Clean Air Act to greatly reduce America’s carbon emissions.
President Obama has set a goal of a 28% reduction in carbon emissions by 2025, and an 80% reduction by 2050. The administration’s Clean Power Plan doesn’t go nearly as far as is necessary to achieve the stated goal. Unless the President and the EPA greatly expand their carbon reduction plan — something which they are legally entitled to do under current environmental law — there is no possibility these ambitious goals can ever be achieved.
At least as it concerns America’s own carbon emissions, it is not the climate change deniers who stand in the way of making substantial progress in reducing our GHG emissions. It is President Obama’s refusal to use the full legal and constitutional authorities of his office which is the true stumbling block to making the kind progress Lance Simmens says we need to be making.
One thing liberals seem to be iblivious to when they push their communist society (as huff does) is the fact that an order of magnitude more people go to the wall compared to the facists.
Buchanan argues how the deaths start in your eco-topia. An aging population (post modernism killed the family), is it not best to remove the aged for society? This is the argument for abortion, after all.
Science regimes are always deadly.
You make zero sense. The communists were dictators. Show me an American who wants a dictatorship. People talk about aging. Big deal.
I have an American family. There is no pile of dead people in my front yard, so nobody has tried to destroy it. My mother lives with us; she’s a few weeks short of 92.
Thats because our country still has enough residual morality. I see a worship of technology in the youth that is truly frightening. When it happens its usually pretty quick. And, always, the liberals are like ‘how did that happen?’
“You make zero sense. The communists were dictators”
Which is what the ecotypes are. Engineering where and hiw everyone lives? Wake up.
Our education erases history and leaves us thinking we are in a unique bubble of history where peace and freedom last forever. History tells us differently.
Re the E. Emanuel article in The Atlsntic. He is just plain wrong. The article is well written, but his conclusions about his experiences are contradictory and just plain wrong. That said, he is a perfect example of the youth worship we have in, what I will call, for convenience, western culture. Jared Diamond, in his book “The World Until Yesterday”, describes this phenomena very well.
From everything Ive heard Jared Diamond is a historic illiterate.
Definitely the atlantic article is weird. But when a small younger class is being strangled by the economics of taking care of the old. Plus a godless culture….2+2
Consequences of central planning (and bribery)
New coal power plants in China – a (carbon) bubble waiting to burst
Nuclear Power in China
Smog inspired novel by official goes viral
“People who live near fracking sites suffer higher rates of heart conditions and neurological illnesses [link]”
The therapeutic managerial state cant have this. It does not administrate rights, it administrates feelings.
Those near fracking suffer more heart disease and neurological illnesses? Perhaps it is because people in small towns and rural tend to be much older than the mean.
“Residents in high-density areas of fracking made 27 per cent more hospital visits for treatment for heart conditions than those from locations where no fracking took place, according to a new study of drilling in Pennsylvania between 2007 and 2011.”
Pennsylvanian’s during a 3-4 year period. Surely the rigor of this study is far more impressive than it appears –e.g., was there even an adjustment for the age of the population?
Its a slippery slope to all out management of everything. That has a name…
Those interested who argue thorium nuclear reactors are likely to be viable in the near term may be interested in this: http://euanmearns.com/molten-salt-fast-reactor-technology-an-overview/
EPA distorts health benefits of mega-costly clean-air rule | [link]
“To me, there is no scientific rationale that this particular rule is the right, science-based decision.”
I’ve tried to make sense of the EPA’s stance on Ozone, and, frankly, I can’t.
There are legacy articles > 20 years old on health effects in asthmatic children co-mingling a number of environmental gases and particulates. There are equestionnaires relying on self reporting endpoints. There have been no markers of patient adherence to medical regimens, or year around monitoring; i.e., seasonality of symptoms and no monitoring when season over. Definitions of severity of disease using medicine prescriptions and not use.
All I can say is that EPA is using speculative notions and guesstimates as there is no science to substantiate any stance, for or against any rule-making.
EPA distorts health benefits of mega-costly clean-air rule
“To me, there is no scientific rationale that this particular rule is the right, science-based decision. Like so many things in the environmental area, this is tied up with emotion.”
For the life of me, I also can’t find a scientific basis for EPA’s ozone rules going from 75 ppb to 65 ppb. The attempt to use children as an emotional tug on the heartstrings is just that, emotional. The literature used to include children is dated from 20 to 40 years ago, publications which had co-mingled ozone and particulates along with other gases. EPA also discounts the environmental chamber ozone and exercise studies done for the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984 plus remarking that EPA can’t use the 120 ppb level of the chamber studies since EPA have already make the standard 75 ppb.
I found the more one knows, the less and less EPA makes any sense at all.
Sometimes it’s ruff bein’ a dog,
:) BTS rocks!
Lightly paw the keys.
Sometimes it’s ruff bein’ a dog.
Tails wagging in air.
For all you Pollyannas out there: I told you so. Smart grid: Dumb idea. Smart house: Dumb idea. Internet of things: Dumb idea.
From the article:
Hackers took control of a car and crashed it into a ditch by remotely breaking into its dashboard computer from 10 miles away.
In the first breach of its kind, security experts killed the engine and applied the brakes on the Jeep Cherokee, sending it veering off the road – all while sitting on their sofa.
The US hackers said they used just a laptop and mobile phone to access the Jeep’s on-board systems via a wireless Internet connection.
From the article:
The FBI hacks computers. Specifics are scarce, and only a trickle of news has emerged from court filings and FOIA responses. But we know it happens. In a new law review article, a Stanford Ph.D. candidate and privacy expert pulls together what’s been disclosed, and then matches it against established law. The results sure aren’t pretty. FBI agents deceive judges, ignore time limits, don’t tell computer owners after they’ve been hacked, and don’t get ‘super-warrants’ for webcam snooping. Whatever you think of law enforcement hacking, it probably shouldn’t be this lawless.