Michael,
Why don’t you read the links that have been posted dozens of times. Or read the authoritative literature. It’s no as if this hasn’t been known for many decades.
And, you might do better to ask a question rather than make you snide remarks – which invariably demonstrate your ignorance of even the most basic facts.
Odd – I can hear sophistic nonsense from someone who mistakes abstractions for meaning.
In the context of rainfall – El Nino is associated with drought in Australia but it is by no means certain that drought follows in all cases. A simple statement of fact.
In this case also the sample set is a continuum of probabilities of median rain and the certainty is that any place will get some proportion of median rainfall. There are no rainfall (or not rainfall) events outside the sample space. It is a certainty that an elementary event will occur in the set space of all events – and so impossible to contravene the second axiom. It is after all axiomatic.
Much as I like probability theory – it is pointless to discuss such with a quibbling little fool like you. You would do far better to consider relevant and interesting issues on a far more pedestrian plane and your comments might aspire to significance. Otherwise – as things stand – it is a waste of everyone’s time.
Re coca and pepsi cola being the cause of all global warming from its increasing megaton releasing of carbon dioxide every year as its sales spread globally, see my post above: http://judithcurry.com/2013/05/04/open-thread-weekend-16/#comment-318557
they also show themselves as genocidal drivers to the extinction of the rural poor whose water they steal and crass polluters of the areas they establish factories:
http://www.mindfully.org/Water/2005/India-Coca-Cola-Pepsi14mar05.htm
“Because of Coca-Cola’s activities, 260 wells — sunk by the authorities to supply drinking water and meet irrigation needs — have run dry. This part of Kerala is known as the rice bowl but agricultural yields have plummeted. Worse, Coca-Cola has been distributing the toxic waste from its factory to the villagers as free fertiliser. Analysis has shown that this sludge is rich in cadmium and lead, both carcinogenic.
“Tribal and farming representatives have protested about the serious damage to harvests caused by contamination of aquifers and springs, and by indiscriminate drilling. They have particularly called for measures to protect traditional sources of drinking water, preserve ponds and water tanks, and maintain navigable waterways and canals.”
..
“In December 2003 Justice Balakrishnana Nair ordered Coca-Cola to cease illegal extraction of groundwater in Plachimada. The reasons for his judgment are as significant as the decision. He pointed out: “The public trust doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjusti- fied to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone, irrespective of their status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purpose.
““Our legal system, based on English common law, includes the public-trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The state is the trustee of all natural resources, which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, air, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The state as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership.
““Water is a public good; and since the state and its various agencies are under an obligation to protect groundwater against excessive exploitation, their inaction constitutes a violation of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian constitution.
““The Supreme Court of India has consistently maintained that the right to unpolluted air and water are an integral aspect of the right to life as defined by this article. So although there is no law specifically regulating the extraction of groundwater, the panchayat and the state are required to prevent any overexploitation of underground reserves. Coca-Cola’s property rights do not extend to the ground water below the land it owns. Nobody has the right to appropriate the lion’s share of this resource and the government has no power to licence a private third party to extract water in such vast quantities.””
Not only the cause of anthropogenic global warming through coca and pepsi releasing megatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere where is accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years polluting the whole global atmosphere in its well mixed spread even into areas where it is not consumed, these companies are actively conspiring to destroy the food supply of the rural poor by their water grab and pollution of the land.
All production of coca and pepsi cola should be banned, should it?
Peter Lang, your argument is so far off-base as to stagger one as to know where to begin.
To save you having to translate, here are a couple of (albeit 2-year old) references.
http://www.un.org/ha/chernobyl/docs/report.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/16/japan-disaster-nuclear-opinions-roubini-economics.html
Chernobyl still costs the Ukraine on the order of five percent of its GDP, as it has every year since the incident.
Sure, there’s the specious argument that nuclear’s safety record compared to coal has saved 2 million lives, because if the same amount of energy were produced by coal the pollution would have killed that many people, but I think we can all see the flaws in that reasoning. (Or, to spell it out, new coal plants open all the time, and rate of new nuclear plants have no correlation with rate of new coal, at least not the negative correlation required to prove this claim.)
So, given reports like http://newsonjapan.com/html/newsdesk/article/89987.php we can see that the claims of ‘overregulation’ are not sustained.
And the clean-up costs?
Outright gifts from the governments to the operators, pure subsidy, a pat on the head for having given it a good try, so sad so many good people didn’t get their performance bonus this quarter.
Its important info to all those who are interested in doing research. Thank you keep going
Remember this, from three weeks ago?
Well, have a look:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Yes, that’s right. The lowest Arctic Sea Ice Extent on record for this date; notwithstanding historical revisionism of wishful thinkers, likely the lowest Arctic Sea Ice Extent for this date in a millennium or more.
Barely a month after yet again we heard claims the Arctic Sea Ice extent was “back to normal levels”.
Bart R,
The usual irrelevant, scaremongering, anti-nuke rhetoric, together with the usual snide remarks. Your comments about costs are meaningless because they presented in a way that allows comparison with alternatives. Any comparison has to be on the basis of fatalities per TWh of electricity supplied (or other generally accepted basis for comparison such as work-days lost per TWh). It’s all just an ti-nuke rhetoric.
I am dismissive about what you say, because you repeatedly practice many of the “10 signs of intellectual dishonesty” http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/. For example, you keep rehashing the same old nonsense that I’ve replied to you about before over the past 2 years or so, and to my recollection you never acknowledged when you are wrong or when you accept a point. There is never closure on anything. I consider you are just an activist with no ethics.
Coca and Pepsi Cola are destroying the Arctic by their increasing megatons releasing of carbon dioxide.
Scientists have shown that it is the increasing production of coca and pepsi cola which have caused temperatures to rise catastrophically since the 1970′s.
The IPCC has best authority consensus of scientists shown that man made production of carbon dioxide is the most likely cause of all this runaway global warming which will destroy the populations of polar bears and penguins, and coca and pepsi production is most likely the biggest contributer to the carbon dioxide pollution globally.
The rise in coca and pepsi cola production world wide proves that coca and pepsi cola are the world’s biggest carbon dioxide polluters and directly causing climate change, said a spokesman for the Uniun of Concerned Scientists, Professor Benji.
“Just twelve months after a joint letter signed by 49 former scientists & NASA astronauts (attached) taking issue with one of their own, pioneer of climate science and Head of The Goddard Institute For Institute of Space Studies (GISS) for many years, controversial James Hansen, has finally departed NASA after some 46 years, albeit it seems, to continue his past unscientific activist activities.
Hansen testified before U.S. Congress in 1988 and announced that the planet was beginning to feel the effects of man-made global warming. He’s been a vocal activist and avid researcher on the subject since.
Is this a sign of the times with others of Hansen’s ilk to follow in his footsteps as global temperatures refuse to cooperate with Climate Alarmist doom and gloom prognostications despite increasing levels of CO2?”
@webhubtelescope
We have always paid ‘world prices’ for our oil. It is bought and sold on world markets like any other commodity. One of the key world price indicators is ‘Brent Crude’ – named after the Brent oilfield in the North Sea – which itself is named after the Brent Goose bird.
So declining oil production in the North Sea doesn’t directly affect our domestic economy much. The price we pay at the pumps is affected by world prices, not by some special UK price.
And we have about the highest taxation in the world on gasoline, so the base cost is only a small proportion of the cost we pay. For a litre of gas at £1.36, the crude cost is 44p, the refiner and distrbutor make 11p and the tax and duty element is 81p.
So even if the price of crude were to double it would still only have a relatively small effect on the price we pay.
For gas – which is widely used to heat our homes against the ever-cooling effects of ‘global warming’ – it is a little different, since there isn’t really a world market. But – based on the example of the US, there are hopes that some element of fracking will help us here. Some estimates (though unverified) are of enormous reserves of shale gas – more than enough to make us self-sufficient for the foreseeable future.
In UK – the major visible ‘renewable’ is wind (‘green’) energy. Since the disastrous Climate Change Act – and under successive ‘Ministers for Energy and Climate Change’ (one of whom is now serving jail time for perverting the course of justice :-) ) we have had an extremely generous subsidy regime for these symbols of Green Power and they have infested our landscape everywhere.
But – as my original post showed – the ordinary people are waking up to this scam and realising that the nett effect is to take money from poor people’s heating bills and give it to rich people with lots of land to put up windmills. And of course – given the basic limitations of the technology – they do nothing at all towards their avowed purpose of ‘saving the planet’.
So the energy situation in the UK is a lot more complex and complicated than your kneejerk assumption ‘its all about oil’.
It isn’t. Oil is a relatively small part of the picture..and before you pontificate about it from your MidWest technobunker – I’ll thank you to try to learn a bit about it.
It may well be that you can do some very clever sums. But often the real hard bit is working out which sums are the relevant ones to do. A skill that seems to have eluded you.
Bart, are you sure you linked to the right page? I see nothing about the lowest extent on record.
@webhubtelescope
I can ‘explore wind power’ with a simple physics textbook and a look at the flags out of my window.
Here are my conclusions
1. The energy density of moving air is very low. I need to make really really big windmills to capture any of it.
2. I will need a lot of land to do so.
3. We are in the UK – one of the most densely populated countries around. There is not a lot of land spare.
4. Oh dear. The wind doesn’t blow a lot of the time. I will need backup like gas or coal or nuclear.
5. So why bother with the windmills if I have the backup anyway? Belt and braces? Extra bills? A useles symbol of Green Power to appease Mother Gaia and subdue the inhabitants?
Latimer Alder, Do I understand the UK voters have just delivered a resounding “NO” to the major parties who have been foolish enough to waste massive amounts of money and political capital supporting wind power?
Concerns are mounting among green groups that the UKIP surge could have a knock-on impact on energy and environmental policy, given that David Cameron is now under mounting pressure to tack to the right. UKIP leader Nigel Farage has taken a vocally anti-green stance, slamming wind farm developments and questioning whether manmade climate change is happening. Westminster observers are convinced that the growing popularity of UKIP is one of the main reasons some Conservative MPs have become more openly hostile to environmental policies. –James Murray, Business Green, 3 May 2013
The UK Independence Party’s unique selling point – the policy it is best known for – is Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. But as the party has sought to broaden its appeal beyond that single issue, it has developed a full range of policies in all areas…. UKIP is sceptical about the existence of man-made climate change and would scrap all subsidies for renewable energy. It would also cancel all wind farm developments. Instead, it backs the expansion of shale gas extraction, or fracking, and a mass programme of nuclear power stations. –BBC News, 3 May 2013
British Media Declare All-Out War On Green Energy Lobby
Green Obsession Puts Millions of Families At Risk of Power Cuts, Fuel Poverty
ONE million homes narrowly escaped a power cut last month as bitterly cold weather placed a massive strain on Britain’s creaking electricity network. Shutdown was only avoided because a gas-fired station due to close by next winter came to the rescue. Last night experts warned that life-threatening blackouts are increasingly likely as “we head downhill – fast”. Fawley is one of a number of coal and oil power stations being forced into retirement to comply with EU environmental targets.–Tracey Boles, Sunday Express, 24 February 2013
We are facing disaster on energy prices. The dynamic has changed, but the thinking hasn’t. What worries me most is that the average household energy bill will be £1,400 by end of the year; £1,500 is a cliff edge at which most people say they’ll switch off the heating entirely. —-Ann Robinson, consumer champion at uSwitch, Sunday Express, 24 February 2013
Here we go again, Max_ OK
‘should’ …should … oh so authoritarian fer one
so young.
…cat training aca – damy, kim, bet u
teach them cats a thing or too
Cool fer cats…
Cool fer cats.
@peter lang
‘A resounding NO’ would be a bit of an exaggeration.
But UKIP has given all the major three parties a big big fright.
In recent years they have all been much of a muchness….especially on ‘green’ issues…where the political consensus has been that we need to ‘decarbonise’ soonest at any cost and that any opposition to The Plan can simply be trampled underfoot.
But now UKIP have gained 25% of the vote.
In our FPTP electoral system this is like an earthquake. 25% to any of the other parties is the difference between five years of absolute parliamentary hegemony and complete wipeout. So it has given them a huge and painful headache.
None of the big three have the faintest idea how to respond on the wind issue. They all supinely signed up (with the exception of a handful of Conservatives) to the Climate Change Act 2008 which enshrined the consensus into law..and from which so many disastrous things have flowed. Cameron – the Prime Miinister – is on record as saying he wanted to lead the ‘greenest government ever’. The LibDem coalition parters are so institutionally green that they ooze slime…and the opposition Labour part are fine just so long as they can bash the evil capitalist corporations.
So they are in complete disarray.
We live in interesting times. Who knows what the next twist in the tale will be? But I’m reasonably certain that there will be few proposals for new wind farms presented between now and the next parliamentary election in 2015. Yesterday’s trendy fashion statement has become today’s laughable bauble.
Manacker,
Phew! Thanks for that. Very glad to get that sorted.
Latimer Alder, I agree with all that. The quote is from my comment so I should explain what I meant by “there is little support for policies that may do economic damage“. I meant that although there was support for such policies in the past (e.g. Kyoto, EU ETS, Australian and NZ carbon pricing schemes) that is no longer the case. People are now concerned about the economic damage such policies do.
Actually, it always was the case that few would support polices that would do economic damage. The reason they supported those schemes is because they believed what they were told – i.e. they would do no damage, would create wealth, bring employment back to EU, create wealth, create economic growth, and preserve the planet for the grand children. They would never have supported these schemes if they’d known the truth (other than the usual suspects of course).
@Yoram
OK – I took my medicine, accepted your ‘tetchy’ remark and persevered, I even left a few comments on your wiki.
But the mechanism for doing so is so unwieldy that I’ve lost the will to live. Is it not possible to simply have the draft and the wiki open simultanesouly so that I can look at the draft and then type my comments. As it is, I have to flip back and forth, remembering which page is which, remember to push edit and save, remember to add my initials. Copy and paste from one to the other is a hit and miss (mostly miss) affair…
Surely you can do better than this in the year 2013? I worked in IT for a long long time and this level of cumbrousness was leading edge technology in about 1984.
And I’ve gotta say that the further I got into your draft the more it seemed that it really was just a cartoon version of AR5 with a few mildly amusing jokes.
Please assure me that further help from us sceptical guys here wouldn’t be just a waste of our time.
You may not be aware of a current controversy concerning Prof. Lewandowsky – where some rabid warmists flew a false flag and completely misrepresented (i.e fabricated) views which they claimed to be from real sceptical voices. It may go some way to explain people’s reluctance here – especially as you and your co-workers are completely unknown quantities to most of us.
