WebHubTelescope:
McKitrick started all the juvenility with his book “Taken By Storm” of a few years ago
Right… All the juvenility started just a few years ago.
They could never convince me of holding any scientific authenticity in their own little cartoon worlds.
“I read a book by this guy, so now I’ll dismiss the entire group for all times. Because open-mindedness is how science works!”
“Webby I cannot be bothered with searching full a ‘full derivation’ on your nonsensical site and doubt that it includes the relevant factors which you fail to understand.”
Chief is having difficulty distinguishing between a comprehensively indexed PDF book that I have made freely available, and a blog that links to that book via a short intro. Thanks for giving me a chance to make this distinction clear.
one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.
With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.
Very logical. Thank you.
The first changes to cutting emissions and fossil fuel growth is increased transparency in both FF production and usage and the removal of Ff subsidies.
The iea / worldbank/ imf report 2011 suggested this would save governments 600 billion,cut demand growth in energy by 5% (equal to the fuel use of Japan,Korea and NZ ) or around 4.7mbd 20% of US demand.
It would in addition save around 2gt co2 future growth,level the playing field for substitutes etc.
Nigeria which decided to reduce subsidies in JAN made the changes to quickly as alternatives were not readily available forcing shocks in food production costs and civil unrest.
The fuel subsidies were significant around 25% of the govt budget,and a limiting constraint on quality govt spend.The staged removal is now in place,
The govt investigations into the subsidies however identified substantial corruption ,including payment for fuel shipments that have never even arrived .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/19/nigeria-fuel-subsidy-
scheme-corruption
This is where the role of technology transfer need to be implemented by the IEA.
If the AGW cult fires Mann, I will take what they think seriously.
Yes the refusal of the bulk of the establishment to punish, criticize or even distance themselves from the Climategate Crooks – the deafening silence – leaves the distinct impression that the Climategate Crooks are not merely a few rotten apples in the barrel, but rather that the whole barrel is rotten. And in this situation where dishonesty is seen as unexceptional, the thinking climatology layman cannot but be skeptical.
Maksimovich said
The first changes to cutting emissions and fossil fuel growth is increased transparency in both FF production and usage and the removal of Ff subsidies.
I doubt that is the first place to put our emphasis, although it is one, along with removing the subsidies for renewable energy and the many other distortions we’ve imposed on energy markets over the past 50 odd years.
To convince me that removing fossil fuel subsidies is the first place we need to focus our efforts you’d need to show me that the subsidies for fossil fuels (i.e. coal and gas, but not oil) are substantially affecting the selection of electricity generation technology for new builds. And you need to make the case for the countries that are, and soon will be, the largest emitters – e.g. China, India and USA. Because, I am fairly sure it is not a major factor in the developing countries, which are, after all, the most important for cutting future emissions growth.
For interest, in Australia, 80% of our electricity is generated by coal but the subsidies for coal are small, so I doubt this is a high priority place to start – UNLESS it is part of a bigger drive to remove all distortions to energy markets, especially the distortions to the cost of nuclear that we’ve imposed over the past 50 years or so (as a result of nuclear and radiation phobia).
@R.Gates
Heartland is a lobbying arm that funnels money from wealthy industrialists into the political and social spheres in an attempt to influence policy and public perceptions in the hope that such influence will ultimately aid in protecting the profits and markets of those industrial interests.
Just like government scientists are used to advance the vested interests of government. The main difference being the scale – the $5m pa (of its own money) that Heartland spends, being almost undetectable next what government spends (of the public’s money) on climatology alarmism.
timg56
“I’m not particularly impressed by it”
Yes, that’s pretty much my view, in both cases. I think as a blog post topic, it’s just juvenile. As a Billboard tactic, it’s a bit more than that.
“People who don’t identify themselves as hypocrites.”
I guess that’s the basis of Anthony Watts’ headline:
Heartland’s Billboards and Joe Romm’s stunning hypocrisy
Kim @ 5/5 11.12am: lol … Is this the elephant designed by the committee?
@RGates
You mention the lies and distortions of the tobacco industries’ scientists, and their blatant disregard for public welfare (health) in pursuit their paymaster’s interests (profit), calling this a capitalist wet dream.
Yet are completely silent on the lies and distortions of government climate scientists, and their blatant disregard for public welfare (freedom and prosperity) in pursuit of their paymaster’s interests (totalitarianism). A socialist wet dream.
The arguments we can summarize as follows.
1 That subsidies for FF do exist in most jurisdictions
2 That often the subsidy is not transparent (most are indirect ,such as depreciation in the Australian CPP case or extraction incentives in Canada etc
3 The opaqueness of the real costs (without the GHG factor) of FF production is a hindrance for substitution for coal by gas or gas/renewable hybrids preserving base and peak load production.
4 There are anomalous cases of under-reporting of FF production by a large number of developing countries China for exampl which increased its emission estimates to pass the US in 2006,significantly unreported its coal production (the PRC grey market equal to around 70% of global sea trade)
5 Uncertainty in FF emissions from Baseline are around +/- 6% the standardized reporting needs to be enhanced.
6 There is no silver bullet ,each country has its own needs,and resources that may be attributable to its needs ,say hydro and geothermal in Iceland for Aluminum smelting etc.
7 Multiple solutions allow for a greater diversity of players,the large project solutions often at great cost,become drains on capital and consumers.Greater diversity is abetter evolutionary pathway ie survival of the fittest not fattest.
Maksimovich,
I am a bit confused by your response.
First, you didn’t really address the point I was making. To put my main point a different way, for me to be persuaded that making fossil fuel subsidies transparent (apparently without being concerned about all the other subsidies and distortions in the energy market) is the highest priority for our initial efforts, I’d want to see evidence that the subsidies are of such a scale that, if we removed them, the decisions as to which power stations to build would change sufficiently to make a significant difference (to improve reliability of supply, cost of electricity, health and safety and emissions). I am not at all convinced that would be the case. I also suspect focusing on this, in a clearly partial way, would actually increase the distortions.
Secondly, your points 1 to 5 are arguing that we must focus on fossil fuel subsidies. However, points 6 and 7 seem to argue we need to make special cases (I suspect you mean subsidies and mandating) for non-hydro renewables.
In point 7 you mention high capital cost. But it is actually the cost of electricity for the life of the facility that is the most important parameter for comparisons (after reliability and availability). Renewables have much higher capital cost and cost of electricity than fossil fuels of nuclear power.
We should always keep in mind the enormous external benefit of low cost energy. Reliability of supply and low cost energy overrides all other factors, IMO.
Your last sentence:
Greater diversity is a better evolutionary pathway ie survival of the fittest not fattest.
is a value judgement. The statement, in this context, is meaningless, IMO.
Rob Starkey,
You said:
Infrastructure construction is not done and the reasons why are interesting to examine by country.
Would you care to expand?
Hunter @ 6/5 12.13am:
Demented as I am, nevertheless … )
Don,
‘The data are so poor’ – care to elaborate on this unsupported assertion?
The average decreased into the LIA without CO2. The average might have increased after the LIA without CO2.
Periods of more sunshine due to cloud changes added energy to the system …
http://i40.tinypic.com/xgfyok.jpg
http://i51.tinypic.com/eb3pmb.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/34qk01z.jpg
And the albedo changed.
http://www.arm.ac.uk/slides/epb/
What percentage of the microscopic warming was caused by CO2. Zero is a distinct possibility.
Tony, Gates does not realize that the weight of evidence is in the eye of the beholder. The vast preponderance of evidence I have reviewed in studying this issue for the past 20+ years would say quite clearly that AGW is false. And we have looked at the same evidence. So his pronouncement carries no weight. Only specifics count, such as the one you raise, the log die-off of forcing.
The ocean has been warming since the last glaciation. So, the ocean is still warming. The ocean temperature increase accelerated in 1850. None of you have explained that. None of you have explained clearly how an increase in CO2 affects water vapor and clouds so as to amplify warming. None of you have accounted for the missing tropospheric hot spot. There is more you haven’t explained that you have.
1. They are not cooling. check your statistics.
2. The theory allows for and even anticipates local zones that cool while other areas warm. The predictions are centered on global averages.
3. You should take some time to actually understand the mechanism. its not what you think
Steven, science is about specifics, so every kind of warming cannot confirm your hypothesis, or you have no hypothesis at all. It is funny that I should have to explain AGW, but AGW says every GHG molecule begins to act as soon as it enters the atmosphere. Slow build up of GHGs implies slow warming.
You can introduce secondary mechanisms to make the warming irregular, but if there is only this single step function then you have to explain it. You cannot just say AGW = warming and the step is warming, so consistent with AGW. It is manifestly not.
You must provide a specific hypothesis that explains how the heat does not appear for over 20 years of GHG increase, then is suddenly released by the ENSO, then once again does not appear. This is what the data says and this is what AGW must explain in order to remain viable.