Why do I get the feeling this Accenture/Barclay’s report is going to have a serious backlash? Good if it does! The warmists outlets are already out there doing pre-emptive damage control, going into denial and wishful thinking.
A study carried out by consultants Accenture and Barclays Bank confirms that “climate protection” is going to cost a bundle and will involve “gigantic investments” if Europe’s target of reducing CO2 emissions 20% by 2020 is to be reached. The price tag for Europeans: 2.9 TRILLION euros, i.e. €2,900,000,000,000.00! With 450 million Europeans, that means €6,444.00 for every man, woman and child. The warmist klimaretter writes:
But at the same time, the conclusion that climate protection is expensive cannot be drawn from the calculations. The study does not analyse the costs the of climate protection, but only the necessary investments. Among these there are some that are economically attractive and thus will save money over the years.”
The question ought to be: “What are all these costs going to lead to?” The answer is: nothing. How about taking a look around and opening your eyes? Look at all the poverty out there that is screaming for investment. Look at the sorry state of many schools and hospitals in Europe.
Yet, instead of investing in these important things, the EU wants to blow the money on an energy system that no one really needs – one that is mandated by a fraud.
But the warmists are doing their damnedest to put a positive spin on it. Remember that protecting the climate is an abstract concept that exists only in Fairyland. The concept that we can “protect the climate” is a complete myth. As best I can tell, climate protection for warmists means the production of good weather. Good luck! Klimaretter writes:
The study shows foremost that climate protection is a big business opportunity, also for banking services because it will provide a large share of the needed capital. Therefore one has to view the necessary investments as a chance for the economy.
That this is going to be a big bonanza for the banks is no exaggeration. They are going to make a killing, but at the expense of the consumer. And saying these investments are a “chance” for the economy is really incorrect labelling. It’s going to be a “gamble” for the economy – Russian Roulette style. Klimaretter writes:
Climate protection is ‘one of the megatrends of the economy’.
They’re right about that. But that does not make it a trend that will lead to success. Having everyone go off the edge of a cliff as a trend does not make it a reasonable endeavour. Klimaretter then reports on Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen meeting with industry leaders of Allianz, Metro, Siemens and Viessmann, saying that the energetic renovation of buildings will have top priority and “the politicians must see to it that the renovation is equally attractive for property owners and users.”
More on Allianz in a day or two. In the meantime just keep in mind that this is all based on “purchased science”. If they looked at the real science, all that capital could be directed to real problems.
====================================================== Sorry folks for the disappearing articles. It’s been a long day and I’ve hit some wrong buttons and so a really rough draft that was not meant to appear showed up as a new post. I’ll most likely post ittomorrow. – PG
In the older days, whether selling detergents, applicances or food products, marketers often used the slogan: “new and improved!” to con consumers and to boost sales. The German online DIE WELT reports that companies have changed their marketing slogans to make their business more profitable and sustainable. The new slogan used to pitch products today is:
Almost every conceivable company is jumping on the enviro-bandwagon and claiming their products or services are “sustainable” and thus good for the planet, no matter if it’s an automaker, coal power plant, or an investment instrument. The “sustainable” product is better and safer for the environment. The movement indeed is religious. DIE WELT writes:
You can now invest sustainably, and even fight dandruff in a sustainable way.”
Well, I turned off the light in the room next door, and so now I’m blogging sustainably. In fact I just changed the slogan of my blog. I’m the first climate blogger to blog more sustainably – the world’s most sustainable climate science blogger. Blog here! Going to any other climate sicence blog means you’ll be ruining the planet.
Misuse of the word
As DIE WELT writes, not everyone is amused about companies slapping the “sustainable” slogan on the packaging of their products, and claim it borders on false advertising in many cases. (Not me. I really am blogging with the light off and drinking tap water). Author Ulrich Grober has written a book on the history of sustainability, and is quoted by Die Welt:
Indeed even oil companies like BP use the word “sustainable“ in their annual reports. ‘Recently in Switzerland the most “sustainable” autobahn of all time was inaugurated“, says Grober. it clouds the meaning of the word.’ “
Experts say the word “sustainable” is now being used so often and so incorrectly that it has virtually lost all its original meaning. Sociologist Klaus Kraemer says the word “sustainability is now being used in political debates as the ultimate moral argument. “Whatever is sustainable is not to be questioned.”
Use of the word “sustainable” is dangerous
The term being misused is one thing. But using the word for the purpose of marketing may be “dangerous”, says chemist Michael Braungart. Die Welt quotes Braungart:
The concept is backwards-looking and puts the brakes on creativity because it is connected with feelings of guilt.”
I agree with that. If you don’t buy a product that is labelled as “sustainable”, then you are someone who is harming the planet, and so you ought to feel bad about it. That’s how a religion works. So in the end, I think there is going to be a backlash with respect to this blind sustainability movement. The whole thing is rather Medieval. Back to the Dark Ages.
Educated consumers really ought to feel insulted
How do I feel when I see the “sustainable” slogan being targeted at me? Of course it annoys the hell out of me because I feel the seller of the “sustainable” product assumes that I’m actually stupid enough to believe all the CO2 nonsense. I’m insulted that they’d treat me like that. I’m not a blind zealot in a cult. It’s a slogan that maybe works well with morons, dupes and religious greens. But it certainly isn’t a way to communicate with people who think for themselves.
The enviro-sustainable hacks and bosses behind this movement don’t even believe it themselves. See how they jetset all over the world and live lavish lives while raking it in as duped consumers gobble it up. To the half-witted believers out there – wake up – you’re being duped by this utter nonsense.
To my loyal readers, please do not think that I’m targeting you with my new slogan. I know you don’t believe the CO2/sustainability crap. The new blog slogan is aimed solely at other people, like dana1981.
(PS: Actually I have the lights on – and it’s daytime.)
Europe set to climax with green bloody self-flagellation.
The FAZ writes:
In the coming 40 years, the EU must invest 270 billion Euros annually if it wants to reach its long-term climate targets. That’s the result of a draft of a strategy paper that Climate Commissar Connie Hedegaard wants to introduce in early March. In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 95% by 2050, large-scale investments for the expansion of renewable energies, energy grid, CCS, passive homes, electric vehicles and modern industrial plants will be needed.”
What return will European taxpayers and citizens get for this investment? Maybe a theoretical, imperceptible o.1°C of reduced warming, along with a phony belief they saved the planet. Not even the Soviets could have managed a failure of such proportions. What better way to drive an entire continent into ruin could one possibly conceive?
But the EU seems to think this is all bearable. After all, it is only 1.5% of the EU economy – about the amount paid by the EU because of the financial crisis. And it’s the way to keep Europe in the leading position as the world’s climate protector.
But it is doubtful that even the most green-eyed bureaucrats believe these targets are achievable. So they added an escape clause in the whole thing. The EU will also be allowed to count CO2 reductions achieved in third countries. I’m not clear on what that means exactly, but to me it’s an open door to accounting tricks.
Still, it is an ambitious plan, especially amid all the conference failures of the past. Indeed rather than discouraging Europe, these global failures to agree on reductions in emissions have only emboldened Europe to get even tougher. FAZ writes:
The European Parliament and enviironmental activists have repeatedly demanded that the EU unilaterally commit itself to even tougher reductions in order to give climate change negotiations more impetus.”
What do the EU bureaucrats care? After all, it’s the EU citizens who are going to have to bear all the pain. The citizens be damned. And besides, they’ll be able to enjoy the benefits of an imperceptibly cooler 0.1°C and a feeling they rescued planet. So let the self-flagellation begin.
When it comes to renewable energy, you can call them “Jesus technologies”. These are technologies that went the way of the dinosaurs a long time ago due to their inefficiency and impracticality. But in order to serve a political purpose, they seem to keep getting resurrected every 30 years or so. I came up with “Jesus technology” from Bishop Hill’s Caspar and the Jesus-Paper“, a paper that died often but kept coming back.
Sure in some cases these primitive technologies make sense, but for the wide-scale application in a power grid, they make little sense, cost the consumer dearly, and even put the energy supply at risk.
Humpich’s essay starts by reminding us that electrical energy is very difficult and enormously costly to store. Therefore, the wildly fluctuating supply of wind and solar energies requires having conventional back-up systems in place, ready to fire up or throttle down at a moment’s notice whenever the sun and wind intensities change. Humprich writes that solar and wind are referred to as “additive energy forms” in the energy business, and not as “alternatives”. Alternatives would suggest that they replace conventional fuels, which is not the case. They only add to conventional fuels, and hence they are called additive supplies.
Wind and solar are a nightmare to control
The problem with wind energy is that a wind generator’s output varies with the third power of the wind velocity, P = kV³. That means a wind generator produces only 1/8 of it’s rated energy if the wind speed is cut in half. So whenever the wind speed changes, the power grid must be compensated by conventional power plants that are on constant stand-by. On gusty days, as more wind parks get added to the grid, it becomes more and more of a nightmare to keep the grid stable. The result: you get a grid that behaves like a wild bronco. Humpich writes:
A power control engineer would say that these are real disturbances with steep gradients (e.g. changes in power output due to a wind gust through a wind park).”
The once easy-to-manage, steady, conventional-fuel power supply and corresponding consumption have since been intruded on by a third, highly unstable and unpredictable player.
Standby conventional power plants have low efficiencies
So when the wind suddenly dies down, reserve conventional plants have to jump in quickly, meaning they’ve got to be always on stand-by. These power plants thus rarely run at their peak efficiencies, and often at outputs well below their peak efficiency. The result? Little, if any, savings in fossil fuel consumption gets achieved. Now we know why the concept of wind being an alternative really isn’t so.
The energy that gets produced by a wind generator, is in part lost to reduced efficiencies by the standby conventional plants. All the investment and resources to install the massive system wind and solar park infrastructure has only lead to saving a fraction of what they originally were promised to save.
You always have to keep conventional power plants running alongside in order to keep the grid stable. That means it consumes fuel that does not even get used. Be it that the plant is running only at partial capacity – at a sub-optimal efficiency – or is “throttled”, which means the generated steam does not even get sent to the turbines to be converted into power but rather is simply sent back to the condenser.”
Result: consumption of fuel – for nothing.
Mixed power grids and systems are less efficient
So why go through all the trouble if it isn’t worth it? It’s all in the bookkeeping. As long as the energy from renewable sources gets accounted as having replaced the equivalent in conventional energy, then it appears interesting and the business of CO2 emission certificates looks especially lucrative.
As Humprich explains, it’s a bit like a brochure for a new car claiming the car gets 45 mpg. But as we know, that number is only under certain ideal conditions. In reality, with all the stop-and-go driving in city traffic, etc., the car’s fuel efficiency turns out to be much less.
It’s the same concept with a grid that is powered only using steady conventional fuel. An efficiency close to that advertised by the “manufacturer'” can indeed be reached when operated near ideal conditions. But when you mix in wind and solar parks, the efficiency is spoiled – you’re in “city traffic”. It drops considerably.
So what exacly is the efficiency of a conventional power plant operating on a “mixed grid”? Does the generated wind and solar energy replace a corresponding amount of fossil fuel? The answer is of course “no”. To determine the exact amount, it is necessary to conduct comprehensive simulations or actual field measurements. Humprich provides an example. A combination natural gas fired/steam typically has an efficiency of 57%. But when it is used as a back up for wind and solar energy, it no longer operates under ideal conditions, and so the efficiency drops to a measly 36%.
Rotten in Denmark
Denmark is a country that has a large supply of renewable energy. And it is also long known that when storms rage over Denmark, its power grid has to be stabilized by conventional power plants in neighboring Germany and Sweden.
Today wind and solar energy are incresingly being stabilized by gas-fired steam power plants, and so it means more business for the gas industry. Humprich writes:
Maybe that’s why the two leading propagandists for wind and solar energy today are representatives of gas. In the USA, in any case, the gas industry is the leading sponsor of the ‘climate industry’. But this is not reprehensible. If you wish to promote another product (natural gas) onto an established market (coal and nuclear), then a lot of arm-twisting is needed. In this respect, gas-guys like Schröder, Fischer and Co. become real vacuum cleaner salespeople, who happen to get get paid generaously for their sales pitches.”
First Rahmstorf, praises Germany for carrying out a “scientific, factual discussion of climate science”, unlike in the USA, where he says:
It’s different in the USA: There the conservative Tea Party movement has proclaimed that man-made climate change is made up, and large parts of the economy are lobbying using dubious ‘climate sceptic’ propositions.”
Rahmstorf is visibly worried that this “dubious climate scepticism” may be spreading to Germany, and goes after RWE Vahrenholt. In his Die Welt essay, Vahrenholt assigns the blame for the cold winters – writing:
It’s the sun, stupid!”
Rahmstorf, however does not believe the sun has an impact on the earth’s climate, and thinks it’s all due to a few molecules of CO2. And so Rahmstorf attributes the recent cold winters to miscalibrated human perception:
The winter appears cold because we had gotten used to the mild winters.”
and misleadingly reframes Mojib Latif’s 2008 predictions of cooling:
No serious scientist doubts global warming, and certainly not Mojib Latif, whose quote has nothing to do with the cold winters. It’s old and stems from his model projections of a temporary cooling, which in the meantime we know failed to materialise.”
Latif made his cooling projections in 2008, and so are not that old (he predicted warm-winters back in 2000). And who can say that the cold winters aren’t related to his projections of cooling? Latif’s projections look to be true, and likely will be true for the new, current decade.
Rahmstorf then quotes, defends and explains Kevin Trenberth’s infamous “it’s travesty we can’t account for the missing heat” statement, saying it was taken out of context and that Trenberth meant something else.
Rahmstorf acknowledges the solar correlation with regards to the Russian heat wave and flood in Pakistan, but claims that this correlation is very weak, and quotes Trenberth again:
‘Without global warming, these events would not have happened’.”
Now that’s the “scientific, factual discussion” that PIK scientists and the government like to praise. Of course, anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of science knows that blaming a couple of isolated weather events on global warming is preposterous. But what is preposterous in climate science passes as “scientific, factual” at the PIK.
Rahmstorf takes offence to the harsh criticism that Vahrenholt fired at PIK science, and thinks sceptics give the sun too great of a role in climate change. He says Vahrenholt is silent about the fact…(emphasis added)
…that also during the largest solar minimum of the “Little Ice Age” during the so-called Maunder Minimum of the late 17th century the global temperature was only a few tenths of a degree cooler than before and after, and that our model reproduces the temperature back then very well, otherwise we would have not used it for our future projections.”
A few tenths of a degree Celsius? That’s the difference between having vineyards in England and a frozen Thames? PIK science is moving beyond preposterous.
Rahmstorf ends with a comment on climate debate:
Those who wish to sow doubt on the urgency of climate protection, really have to work hard to twist the facts. However, the climate crisis can be overcome only by having an honest debate.”
When you have an institution that can longer function because of incompetence, corruption, or whatever human element, it is impossible to repair it without first replacing the bad personnel behind the problem. Anything else is like trying to cure someone with a bad liver by treating everything else except the liver itself.That’s the case at the Met Office. If you truly want to reform it, then it has to be purged of its rotten apples. Piers Corbyn reports on the UK parliament transport select committee, click here, into the December cold & snow, and concludes:
THE MET OFFICE’s submission is, I would say: a Mubarak-style, bunkerish, self-serving, denial of reality.”
He then lists the points why, among them is a comment on the usefulness of seasonal forecasts, which, as we know, their own have been completely wrong. Piers writes (emphasis added):
They say ‘accurate regional forecasts on a monthly scale have proved to be useful. Perhaps they are talking about someone else’s forecasts (eg WeatherAction’s). The observed FACT is Met Office seasonal forecasts have demonstrably negative skill. They have consistently – with zero success in all the last 6 unusual (extreme) seasons – misled the public, emergency services and Councils and led to deaths on unsalted roads consequent on ill-advised Council’s believing MetOffice warmist winter forecasts.”
Piers then writes on the Met Office’s commitment in developing forecasting science, calling it “as delusional as Colonel Gaddafi”. To top it all off, the Met Office then has the temerity to expect the British taxpayers to cough up many more millions for super-computers to “improve their forecasts”.
Everybody knows that no matter how good your computers are, if you feed them with garbage, then you get garbage out. I’d rely on Piers and his laptop long before I’d call the clowns at the Met Office.
In its submission, the Met Office does promise to take the steps needed for generating accurate monthly forecasts for the public, adding:
The extent and speed of this development is, of course, dependent on the availability of resources – particularly in supercomputing power to enable modelling to incorporate new science and understanding…..”.
Never let a crisis go to waste.
Indeed the Met Office needs a good house-cleaning. They are attempting to screw the public yet again. And unless the house does indeed get cleaned, more Bitish lives will be put at risk.
That’s what one of Germany’s leading national dailies, DIE WELT, writes here at it’s online site.Who knows! Maybe parts of the German media are beginning to see the the big block-letter writing on the wall and are now slowly taking baby-steps towards acknowledging the claims and science behind catastrophic global warming are not all what they are cracked up to be.
Maybe the far-fetched, cockamamie explanations on why all the cold is caused by warming has led the less zealous among the media to reconsider the science. Maybe all the phony predictions that keep turning out to be wrong are finally raising suspicions.
DIE WELT writes (emphasis added):
Forecasts made by many climate scientists, shortly before the year ended, prophesizing that 2010 would be the hottest on record have – once again – proven to be false.
According to CRU data, 2010 was in third place behind 1998 and 2005, and almost exactly tied with the year 2003. Certainly: The last decade was the warmest since records started being kept 130 years ago, but during the decade the warming – at least for the time being – stopped.”
Colder winters are forecast for the future
The 4th cold winter in a row is also causing some people to wake up from their global warming trance and prompting them to ask questions. DIE WELT writes:
We are now experiencing the 4th cold winter in a row.”
The climate scientists who are most loudly warning of global warming now say Central Europe must expect colder winters.”
The reason for this, writes DIE WELT, is because of a change in the NAO, which in the 1980s and 1990s supplied Europe with mild winters with winds from the Atlantic keeping the temperature on the mild side. DIE WELT also writes that Europeans ought to get used to long cold winters because that’s pretty much what is now forecast for the years ahead.
Global warming causing cold winters – just another theory
And Die Welt seems a bit annoyed by all the changing science, and so explains that the colder winters caused by global warming, all triggered by a lack of sea ice in the Arctic, is just a theory and reminds us that:
During the especially mild winter of 2006/2007 a completely different story was told: Namely that climate change would be more noticeable in milder winter months and less so as hot summer periods and that this one particular mild season would be typical for winters in the future.”
and then adds later in their report:
The very climate scientists who are warning of global warming now say Central Europe must expect colder winters.”
Thanks, DIE WELT, for reminding readers of that. PIK; GISS and Hadley scientists would like to have everyone forget all those now embarrassing computer-model-based forecasts. It’s encouraging to see journalists start wondering about the new theories that keep popping up when things turn out differently.
Spring 2011 forecast to be cold
Finally, DIE WELT tells us that this spring in Central Europe is not going to be warm either, quoting meteorologists. Unfortunately it has been a long brutal winter for much of Europe. And with the end of February upon us, many Europeans are really getting itchy for spring and some real warming. Unfortunately, it’s going to take (quite) awhile longer, so reports DIE WELT.
But all that has changed, and this winter looks like it is about to get a long extension. Although temperatures are forecast to get above freezing by the weekend, meteorologists are forecasting that March and April will remain on the cool side.
How much cold is it going to take to make the rest of us doubt the bogus warming?
Some of us may be wondering whatever happened to the dana who we all love and miss so much. Well, Lubos Motl at the Reference Frame has a nice little update on the adventures of dana:H/t: Mindert Eiting
Why Dana 1981 Hasn’t Proved… By Lubos Motl
Dana1981 is a 30-year-old Prius driver and the owner of several other alternative vehicles who has mistakingly received a bachelor degree in astrophysics and a master degree in physics, so he or she became a self-described environmental scientist who is “passionate” about the climate hysteria.
Clearly, such people shouldn’t be admitted as college students because they’re incapable of rational thinking. The presence of people like him dramatically cripples the intellectual atmospheres at the world’s universities…”
PS: My advice to you dana is: I wouldn’t mess with Lubos, as he would certainly do physics circles and orbits around you. Dana, you’ve only proved one thing, and you may realize what that is when you get older.
Although the Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research (PIK) gives the impression that it is a climate research facility, it also appears to have become an institute for formulating novel economic policy.
H/t: reader Ike
The PIK, commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, has produced and released a NEW SYNTHESIS REPORT that claims Europe can revitalize its economy by tackling the climate challenge, namely by raising the European climate target for emissions reductions from 20% to 30%. The report is titled:
A New Growth Path for Europe – Generating Prosperity and Jobs in the Low Carbon Economy”
Tipping point to prosperity at 30%
The PIK seems to be claiming there is an economic tipping point to prosperity at 30% emissions reduction. The onlineDie Zeit writes on the new PIK report:
Europe should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% instead of only 20% by 2020, which is the current plan. This is how the continent could overcome its economic stagnation.
If they stick to the 20% target, ‘then it would be like someone stuck in a hole who is digging deeper’.”
Based on climate-economic models!
The PIK claims a 30% reduction by 2020 would lead to higher growth and increased employment. These projections are based on “new model results”. (PIK models have an incurable habit of producing exactly what the PIK wants to see).
In the coming decade, Europe will need to accept the challenge of increasing economic growth while reducing both unemployment and greenhouse gas emissions. New model results show that these three goals can actually reinforce one another.”
Yet, there must be something terribly wrong with their models because a slew of European governments have been recently forced to do just the exact opposite, due real-life economics, and scale back subsidies to money-losing green energy sources – especially solar.
But the PIK has never been deterred by the harsh truths of reality, and claims:
Clear policies associated with a decisive move to a 30% target can be doubly beneficial for the climate and the EU economy.”
Their “new model results” also say their new plan would:
• increase the growth rate of the European economy by up to 0.6% per year.
• create up to 6 million additional jobs Europe-wide.
• boost European investments from 18% to up to 22% of GDP.
• increase European GDP by up to $842 billion (2004 dollars).
• increase GDP by up to 6% both in the old (EU15) and new (EU12) member states.”
For the first time in the academic modelling field
The above projections all sound so rosy. So just exactly what kind of brilliant mastermind plan did the PIK use to produce such rosy projections? (Hang on to your chair!):
For the first time in the academic climate modeling field, the present study has taken a state-of-the-art model of climate economics and enhanced it along those lines. The enhanced model includes:
• the fact that investments depend on subjective expectations, not on correct previsions of whatever future possibilities may arise.
• the fact that higher investments trigger higher learning-by-doing, thereby reducing unit costs.
• the resulting existence of different possible equilibria with different growth paths.
The new simulations show that 30% is achievable and can be economically beneficial by shifting the European Economy into a new, more advantageous equilibrium – a path of low-carbon growth.”
I don’t know about you, but I’d be a little wary of the “first-time in the academic climate modeling field” point, especially in a field as complex as economics. Thinking that these things work without glitches after just one tune-up sets a new standard in naiveness.
Apparently I’m not the only one who’s palm over face on this. Even Germany’s greenie Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen is not touching this with a 10-foot pole. According to Die Zeit:
Even Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen has placed little emphasis on the presentation of the new study: Instead of travellingng to Brussels himself, he sent his secretary Katherina Reiche.”
Like the old promises of government central planning, PIK’s plan is a roadmap to a disaster.
Minus 30°C for days…13°C below normal…homeless people dying…hands and feet are freezing…
That’s what we are hearing from a few media outlets in Europe, those who have dared to mention the “cold-snap” word and to write about reality. It’s been cold in Scandinavia, much of Europe, North America and Russia too. Where’s all the warming? Heck, even the oceans are below normal.
The European part of Russia is stuck deep in the freezer, reports the Austrian online Krone.at. The extreme cold is due to a huge high pressure system in the Arctic which has kept Moscow in temperatures down as low as -30°C for days. Krone.at writes:
The Russian media have been talking about ‘the hardest winter in the last 100 years’, causing 10 million people to shiver.
”This abnormal frost has been an enormous challenge,’ says Moscow mayor Sergei Sobjanin. Meteorologists don’t see any let up in the days ahead, and even expect temperatures to drop further. In the European part of Russia, unusually deep cold has dominated the area over the last 14 days. The average temperature for February so far alone for Moscow is 11 to 13°C below normal.”
There are reports that homeless people are getting hit hard. Pleas for blankets and clothing are being made. Famous Moscow doctor Elisabeth Glinki says:
Many people on the street are dying, or their hands and feet are freezing.”
Looking at the above temperature forecast chart above, things are going to get even worse in the days ahead.
But we all know what the explanation for this is, right!
Google is also responding to the growing skepticism in climate science by starting “an effort to foster a more open, transparent and accessible scientific dialogue aimed at inspiring pioneering use of technology, new media and computational thinking in the communication of science to diverse audiences.” They’ll start by focusing on communicating the science on climate change.
That means they are going to help ramp up climate propaganda. According to their press release at Google blog, they’ve started the effort by selecting 21 mid-career Ph.D. scientists who have “the strongest potential to become excellent communicators.” A list of the 21 selected members can viewed at the website.
The selected fellows will participate in a workshop at Google headquarters in California. Google writes:
Following the workshop, fellows will be given the opportunity to apply for grants to put their ideas into practice. Those with the most impactful projects will be given the opportunity to join a Lindblad Expeditions & National Geographic trip to the Arctic, the Galapagos or Antarctica as a science communicator.
Expect to see more calving ice footage – dubbed with dire messages of planetary destruction. Folks, they’ve been crowing this 20 years.
This is not the Internet giant’s first effort to try to sway public opinion concerning climate change. Last year it launched Google Earth map “which shows how the world would be affected by a global average temperature increase of 4C in a bid to rebuild public trust in climate science,” the UK Telegraph writes here.
Thankfully, trust is real hard to rebuild once lost. And it doesn’t get rebuilt by returning (again) to the old scare-mongering and serial exaggerating. If they truly wish to win back the trust of the public, then they have to start being honest. But they can’t afford that because that would mean the end of their Utopian pipe dream and scam.
And check out this jewel of propaganda made with massaging, über-alarmist Al Gore.
And I’m glad Dr. Spencer is coming out and calling it like it is.
It’s not often you hear a distinguished scientist rip into his colleagues as Roy Spencer does at his blog here yesterday. His essay is a reaction to the House vote to suspend the funding the corrupt IPCC. Here are some excerpts:
On the IPCC:
Politicians formed the IPCC over 20 years ago with an endgame in mind: to regulate CO2 emissions.”
Science progresses by investigating alternative explanations for things. Long ago, the IPCC all but abandoned that search.”
On the most vocal AGW scientists (natural climate change deniers):
They apparently do not realize that ‘settled science’ is an oxymoron. The most vocal climate scientists defending the IPCC have lost their objectivity.”
They have a theory — more CO2 is to blame — and they religiously stick to it.”
I am ashamed for our scientific discipline and embarrassed by their behavior. Is it any wonder that scientists have such a bad reputation among the taxpayers who pay them to play in their ivory tower sandboxes? They can make gloom and doom predictions all day long of events far in the future without ever having to suffer any consequences of being wrong.”
They have gotten away with too much, for too long.”
On energy policy:
Making our most abundant and affordable sources of energy artificially more expensive with laws and regulations will end up killing millions of people.”
You really need to read his entire post to appreciate it. And I certainly would love to see Dr Spencer get “the opportunity to cross examine these (natural) climate change deniers in a court of law”. These cowards have ducked debate long eneough.
Some things are just so silly that they have to be mentioned. The online The Star Phoenix reports on yet another victim of cyclone Yasi (climate change) that hit Australia some days ago – crocodiles.
According to The Star Phoenix:
A group of ferocious Australian crocodiles were so traumatised by a maximum-strength cyclone last week that they hid under water and stopped eating, wildlife park officials said Friday.
Because the Star Phoenix doesn’t say it, I’ll do it for them: Manand his carbon emissions are responsible for the trauma the poor crocodiles had to endure!
No reports on whether crocodile counselors have been dispatched to the area to assist the crocodiles in dealing with the emotional scars of their days-long ordeal. And if counselors were sent, there are no reports of any coming back.
Having invested so much in renewables, the German government and Greens apparently are having great difficulties in coming to terms with the recently discovered huge reserves of cheap shale gas worldwide. This source of energy is not only affordable for consumers, but it is relatively environmentally friendly as well. But exploiting the gas would require governments and believers to abandon a big part of the green religion, i.e. renewables.
What do people do when they get so deep into an investment, and have worked so hard to convince everyone it is the right and moral thing to do, and then find out that there’s suddenly a much better and cheaper way? Do they simply abandon the entire endeavour? If the endeavour has become a religion and the meaning of life for them, the answer is no. They continue on a path to self-destruction.
That may indeed be the case for Europe and the Green Movement, who are now so deep into renewable energy that they may have gone beyond a psychological and emotional point of no return, a tipping point, and so they will refuse to abandon it no matter the cost. That could mean that the cheap and plentiful gas beneath our feet will simply be kept there, and we will be forced to continue paying exorbitant prices for an unreliable energy source and endure lots of pain.
Technically and economically, the recent discoveries of these huge deposits of natural shale gas in Europe make all the renewable energy pain completely unnecessary in the future. That ought to be good news, and governments ought to be breathing sighs of relief. But it isn’t so. Many European governments are not about to let anything disrupt their romantic visions of a future of renewables and the Truth.
Remember they are enlightened and infallible. So forget the drilling permits.
Everywhere globally, huge reserves of natural gas have been discovered, from Israel to Qatar, from South Africa to Ukraine or Poland. The discoveries exceeded all expectations. The USA has found so much gas that it can become completely independent of imports. At current levels of consumption, there are enough for 100 years. And also Europe has gas for at least another 50 years – whereby the second biggest reserve is in North Rhine Westphalia.
Anyone in good psychological health would welcome such a blessing. But it seems we are living in times of increasing power madness. For example Maxiener and Miersch comment on the International Energy Agency’s (IEA), reaction:
But instead of expressing delight over the gas reserves, many of the archictects of our energy future are in a state of shock.
Equally shocked are the German energy dreamers with their solar cells because natural gas is relatively environmentally friendly and far more affordable than the option of Green-romantic alternatives.
So instead of burning the gas, the government will ask its citizens to burn their money to stay warm.
I get really nervous, I have to admit, when the President of the United States, who happens to be a leftist ideologue, sits down with really powerful people who happen to be the biggest players in the US Internet and communication technology. Politics the Chicago-way is not exclusive to Chicago.
This is the table where deals are made. “Cheers to helping me out”.
You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours. Corporations don’t make big changes in business plans and policy unless there are very promising incentives to do so. And the President of the United States is someone who is fully capable of delivering such incentives.
Is this really about creating jobs? A little. But anyone can tell you that the CEOs attending this dinner are capable of only creating so many jobs – a number that wouldn’t even change the US unemployment statistics.
Everyone also knows that most jobs get created by the small to medium-size companies. Give small business some incentives, and watch the economy take off. Yet, no one was there at the dinner to represent them.
Small and medium-size business are being ignored. And we already know how strained the relations between the representative of the these businesses, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Obama Administration are. I’d have to conclude that this meeting was not really about jobs, but about how to win next year’s election, and how to turn the tide of politics back to where it was 2 years ago.
One important way to do this would be to take stronger control over the internet. Doing this by law would backfire, of course. So just let the companies do the dirty work for you.
Take a look at some of the persons in attendence:
Eric Schmidt, Google
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook
Dick Costolo, Twitter
Carol Bartz, Yahoo!
Steve Jobs, Apple
John Chambers, Cisco Systems
Larry Ellison, Oracle
Reed Hastings, CEO, NetFlix
Although these people won’t be able to create enough jobs to solve USA’s economic crisis, they are capable of rescuing Obama’s presidency with lots of money and assisting in providing “better communication” to the public. Again, it makes me nervous. Obama is fighting a war not in Iraq or Afghanistan, but at home.
Germany’s Defence Minister (Dr?) Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is under heavy fire amid allegations he plagiarised other works and included them in his doctoral thesis, read short report here.
Unlike Climategate, the media here is doing its work and reporting on these developments which are now breaking, thanks in large part to the work of bloggers.
The case against zu Guttenberg appears to be hardening, at least that’s what we are hearing from the media. If it turns out that he did indeed plagiarise, then his doctorate will be revoked, and he will be under massive pressure to resign. Others of course say that everyone makes mistakes, and so he ought to stay. I think he ought to resign if he did indeed plagiarise.
Although the media hype surrounding zu Guttenberg is immense, the general public is a bit more calm about it. Most Germans here will tell you that they would not be surprised if many doctoral degree holders probably have done the same to a greater or lesser extent.
This got me thinking about climate science and all the professors and scientists out there. How many were really honest in their doctoral theses? In climate science we’ve seen a lot of shady dealings, criminal activity, corruption and downright fraud. It certainly would be interesting to examine a few theses from some of these leading warmist scientists.
I’ll just come out and say it. Any scientist that has the habit of manipulating, torturing and misrepresenting climate data probably was also less than honest in writing his/her thesis. Dishonesty starts very early on in life. Sure, this is a dangerous path to take, and one that is probably best avoided. It would indeed signal the start of a whole new level of mud-raking that might do more harm than good. Even honest people make mistakes, after all. Everyone has lied at one time or another. Yet, while some people rarely lie, others are pathological.
Shouldn’t the public know?
Sometimes it is not even clear what is a lie. Many tell half-truths, which is a way of deception. At this blog I tend to tell only one side of the story – because I feel the other side has been told ten times already. Does that make me deceptive?
A new book written by University of Konstanz Professor Gerd Ganteför is now being released by science publisher Wiley VCH: Klima – der Weltuntergang findet nicht statt (Climate – The End of the World Called Off).
Although Ganteför is a warmist, he dismisses the notion that a climate catastrophe is coming, and even adds that warming will bring advantages. This sort of optimism has sparked an angry response from the forces of German doom and gloom. The following clip is an interview of Professor Ganteför (in German).
At the start of the clip the interviewer asks Ganteför (right), with amazement: “The climate catastrophe is everywhere in the media, it really isn’t going to take place?” Ganteför responds:
Yeah, I’m really sorry about that, but the end of the world is not going to take place. Indeed we are going to have a warming, there’s going to be drought, there are going to be heavy rains, there’s going to be sea level rise, but these floods will be within the normal range of variation. Normal when you look at what happened over the last 2000 years. At the North Sea coast there have been large floods every 20 years, and it is not going to get any worse or better than what humans have experienced before.”
This kind of optimism and realism of course contrasts starkly with the dark images of catastrophe that get delivered by the crystal balls of AGW fortune tellers. For example, Ganteför’s realism has infuriated the catastrophe-obsessed cultists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PIK, who have since blasted Prof. Ganteför’s book, see Stefan Rahmstorf’s web blog of doom and pessimismKlimalounge.
Klimalounge wasted no time and spared few words in deriding Ganteför’s book, credentials and optimism, saying that he’s not a climate scientist and that any respectable publisher would have refused publishing such a work. Ganteför is just the latest enemy on the PIK’s ever growing blacklist.
Ganteför does not dispute that CO2 is causing warming, but adds:
This warming is neither worse nor better than the warming we’ve had in the past. There has always been climate change in the past. Two hundred years ago there was the Little Ice Age. This caused a lot of hardship for the people back then – with widespread hunger, bad harvests and so on. Back then we had a natural climate change that was negative. Now we are causing a positive climate change. If we didn’t do that, then it would probably get cooler, as we are scheduled for an ice age.”
I’m not sure about CO2 preventing an ice age, but I do get a kick out of the PIK when they claim we’re headed for the opposite kind of catastrophe. Both of these views are wild.
The book is also featured at: Readers Edition, which writes on how the book looks at three main topics:
Topic I: For environmental protection, the standard of living in undeveloped countries has to be improved. To achieve this, modern coal and nuclear power plants are necessary.
Topic II: The consequences of climate warming are not catastrophic, and even bring some benefits.
TpoicIII: The following should be supported to have climate protection: low-emission coal plants, modern nuclear power, wind energy, geo-thermal and nuclear fusion. Subsidies for bio-fuels, wood pellets and solar energy cause more bad than good.
Ganteför’s book is the latest in the starting and growing trend of seeing global warming as positive. Late last year, German news magazine FOCUS had a special called:
which concludes warming has many positive benefits. Then a short time ago a German YouTube video parody featuring Jürgen Klimann appeared – asking where’s the climate change? And says warmth would be a welcome alternative to Germany’s otherwise gray, dreary and cool weather.
So maybe a little sanity and optimism is returning to Germany.
Head for the hills folks! Sea levels are rising. But first read Ed Caryl’s latest essay on sea levels. It sure helps ignoring the climate catastrophe cultists for a few minutes and taking a sane look at the data.
A Level Look At Sea Level
By Ed Caryl
One of the tenets of the AGW crowd is the idea that sea level rise is going to be catastrophic in the next 100 or 200 years, drowning our coasts and harbors, and in the case of low-lying countries, like The Netherlands, whole countries. These are not the facts.
Figure 1 shows the sea level rise over the last 20,000 years. In the last 8 thousand, the curve looks flat. It looks like there has been no rise since civilization began, and that the recent rise of about 20 cm (Figure 2) since 1900 is “unprecedented.” That is not true. The sea level has risen and fallen several times in the last few thousand years.
In Figure 3, one can see that the sea level did not abruptly level off after the rather swift rise as the major continental glaciers melted, but slowly continued to rise, with one episode of falling between 3 and 4 thousand years ago.
A closer look at the last 2000 years is wanted. An article describing the sea level at Barrow Alaska was found. Here is the abstract in full:
Eustatic rises of sea level between A. D. 265 and 500 and between A. D. 1000 and 1100 caused the formation of raised beaches. After the first rise, sea level dropped about 2 meters below the present level, permitting Eskimo settlement of Birnirk about A. D. 500. The second rise of the ocean flooded Birnirk. At present, sea level is about 0.6 to 1.0 meter below the high water levels; the ocean partially floods Birnirk.”
The rises and falls at Barrow mirror the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Age Cool Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and the last fall in sea level in the Little Ice Age, with a slow rise since then. (See From Hockey Sticks to Boomerangs for the temperatures during this period.) But we are still below the high water levels seen at Barrow. These events are somewhat visible in the data points of figure 3, but the author of that chart has chosen to use a straight line to depict the sea level for the last two thousand years, not showing the natural variation.
The same rises and falls happened in the Fenlands of eastern UK. This description is from Wikipedia. The Roman period in the UK was from 43 CE to 410 CE, well into the Dark Age Cool Period.
The peak of the water levels in the fens was in the Iron Age; earlier Bronze and Neolithic settlements were covered by peat deposits, and have only been found recently. During the Roman period, waters levels fell once again, and settlements were possible on the new silt soils deposited near the coast. Though water levels rose once again in the early medieval period, by this time artificial banks protected the coastal settlements and the inland from further deposits of marine silts, though peats continued to develop in the freshwater wetlands of the interior fens.”
Then there are the Roman fish pens. Described at this site, but the story is all over the internet as proof of AGW caused sea level rise. It proves no such thing.
‘The Romans dug these fish pens into bedrock, and the water line in these well-preserved structures shows that the sea level along the Italian coast 2000 years ago was 1.35 metres below today’s levels. “They were used for only a very short time, so they make rather nice markers,’ says Lambeck.”
He then analysed how land elevations changed along the Italian coast due to both plate tectonics and the after-effects of the last ice age. In a paper to appear in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, he concludes that geological processes affecting land levels over the past two millennia accounted for 1.22 metres of the change, which means that the global sea level rose by 13 centimetres.”
The only problem with this story is that the sea level changed several times in the intervening years, both up and down. The fish pens are just one marker in time. They were used only for a short time because after that they were either above sea level and dry, or below sea level and unusable. Is there a chart of sea level over the last 2000 years? There is this one at CISRO, but the error bars are very long and it shows nothing useful. We only begin to get good data from tide gauges in the last 300 years.
A problem with measuring sea level is that isostatic rebound, post-glacial rebound, or glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), is still happening. It affects tide gauge readings all over Europe, especially in Scandinavia. One way to correct for this is to use GPS readings to find the actual earth movement and subtract that from the tide gauge measurements. When this is done, the real sea level rise in recent years begins to dwindle. This quote is from the abstract of Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide.
S. Jevrejeva et al (Figure 4) did another sea level reconstruction using several European tide gauges and correcting for GIA in 2008. This shows a steady rise of about 300±100 mm since 1800. This is about 1.5±0.5 mm/year. This is a steady rise since the end of the Little Ice Age, with no unusual rise after the increase in CO2. This natural rise began long before mankind began burning fossil fuel in earnest.
Is sea level rising? Yes, as it has been since the end of the little ice age 200 years ago. It will continue to rise. The remnant glaciers will continue to melt until the next cool cycle. But there is no catastrophe. At 1.31±0.30 mm/year, or 1.5±0.5 mm/year, if the trend is linear, it will be up 10 to 20 cm by 2110. The Dutch will need to put more blacktop in their dike roadways, which they normally do anyway, several times in the next 100 years. But if the current solar minimum continues for a few years we won’t need to worry about it. We will be in a cool cycle.
Anticipating questions, these are provided:
What about Bangladesh? The river silt has kept up with sea level rise so far, and will in the future, in fact, 250 years ago, much of Bangladesh was flooded all the time. To learn more look: here, here, here, and here.
What about the Pacific Islands, the Maldives, etc? Coral grows much faster than 2 mm/year, and has kept up with sea level rise so far, and it will in the future. Many of those islands are only there because of coral growth.
What about our harbors? Infrastructure is continuously wearing out, being torn down, and rebuilt. The docks of 1700 are no longer there. They have been replaced, 300 mm higher.
It’s logical. Bad science leads to bad policy, which leads to bad decisions, which in turn inevitably leads to costly results.
A perfect example is the science behind palm oil plantations for producing biofuel. Here the costs outweigh the benefits probably 1000 to 1. But can you even put a price tag on rain forest destruction? Then there are the high food prices driven in part by biofuel crops, causing political unrest in poor countries, which now threatens to explode globally. Italy’s first boatloads of economic refugees from Tunisia are making the point clear to stubborn, reality-disconnected politicians in Europe. Another example are mercury-laden energy saving lights. They’re expensive, do little to reduce CO2, and their disposal is now poisoning the planet.
Face it, the preliminary concepts drawn on napkins always look good. That was the case for renewable energy like wind and solar. But when these were put on the test-stand of reality, the renewable energy sources were exposed as unreliable, highly costly, and did nothing for the environment. Wind farms transformed once beautiful landscapes into industrial eyesores that pose a danger to migratory birds. Resistance is mounting.
Worse, all of it is for nothing.
The unsteady supply of renewables, British lives at risk
Today the unsteady supply of energy from renewables is leading to huge costs for consumers. A steady supply of electricity is now in jeopardy. Nothing better illustrates this than Britain’s wind farms last December. Veteran science journalist and hyrobiologist Edgar Gärtner ín a commentary cites the near collapse of the British grid during the bitter cold of December:
Precisely on the bitter cold days did most of the 3000+ British windmills remain idle. On one of the cold days, the 283 wind farms with a total of 3153 windmills supplied a total of just 0.4% of Britain’s energy demand. In order to prevent a blackout, older coal power plants and gas turbines had to be urgently fired up. Large industrial consumers had their power rationed.”
Right when the supply of energy was most needed, was it the most unreliable. If it had not been for the despised conventional energy sources stepping in during the emergency, thousands of British lives would have been put at risk. Britain’s target of producing 30% of its energy demand by using renewable sources looks doubtful. Gärtner writes:
To reach that target, the number of windmills would have to double. At the same times, coal, oil and gas fired power plants would always have to be on stand-by for windless periods. But, according to the wishes of the EU Commission, there aren’t supposed to be any more oil and coal power plants. In any case, the energy costs for private households will double by 2020. every household will have to pay on average a 2,890 euros a year in heating and lighting.”
Soaring energy costs in Germany
The situation in Germany looks even gloomier. With its currently installed wind energy capacity, Germany will have to put old moth-balled coal burning plants back into operation or build new ones to assure capacity for windless days. That means 200% capacity to assure 100% delivery – hardly economical. Consumers will have to pay through the nose, and certainly will be angered by it. Gärtner writes:
In 2009 German power consumers subsidised ‘renewables’ with 9 billion euros, according to Prof. Dr. Ing. Helmut Alt. This year the amount is estimated to be over 14 billion euros. Here social dynamite is being kept tinder dry.
Cheap and plentiful supplies at home
The worst part about it all is that it is unnecessary. German consumers will become especially agitated when they start learning that there are now very cheap and plentiful reserves of natural gas available – right at home. Gärtner writes:
After successful test boreholes by ExxonMobil, Wintershall and BEB in Germany and Poland, it is sure that there are natural gas reserves large enough to supply domestic demand for decades, and thus eliminate the need for natural gas imports from Russia. Worldwide, using a new extraction technique, useable natural gas reserves will be 10 times greater, says a Texas geologist. Obviously this revolution does not accommodate Angela Merkel’s ‘energy concept’ for the simple reason that it was not planned.”
Just at a time when consumers are being punished by high energy prices does a cheap and plentiful supply appear, making future pain completely unnecessary. Gärtner adds:
It can be anticipated that natural gas on the European markets in the coming decades will be so plentiful and cheap that it will become increasingly difficult to continue on the German unilateral, go-it-alone ‘renewables course. It will be increasingly difficult for political leaders to sell a supply of expensive and unreliable energies to a hurting public when there is a a far better alternative readily available, especially in view of the colder upcoming winters forecast by experts.”
Forcing people to freeze in the coming colder winters when there’s a cheap supply directly under their feet can be socially explosive.
Energy snoops and a planned climate economy
For this reason the Dutch European Energy Review already writes of signs of a coming “Energy Civil War” in Germany. This is why the EU and German politicians are getting nervous and pushing hard to invest 200 billion in revamping the energy grid so that it can work with solar and wind sources over international borders. But that won’t be enough to solve the technical problems. Consumers will have to be forced to use less – much less. That’s why the Handelsblatt reported on February 9 of the EU Commission’s plan to prepare a new ordinance that would send inspectors in factories and businesses:
These inspectors will force private industry to move faster so that the EU reaches its 20% reduction target for energy efficiency by the year 2020. This increases the fear that the centrallyplanned climate economy will make interference in private property rights necessary. Such intervention will certainly be met with massive resistance.”