Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Inconvenient truths for those that support cheap clean energy, and a price on carbon

I happened upon a very good article by Joshua S. Goldstein and Steven Pinker, concerning how the modern environmental movement is doing themselves no favors by removing carbon dioxide clean nuclear energy from the table.  The authors do themselves no favors themselves though, by including a carbon tax into the solution mix with renewables.

As climate change skeptics and/or doubters have long known, the likes of Greenpeace, NRDC and Sierra Club recycle nothing more than anti-nuclear rhetoric.  Many of these skeptics may take exception to the certainty of the predictions of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, but, they can be quite indifferent to using nuclear power as dispatchable and reliable electricity generation.

Greenpeace, NRDC, Sierra Club and many others of the Green Blob industry only push for a few electricity generation technologies: Wind Power, Solar Power, and Biomass Power.

While wind and solar are terribly expensive, without subsidies, Biomass Power is just silly if there is to be any sort of imaginary negative emissions in the carbon dioxide reduction cycle, but it is at least a baseload source.

Looking for examples of cheap energy with a carbon tax, one will be disappointed.

Germany is a great demonstration of renewables without nuclear and using coal at $350 per GigaWatt hour,  While France is using over 80% nuclear and 15% renewable-like technologies is in at $190 per GigaWatt hour.  Renewables will always drive the cost of electricity up.  Why?


Well, you already know the answer to that one. 

"You can not use taxes as a revenue generator AND a use deterrent at the same time"

So, in order to make solar and wind power costs lower, one taxes the carbon dioxide generators by $100/GW hour and subsidize the renewables down $100/GW hour and the consumer's electricity bill doubles.

Then, when they phase out all of the carbon dioxide generators, the consumer's bill goes back to triple or quadruple of what the price was before the carbon tax.

If one were to truly care about the environment and the energy impoverished, the choice is obvious.

Skip renewables altogether and the carbon tax, install only nuclear.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

For the Children

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Looking Backward, a blip in the terrestrial time scale.

A little perspective

Once upon a time during the last Ice age

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

What's in a name?

Global Warming vs Climate Change, how did the change happen?

It's all about messaging. When Global Warming became passe, it was necessary to raise a new Boogie Man.

H/T @BarryJWoods

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

How far the Science has fallen.

Republished with permission from http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/19/what-can-we-do-about-climate-change/

Willis Eschenbach
Both Gutting and Jamieson accept the IPCC conclusions, and even seem to think that ‘dangerous’ climate change is already happening. So starting from that particular premise (with which I know many people here will disagree), Gutting and Jamieson bring some refreshing realism to debate on how we should think about climate change and what we should do about it.
So this is how far science has fallen? Here’s the new scientific paradigm.
Someone “thinks” that something dangerous is happening. He doesn’t know how it’s happening. He can’t say why it’s happening. He doesn’t have any data to show that anything dangerous is going on. But by gosh, he’s convinced it’s happening … or to be more accurate, that it will happen in a decade or two. Of course he’s been saying this for three decades now, but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..
So what scientists should do, according to this paradigm, is to assume that Chicken Little is right and the sky actually is falling, and start looking for solutions to a problem when:
• we don’t know if the “problem” is actually happening, and
• all predictions of calamities which this “problem” is claimed to cause have proven wrong to date, and not just wrong but calamitously wrong … and
• if the “problem” is happening, we don’t know why, and
• the models of the “problem” have all diverged from reality,
• we don’t know if we can establish climate causality or predict the future evolution of the climate even in theory, so in response,
• alarmists all sit in a circle and jerk about how to deal with this as-yet-unverified “problem” and talk about poor scientific communication and how “deniers” are psychologically damaged, and meanwhile
• we piss huge unspecified amounts of money into various rose-colored holes in the ground and
• we plan to reorganize the entire energy system of the planet, using untried, unreliable, and uneconomic renewable sources, and
• we give billions to line the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt third world dictators and apparatchiks, which under the new scientific paradigm is described by words like “compensation, not inaction” and “helping the poor” and “carbon-capture” and “making things revenue-neutral”.
Pathetic. Farkin’ pathetic.
Judith, you tried this “new paradigm” hogwash before, most notably with Captain Ravetz and his Post-Normal Science Avengers explaining why this problem needs new science …
Climate, while it is a wickedly tough problem, does not require some new kind of scientific paradigm. It just requires equally tough, honest science, science of the plain old-fashioned variety that doesn’t start with the assumption that there is a problem and go haring off after an imaginary solution. You know … real science with things like the “null hypothesis” and transparency, the good old-fashioned science which far too many modern climate scientists do their best to ignore.

Thanks, Willis, Appreciate the permission to repost!

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Thor Hammers on the Poor

(Guest post by @SlagOffTwits from Storify)

Actually RE + storage is THE most expensive electricity option. It is strictly a boutique or prestige item, like a Tesla or a Rolex. There are better, much less expensive options. It would take massive subsidies to move them into the residential market in any scale.

This is the basis of the whole argument... that somehow more expensive power is better. Yet we KNOW that one of the primary reasons for the developed world's rapid advances is cheap energy, and one of the primary reasons the developing world hasn't caught up is the lack of cheap energy.

Well, we certainly agree on this one point. FIT has been a nightmare Ontario can't wake from...

One OR the other, not of... stupid fingers... We get to the logical fallacy part of the ideological argument, false dichotomy in this case. Why does it have to be FIT or carbon tax? It could be something else, or neither. The logical response to a challenge is to examine whether or not a solution is needed, and if so which is the best. If action IS warranted, a cost/benefit analysis helps determine the best course of action.

Non sequitur

No, I am wary of solutions that are worse than problems. That's why analysts exist. That's why we have insurance. That's why risk assessment and abatement is a growing field.

A simply bizarre statement that again highlights the partisan blinders in use... Wind and solar are the least effective and most expensive solutions in almost all circumstances. And require backup generation at idle. Just try heating your house with wind and solar on those loooong, still -40F northern nights. And forget about using them to power your car to drive somewhere warm.

Don't answer to my point. Go for the redirection ad hom...

Well this confirms what I just said about "ideological position". You aren't giving reasons. You aren't weighing costs vs benefits. You aren't considering resource allocation. You are just stating something must be, and damn any other considerations. This is the very definition of dogma. And I JUST stated in the previous tweet that this isn't taking into consideration human needs. I guess people can fuck right off when dogma demands.

When you are too lazy or incompetent to back an ideological brain fart with evidence and sound argument, ALWAYS go for the insult.

Corollary to Godwin's Law...

Notice the clever use of hashtag to invite dogpile.

Monday, April 20, 2015

New Paper Uses the Lindzen, Choi 2011 "Iris-Effect" and gets Stunning Reality

A new paper was published today in Nature Geoscience titled "Missing iris effect as a possible cause of muted hydrological change and high climate sensitivity in models", co-written by Bjorn Stevens who seems to be interested in why the models run so hot.

From the abstract we have:
A controversial hypothesis suggests that the dry and clear regions of the tropical atmosphere expand in a warming climate and thereby allow more infrared radiation to escape to space. This so-called iris effect could constitute a negative feedback that is not included in climate models. We find that inclusion of such an effect in a climate model moves the simulated responses of both temperature and the hydrological cycle to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations closer to observations.
 (Bold is mine.)

That is a complete understatement.  Many readers will be familiar with the 'tropics troposphere of doom' such as this:

With the Iris Effect applied 100%, models get MUCH closer to reality:

Another line of evidence that the oceans are the real climate regulator.

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Climate Sceptic on Twitter? Learn to PROTECT yourself.

It seems some on twitter have rediscovered how to get those they disagree with suspended and eventually banned on twitter again. This has happened before, it's something YOU can do something about personally.

This page is a discussion of how many people get suspended, a generic yet good guide for those new to twitter.  http://www.skepticalartist.com/2013/05/12/things-that-can-get-you-suspended-from-twitter-for-and-how-to-get-your-account-restored/

This link walks through the steps in appealing a suspension: http://www.lucrazon.com/how-to-restore-suspended-twitter-account

This link explains how some people can try to maliciously get your account suspended/banned, and often succeed: http://blog.tweetsmarter.com/twitter-downtime/how-stop-people-from-getting-your-twitter-account-suspended-by-mass-action/

After losing 3 accounts in a few months, I finally found a list of 'rules' for posting, following them (mostly) has helped me keep my account posting now for over a year.

Since Twitter has recently suspended both @SteveSGoddard and @Tan123 accounts, it may be that another group inimical to free speech and dissident viewpoints re Climate Science is working to kill dissent and dissenter's accounts. Hopefully this little guide will help you keep YOUR account safe and posting truth to the green power establishment.  

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Earth Hour

The hypocrite's vision of the future for all but themselves. 


Friday, March 27, 2015

Temperature reduction from de-carbonization, cross posted with permission.

Ed Hoskins: Temperature reduction outcomes from de-carbonisation

Posted: December 24, 2014 by tallbloke in Accountability, climate, government
Tags: ,

Third in a trilogy of guest posts from Ed Hoskins. This one looks at how much temperature would be reduced if we committed economic suicide.
Temperature reduction outcomes from de-carbonisation
Ed Hoskins MAarch (Cantab)  BDS (Lond).
To quantify what might be achieved by any political action for de-carbonization by Western economies, the comparative tables below show the remaining effectiveness of each 100ppmv tranche up to 1000ppmv, with the total global warming in each of the five diminution assessments.  These estimates depend on the calculations set out in the following associated essay:
The table below shows the likely range of warming arising from these divergent (sceptical and IPCC) views, (without feedbacks, which are questionably either negative or positive: but probably not massively positive as assumed by CAGW alarmists), that would be averted with an increase of CO2 for the full increase from 400 ppmv  up to 1000 ppmv.Screen Shot 2014-08-10 at 11.33.54The results above for countries and country groups show a range for whichever scenario of only a matter of a few thousandths to a few hundredths of a degree Centigrade.

However it is extremely unlikely that the developing world is going to succumb to non-development of their economies on the grounds of reducing CO2 emissions. So it is very likely that the developing world’s CO2 emissions are going to escalate whatever is done by developed nations.
These figures show that whatever the developed world does in terms of decreasing CO2 emissions the outcome is likely to be absolutely immaterial.
Screen Shot 2014-08-07 at 12.40.39The table below assumes that the amount of CO2 released by each of the world’s nations or nation is reduced universally by some 20%: this is a radical reduction level but just about conceivable.
The extreme, economically destructive and immensely costly efforts by participating western nations to reduce temperature by de-carbonization should be seen in context:
  • the changing global temperature patterns, the current standstill and likely impending cooling.
  • the rapidly growing CO2 emissions from the bulk of the world’s most populous nations as they continue their development.
  • the diminishing impact of any extra CO2 emissions on any temperature increase.
  • normal daily temperature variations at any a single location range from 10°C to 20°C.
  • normal annual variations value can be as much as 40°C to 50°C.
  • that participating Europe as a whole only accounts for ~11% of world CO2 emissions.
  • that the UK itself is now only about ~1.5% of world CO2 emissions.
As the margin of error for temperature measurements is about 1.0°C, the minuscule temperature effects shown above arise from the extreme economic efforts of those participating nations attempting to control their CO2 emissions. Thus the outcomes in terms of controlling temperature can only ever be marginal, immeasurable and thus irrelevant.
The committed Nations by their actions alone, whatever the costs they incurred to themselves, might only ever effect virtually undetectable reductions of World temperature. So it is clear that all the minor but extremely expensive attempts by the few convinced Western nations at the limitation of their own CO2 emissions will be inconsequential and futile[i].
Professor Judith Curry’s Congressional testimony 14/1/2014[ii]:
“Motivated by the precautionary principle to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change, attempts to modify the climate through reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be futile. The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob on climate variability on decadal time scales.”
Professor Richard Lindzen UK parliament committee testimony 28/1/2014 on IPCC AR5[iii]:
“Whatever the UK decides to do will have no impact on your climate, but will have a profound impact on your economy. (You are) Trying to solve a problem that may not be a problem by taking actions that you know will hurt your economy.”
and paraphrased “doing nothing for fifty years is a much better option than any active political measures to control climate.”
As global temperatures have already been showing stagnation or cooling[iv] over the last seventeen years or more, the world should now fear the real and detrimental effects of global cooling[v] rather than being hysterical about limited, beneficial or now non-existent warming[vi].
[i] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.fr/2013/11/lomborg-spain-wastes-hundreds-of.html
[ii] http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=07472bb4-3eeb-42da-a49d-964165860275
[iii] http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/28/uk-parliamentary-hearing-on-the-ipcc/
[iv] http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3436241/the-inescapable-apocalypse-has-been-seriously-underestimated.thtml
[v] http://www.iceagenow.com/Triple_Crown_of_global_cooling.htm
[vi] http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-to-3-decades/

from Tallbloke's Talk Shop with thanks!

Monday, March 23, 2015

Is dissent dead on twitter? #Free @SteveSGoddard

Prominent climate sceptic, Steve Goddard (Tony Heller) has been silenced by the Twitter team. This has raised some degree of outrage across not just the climate savvy twittersphere, but even MotherNature is in on the action!

Other reaction from the twitterverse:

2 Years ago this advice was offered to help keep from losing accounts. Still relevant.

how to keep out of twitter gulag

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

The US : China climate 'deal' analysis by Ed Hoskins, h/t @RogTallbloke, crossposted with permission.

Ed Hoskins: Charting the outcome of the Obama – China climate deal by 2030

Posted: March 17, 2015 by tallbloke in Emissions, government, Natural Variation
Tags: ,

Guest Post from Ed Hoskins:
In November 2014, to much fanfare, President Obama concluded an agreement with China on Climate. This was as a precursor to the major Paris climate conference in December 2015, where it is anticipated that a definitive and binding Climate agreement should be reached.  These notes follow through that 2014 agreement as far as it concerns future likely CO2 emissions up until the year 2030.
Essentially the agreement said that whilst Western Nations would be expected to reduce CO2 emissions substantially, China, India and the rest of the developing world would continue its CO2 emissions growth until at least 2030 to ensure that continuing enhancement of the living standards of their populations, and that only then China would limit further growth of its CO2 emissions.
The Obama – China agreement on climate will do nothing to stop the  escalation of CO2 emissions from the developing world, especially from China.  But continuing at current rates of growth will have little impact on improved development in most of the underdeveloped world, ~55% of the then world population.
The impact of growing CO2 emissions from the developing world was acknowledged by Professor Richard Muller in his October 2010 presentation here:
These notes simply take known data about world CO2 emissions and population as at the end of 2013 and carry out a straight-line extrapolation of that data forward to 2030 using the period from 2000 to 2013 as the indicator of rate of change. The source CO2 emissions data up to the end of 2013 is at:
This presentation refers to earlier analyses of the growth of CO2 emissions at:
The overall impact on the developed and developing worlds in terms of both total CO2 emissions and resulting likely emissions / head of population is shown below:
Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 11.32.35
Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 11.37.52
Both this and the former analyses divide the world’s nations into seven logical groups with distinct attitudes to CO2 control:
developed nations:
  • United States of America, attempting CO2 emissions control under Obama’s EPA and already achieving marked CO2 emissions reduction because of the growing use of shale gas for electricity generation.
  • The European Union and EFTA , (including the UK), currently believers in action to combat Global Warming and where environmental action groups are resisting the exploration for shale gas and the use of Nuclear energy.
  • Japan, the former Soviet Union, Canada and Australia are developed nations, currently rejecting controls on CO2 emissions.
developing nations:
  • advanced developing nations, still developing rapidly including:
South Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan: (KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW).
  • China and Hong Kong: developing very rapidly.
  • India: developing rapidly from a low base.
  • Rest of World (~160 Nations): developing quite rapidly but from a low base.
The extension of the trends between 2000 and 2013 to 2030 is shown below:
Screen Shot 2015-03-03 at 07.26.30
The following table outlines the straightforward basis for the extrapolation of data that could well result from the Obama – China climate deal.  In particular it shows the scale of the radical change 2000 – 2013 – 2030, with China moving from ~14% to 37% of all global emissions over the 30 year period.  The EU(27)+EFTA moving from ~17% to 7% over the same period.  The position of the USA is also diminished from ~25% to ~11% over the same period.
Screen Shot 2015-03-11 at 13.09.10


This article predicts the likely CO2 emissions picture by 2030 the possible end point of the Obama – China climate deal in 2030.  It uses the CO2 emissions development from 2000 to 2013 as the predictor to further CO2 emissions growth.
According to these straightforward calculations overall world CO2 emissions could grow by ~36% up to ~48,000,000,000 tonnes.  The Developed world, if it continues on its current track would see a reduction overall of ~711,000,000 tonnes over the 16 year period, whereas the developing world would see the substantial increase of 13,400,000,000 tonnes at the same time.  Only the developed grouping, JP RU CA AU, would see a marginal increase of CO2 emissions.
By 2030 the CO2 emissions of developing Nations could well exceed the developed Nations by some 2 1/2  times.
Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 11.41.33
The largest contributor to the growth in emissions is inevitably China at an additional ~8,020,000,000 tonnes, followed at a quarter of that level by the other rapidly developing economies, KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW.  India and the other 160 underdeveloped nations would grow significantly percentage wise but only modestly in absolute terms.  India will have grown to about 1/6 the rate of China and the other 160 Nations grouped together at about 1/4 of the China emissions.
China by 2030 will then be responsible for about 37% of CO2 emissions worldwide and even if China were by that time to limit its emission growth it would be likely to remain with that share of worldwide CO2 emissions whilst other developing nations increased their CO2 outputs to improve the development level of their own populations.
Screen Shot 2015-03-02 at 17.21.06
However more important will be the likely resulting CO2 emissions / head which give a significant guide to the level of National development.  The consumption figures for the USA and Europe will diminish by about 20% each whereas the other developed group, JP RU CA AU, may well advance marginally by ~+6%.  The  JP RU CA AU group could well exceed the emissions/head level of the USA.  China by 2030 would exceed the four other groups and could begin to approach similar levels of emission / head as the USA.
Screen Shot 2015-03-02 at 14.36.57
It appears that with growing populations in India and the developing world their overall CO2 emissions / head will remain fairly constant.  On the other hand some of the developing Nations will advance their CO2 emissions / head substantially with China approaching ~11.6 tonnes / head for its whole population by then of some 1.5 billion.  By 2030 this will be almost twice the value in Europe at 6.2 tonnes / head and is approaching the then 14.6 tonnes / head level in the USA,  The European level will level will be close to the other rapidly developing Nations, KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW.
Europe is likely to diminish its CO2 emissions / head to as little as ~ 6.4 tonnes / head.   This will then be close to the worldwide average and could even be overtaken by the rapidly developing nations, KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW.
It is not clear how much reduction of industrial capability will result from these reduced European  emissions but it could continue to cause detrimental economic damage to European competitiveness when compared to other markets in the developing world, which are less concerned about CO2 reduction to control  “Climate Change”.  It should also be noted that Germany, the major CO2 emitter in Europe, is currently adding to its CO2 output by increasing it’s use of coal for base load electrical energy production, so eventually European emissions reduction may not be achieved to the extent anticipated here over the coming 16 years.
Although the developing Nations of India and the Rest of World (160 nations) should see substantial growth (about +50%), but that will only be growing from their present very low  base.  As a result resulting from their population growth they will not significantly add to their emissions / head and thus an increase to their level of development.  They will remain at only ~2 tonnes / head, which would mean the provision of electricity for these 4.8 billion people by then about 56% of the  world population will still remain severely  restricted.
So there will continue to be substantial continuing demand from both India and the other 160 underdeveloped nations for more access to reliable electricity supply.  This demand could well increase CO2 emissions for these 4.8 billion people and thus the estimate for 2030 of ~48,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions overall may well be a significant underestimate.  This is particularly so as these developing nations all will have access to indigenous available coal reserves.  Just doubling of the CO2 / head for this underdeveloped population level to the modest level of 4 tonnes /head  would increase world CO2 emissions from ~ 48,000,000,000 tonnes by a further ~10,000,000,000 tonnes to the region of 60,000,000,000 tonnes.

Temperature Consequences

At a total of ~48,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions per annum by 2030 when compared to the total of CO2 in the atmosphere it amounts to about I/600 by weight.  But about half of that increased amount is quickly re-absorbed by the oceans and sequestered by improving the fertility of all plant life on the planet.
Current CO2 levels are ~400 ppmv but an apparent optimum for plant fertility, for example as used in greenhouses, is in excess of 1000 ppmv.  And past history shows that concentrations of CO2 can be at many thousands of parts per million with no ill effects on climate except for luxuriant plant life.
So at the rate of emissions at ~48,000,000,000 tonnes per annum, this would be equivalent to ~5 ppmv rate / annum, but with 50% absorption, it would take more than 200 years to add that extra amount of CO2 to the atmosphere to 1000 ppmv, if that were at all possible by burning fossil fuels.  In the 16 year period to 2030 a further 20-30 ppmv could be added to the world’s CO2 concentration.
According to the calculations of the logarithmic diminution of the effectiveness of CO2 as greenhouse gas, using IPCC figures, shown in:
This additional CO2 up to as much as 1000 ppmv could only add something between 0.4°C and 0.9°C to world temperatures in total, (this range assumes that water vapour and clouds are responsible for between 90% and 80% of the 33°C greenhouse effect).  And beyond 1000 ppmv any further CO2 additions to the atmosphere will have very little effect indeed on temperature because of the effect of logarithmically diminishing returns in terms of added temperature with further increases of CO2 concentrations.
With increased plant productivity, a slightly warmer climate and with greater areas available for agriculture this can hardly be seen as a world-wide catastrophe or an immediate global emergency.


All attempts to reduce CO2 emissions assume that any man-made warming of the climate is dangerous and that it could be controlled by reducing Man-made CO2 emissions mainly by the developed western Nations.  But by 2030 those developed Nations would only be responsible for some 30% of global CO2 emissions. And their likely reduction in emissions would be marginal because it could only amount to ~1/20 of the increased of emissions from the developing world.
In addition it is clear that even the continuation of current CO2 emissions growth associated with population growth in the rest of the underdeveloped world will do little to enhance the level of development for the larger part (~55%) of the then global population.
Western world opinion has conflated CO2 from burning fossil fuels, as a pollutant, with other real pollutants that can arise from burning fossil fuels (SO2, N2O, particulate matter, etc.).  World opinion has failed to understand that CO2 is currently close to an historically low level in the atmosphere and any real reduction of CO2 levels would jeopardise all life on earth by damaging the Carbon cycle by means of which all plants survive.
So it is clear that CO2 emissions will continue to escalate, no substantial temperature reduction or control of Climate Change can occur as a result of the Obama – China climate deal.  And in addition any escalation of CO2 levels would be beneficial to life on earth.
And any CO2 emissions reduction is unlikely to be useful to control climate.
From ice core records for our current benign Holocene interglacial it is clear that the previous millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest in the last 10,000 years, some 3.0°C lower than the Holocene climate optimum, ~9000 years ago.  At 10,000 years old our current benign holocene interglacial is now long in the tooth.  That would seem to point to a coming real glaciation either this century, next century or in this millennium.  That in combination with the current Dalton minimum solar characteristics means that real cooling as opposed to warming is more than likely to be imminent.
Any future cooling is likely to make any warming, whether man-made or not, that occurred in the late 20th century look wholly beneficial but trivial and entirely irrelevant.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

The Renewable Manifesto

Crossposted with permission:

 Renewable Manifesto

At this moment, this is a humble project Mark and I are beginning since we are concerned with the chaotic way in which renewable energy expenditures are being made in some countries. We are worried that this undisciplined approach may propagate, unchecked, to the rest of the world and do more harm than good.
In particular, we could see important increases in electricity prices, reductions in investment / maintenance of our current reliable generators / electrical grids, and negative environmental impacts. Plus, all of these consequences may be for little, if any, reductions is CO2 emissions. 
Thus, we thought about creating a "Renewable Manifesto." This is the first draft. Feel free to contribute to it / criticize it on Twitter.
Renewable Manifesto
1. We are not opposed in principle to renewables.* Every technology should be allowed to compete on its merits in the global energy markets. Governments should not select winners / losers from their ivory towers. 
2. Renewables are already quite mature technologies, so no overt / covert subsidies should be assigned to their manufacture / installation. 
3. Renewables shouldn't be granted priority access to the grid by default, and if they require it, a just compensatory fee should be agreed upon with the conventional grid operators. 
4. Market prices should be paid for their energy output; no premiums here. 
5. If at any particular moment (say, at off-peak hours) there is no market for their electricity, then their output should be curtailed. "Dumping" into the electrical grid won't be allowed.
6. Renewables won't have a "free pass" concerning environmental impacts. Just like any other industrial power source, Renewable projects should be fully environmentally vetted.
7. Renewable companies should give reassurances that they will take care of the decommissioning costs of their wind / solar farms. 
 Again, we are not against renewables, but we definitely believe at this stage of the game they have to stand on their own two feet and make economic sense without further government help.
Thank you.
* By "renewables" we mean mainly Solar PV and Wind Turbines. Hydro has been and will continue to be a massive, reliable energy source. On the other hand, we should be very wary of "biomass." A full disclosure of what is being considered here, and its environmental effects, should be demanded. 

Original post @ http://daysgt.blogspot.mx/2015/03/renewable-manifesto.html

Thanks Luis.

Minor edit of grammar error made.

Monday, March 9, 2015

Did NASA just show that the UN IPCC attribution statement is wrong?

Have we moved back to the attribution statement of 1995?

Saturday, March 7, 2015

Truth or No Consequences (in Climate Science) *Updated

To Lie or not to Lie, Roz Pidcock at it again

A short while ago, on the paid propaganda blog Carbon Brief, Mz Pidcock wrote an article with the title

New satellite reveals places on Earth most at risk from ocean acidification

The active map shown is screen captured here:

I can't locate the original caption, but the revised caption says it's of alkalinity. It's not, and even after being informed it's of Salinity and changing the caption TO alkalinity she's not corrected it to read salinity. 

The Story was picked up by Grist, before ANY corrections were made, so a graphic of changes in salinity is being interpreted as horrid ocean acidification.

There's more on this story at Imablawg, but this kind of post misleading story without fact checking is becoming a habit with Ms. Pidcock it seems. 

In her rush to discredit those who are sceptical of consensus science, Ms Pidcock posted an article: which she has since revised, which included false information about Dr. Susan Crockford. 

Dr Crockford's comments from twitter:

Mz Pidcock changed the original post after the exchanges, the revised post is located at:

polar bear post

Changes include:

 Replacing this outdated map

with the newer polar bear habitat map
Replacing text:

and leaving misleading statements about Dr. Crockford in place. 

Again, this 'journalistic' style of misinform, don't research subject you are writing about then issue correction after the damage is done seems to be becoming a Pidcock hallmark.

Thanks to Dr. Crockford for assistance compiling this post.

Roz Pidcock replied on twitter, seemingly unable to post reply here:

I replied on twitter:


At it again: