Finkel’s Fantasyland: Report to ‘Save’ Australia’s Power Grid From Renewables Chaos a Death Sentence for Business

“And here’s a very important warning: beware modellers who tell you that, in the best-case scenario, electricity prices could actually fall. Tell that to the householders who face power price rises of between 20 and 30 per cent in parts of Australia.”

Garbage in, garbage out is the key reason to distrust the modelling, as well as the riding instructions given to compliant modellers. They are happy to adjust assumptions, often in hidden ways, to achieve the desired result…”

Sounds a lot like the overheated UN CMIP5 climate models – 102 ensembles which have failed dismally to model observed reality with regard to the current global warming “pause”. That ever inconvenient warming “hiatus” now nearing two decades despite record “CO2” emissions over the same period!

STOP THESE THINGS

Oh, and you’ll find grid-scale battery storage right over here.

***

In yesterday’s post we described Alan Finkel’s report on Australia’s power market fiasco as a mixture of Lewis Carroll’s ‘Through the Looking-Glass’ – residing in a place where the fundamentals of physics and economics, logic and reason are playfully and permanently suspended – and Goldilocks – the story about an infantile quest to make sure everything the heart desires is ‘just right’ – another lovable, childish fantasy.

After the report was released, commentators and barrackers set to work attempting to find something resembling common sense amongst its musings.

Alas, the report’s recommendations (available here), were they to be implemented, would guarantee the destruction of what remains of Australia’s reliable and affordable power supplies, albeit at a somewhat slower pace than is already guaranteed under the Large-Scale RET. South Australia has already been written-off; Finkel uses it as ‘case…

View original post 3,334 more words

Advertisements

Continued Hype and Deceit Drive Climate, Energy Agenda – Clobbering Poor Families

“No Real-World evidence supports a “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis. In fact, a moderately warmer planet with more atmospheric carbon dioxide would hugely benefit crop, forest and other plant growth, wildlife and humans – with no or minimal climate effect. A colder planet with less CO2 would punish them. And a chillier CO2-deprived planet with less reliable, less affordable energy (from massive wind, solar and biofuel projects) would threaten habitats, species, nutrition and the poorest among us.”

Such a simple yet overwhelmingly critical paragraph that eviscerates the supposed “global warming planetary crisis”.

As is this:

“It is clearly not climate change that threatens the poor. It is policies imposed in the name of preventing climate change that imperil poor, minority, blue-collar, farm and factory families.”

Read more of Paul Driessen’s common sense and reasoned argument that is so painfully devoid in the alarmist, schizophrenic world of “Climate Crisis Inc.”

Watts Up With That?

Hurricane Matthew has given climate change alarmists yet another excuse to rail against fossil use and demand a “fundamental transformation” of the US and world energy and economic systems. Reality simply does not support their claims or demands.

Guest opinion by Paul Driessen

Despite constant claims to the contrary, the issue is not whether greenhouse gas emissions affect Earth’s climate. The questions are whether those emissions are overwhelming the powerful natural forcesthat have always driven climate fluctuations, and whether humans are causing dangerous climate change.

No Real-World evidence supports a “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis. In fact, a moderately warmer planet with more atmospheric carbon dioxide would hugely benefit crop, forest and other plant growth, wildlife and humans – with no or minimal climate effect. A colder planet with less CO2 would punish them. And a chillier CO2-deprived planet with less reliable, less affordable energy (from massive wind, solar…

View original post 1,211 more words


Terrifying Flat Global Temperature Crisis Threatens To Disrupt U.N. Climate Conference Agenda

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system,
I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper
Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present
political and economic systems are no longer appropriate
and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet.
We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”

– Dr Robert Muller,
UN Assistant Secretary General,

•••

Via Forbes 

Larry Bell

OP/ED 9/10/2013 @ 9:00AM

Bummer! Now, just before members of the U.N.’s Church of the Burning Planet are scheduled to finalize their latest hellfire and brimstone sermon, a chilling development has occurred. A flood of blasphemous reports circulated among ranks of former faithful parishioners are challenging human-caused climate crisis theology.

On September 23 through 26, representatives of the world’s Environment Ministries will meet in Stockholm to agree on the final draft of a key portion of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers gospel which is expected, once again, to keep the political climate cauldron steaming. This Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is intended to be used by international ministers working to devise a new global treaty by 2015 to curb “climate change”.

Screen Shot 2013-09-12 at , September 12, 8.37.36 AM

That goal is certainly no trifle, given that dramatic climate changes have been occurring over many millions of years, although

lately…not so much. Therein lies the big rub. How can ministers conjure up a newsworthy sequel to previous knuckle-biting prognostications when all evidence suggests that the prophesies, and the scriptures they were based upon, were proven wrong?

Remember that really scary “hockey stick” graph IPCC used to show that rising atmospheric CO2  concentrations would send global temperatures soaring? And recall all the ballyhoo about CO2 levels reaching a 400 ppm record high? Yet last February even IPCC’s chairman Rajenda Pachuri has admitted that world temperature data has been flat for the past 17 years. And that was after the British media reported that the UK Met Office was projecting a 20-year standstill in global warming by 2017.

You certainly know the jig is up when the New York Times finally recognizes that the feverish climate fervor is overheated. They reported on June 6 that“The rise in the surface temperature of Earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.”Reporter Justin Gillis went on to admit that the break in temperature increases “highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system”, whereby the lack of warming “is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.”

D’ya think?

Where, Oh Where, Has that Global Warming Gone?

One highly plausible answer to this mystery is that the climate models upon which IPCC’s failed projections are based exaggerate climate sensitivity to CO2, underestimate known natural forcings, and simply don’t understand how to factor in and calibrate other influences such as ocean cycles and solar activity. Numerous recent scientific papers suggest that overestimation of sensitivity by at least 30% may account for much of the problem. If so, a reduction of 30% would leave lots of missing heat which must have been offset by natural cooling.

After all, the importance of those natural influences shouldn’t be that surprising given that history shows that temperatures have been higher when CO2 levels were lower, and vise versa. In fact, the past century has witnessedtwo generally accepted periods of warming The first occurred between 1900 and 1945. Since CO2 levels were relatively low then compared with now, and didn’t change much, they couldn’t have been the cause before 1950.

The second possible very small warming, following a slight cool-down, may have begun in the late 1970s lasting until 1998, a strong Pacific Ocean El Niño year. Yet even if global temperatures actually did rise very slightly during that second period, the U.K. Hadley Center and U.S. NOAA balloon instrument analyses fail to show any evidence, whatsoever, of a human CO2 emission-influenced warming telltale “signature” in the upper troposphere over the equator as predicted by all IPCC global circulation models. In fact, about half of all estimated warming since 1900 occurred before the mid-1940s despite continuously rising CO2 levels since that time.

So Maybe the Models Are Broke…Not the Climate After All!

According to a recent Opinion & Comment piece titled Overestimating global warming over the past 20 years that appeared in Nature Climate Change, the model-based fear and loathing attached to global warming may be substantially overheated. Notably, Francis W. Zwiers, one of the three authors, is a vice-chair of this relevant section for AR5.  The writers observe that whereas the global mean temperature over the past 20 years (1993-2012) rose at a rate of between about 0.14o–0.06oC per decade, average temperatures computed by 117 simulations of 37 climate models predicted a surface temperature rise of 0.30o-0.02o C per decade. The observed rate of warming was less than half of the simulated rate.

The inconsistency between observed and simulated warming was even greater over the past 15 years (between 1998 and 2012).  Here the observed trend was 0.05o-0.08oC per decade, vs. the average simulated trend of 0.21o-0.03oC. The observed trend was four times smaller. The divergence began in the early 1990s. Accordingly, evidence indicates that the group of model simulations do not reproduce observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown over the past 15 years. Keep Reading »

Related:


UTTER INSANITY: Spending $160b to cut the temperature by 0.00005 degrees

The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up 
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, 
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself
.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

•••
Via Herald Sun – Andrew Bolt Blog
Topher strikes again:

What is the TRUE cost of climate change? Is stopping it early really the cheapest plan in the long run? 50 to 1 explores the costs of stopping climate change vs adapting to it as and if it’s required, and uncovers a simple truth; it’s 50 times more expensive to try and STOP climate change than it is to simply ADAPT to it as and if required.

Topher works out that Labor’s global warming policy would after 10 years cut the world’s temperature by 0.00005 degrees at a cost of $160 billion.

The global warming faith has robbed our politicians of all reason.

•••

UPDATE

via 50 to 1 Video Project | Topher.com.au

MUST SEE Full length interviews:

Full length interview with Joanne Nova

Topher interviews Joanne Nova, a veteran science communicator and regular commentator on the ABC and many other places. Joanne speaks of her own journey and how she went from being a ‘veteran believer’ in Global Warming to being the high-profile skeptic she is today.

Full length interview with David Evans

Topher interviews David Evans, former modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office, now prominent skeptic. He explains the reasons for his change of mind and why he’s so become so vocal on the issue.

Full length interview with Anthony Watts

Topher interviews Anthony Watts, former weatherman and passionate believer in global warming, now world famous skeptic responsible for the ‘surface stations’ project which has found serious issues with the global temperature measuring network, and key figure within the ‘Climategate’ scandal.

Full length interview with Christopher Essex

Topher interviews Christopher Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics, who promptly ‘flips the checker board’ with questions about the very validity of such a thing as ‘Global temperature’.

Full length interview with Donna Laframboise

Topher interviews Donna Laframboise, former journalist turned investigative author. Donna has critiqued the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s claims about itself, its authors and its peer review process, and found them very VERY wanting…

Full length interview with Marc Morano

Topher interviews Marc Morano, accused ‘criminal against humanity’ and alleged ‘central cell of the climate denial machine’ and gets an insiders look into the politics and collateral damage caused by clumsy political responses to fears about climate change.

Full length interview with Fred Singer

Topher interviews Fred Singer, atmospheric and space physicist and long time hero of the environmental movement, and finds out why he founded the NON Governmental Panel on Climate Change and why he’s taken a high profile stand against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Full length interview with Henry Ergas

Topher interviews Henry Ergas, a high profile Australian economist with a lot to say about carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, and discovers some of the underlying reasons why politicians love carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes and why these ‘markets’ always seem to fail.

Related: