“FAR from this year being the record, the hottest summer was actually back in 1900. This summer only ranks 5th, behind 2017, 1902 and 2006.
THE summers of 1884 and 1901 are also close behind.
IN fact, the spate of hot summers recently look little different to those of the early 1900s.”
EXCELLENT investigative work, again, by Mr. Paul Homewood.
THE precise job that the mainstream media should and must be doing in order to keep a check on government and its institutions.
BUT, just as our top ‘scientific’ organisations have been captured by environmental elites, so too have the majority-Leftist mainstream media.
AND, for the mainstream media – keeping “truth to power” in the area of the ‘environment’ would mean sanitising their man-made global warming narrative that they’ve invested so much political capital, ideology and personal ego into for decades. Not gonna happen!
ERGO, tough times indeed for “truth to power” to exist in the fashionable age of climate change virtue-signalling, driven by politics, propaganda, bureaucratic pseudoscience and trillions of dollars of taxpayers hard-earned.
By Paul Homewood
This made news a couple of weeks ago, but I have been waiting for full details from the BOM:
Australia has experienced its hottest summer on record, according to the nation’s Bureau of Meteorology.
Hundreds of individual heat records were shattered across the country over the past three months.
The warm weather, 2.14C above the long-term average, caused bushfires, blackouts and a rise in hospital admissions.
Wildlife also suffered, with reports of mass deaths of wild horses, native bats and fish.
“The real standout was just how widespread and prolonged each heatwave was – almost everywhere was affected,” climatologist Blair Trewin told the BBC.
Temperatures had exceeded the previous hottest summer in 2012-13 by nearly 1C, he added – “a very large margin for a national record”.
Naturally the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has blamed it on climate change. But is it quite as simple as…
View original post 460 more words
“Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.” – Top Google engineers
“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” – James Hansen (The Godfather of global warming alarmism and former NASA climate chief)
A MUST READ for all policy makers if they have any respect for the families, workers and the most vulnerable in their communities whose lives are being broken as a consequence of the mad rush into feel-good UNreliables – wind and solar ‘power’…
WHY “GREEN” ENERGY IS FUTILE, IN ONE LESSON
Here in Minnesota, we are enduring a brutal stretch of weather. The temperature hasn’t gotten above zero in the last three days, with lows approaching -30. And that is in the Twin Cities, in the southern part of the state. Yesterday central Minnesota experienced a natural gas “brownout,” as Xcel Energy advised customers to turn thermostats down to 60 degrees and avoid using hot water. Xcel put up some customers in hotels. Why?
Because the wind wasn’t blowing. Utilities pair natural gas plants with wind farms, in order to burn gas, which can be ramped up and down more quickly than coal, when the wind isn’t blowing.
Which raises the question: since natural gas is reliable, why do we need the wind farms? The answer is, we don’t. When the wind isn’t blowing–as it wasn’t yesterday–natural gas supplies the electricity. It also heats homes, and with bitter cold temperatures and no wind, there wasn’t enough natural gas to go around. The resulting “brownout” has been a political shock in Minnesota.
[W]ind is producing only four percent of electricity in the MISO region, of which Minnesota is a part.
While that’s not good, what’s worse is wind is only utilizing 24 percent of its installed capacity, and who knows how this will fluctuate throughout the course of the day.
Coal, on the other hand, is churning out 45 percent of our power, nuclear is providing 13 percent, and natural gas is providing 26 percent of our electricity.
This is exactly why the renewable energy lobby’s dream of shutting down coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants and “replacing” them with wind and solar is a fairy tale. It simply cannot happen, because we never know if and when the wind will blow or the sun will shine when we need it most.
“But the wind is always blowing somewhere” ~ a renewable energy lobbyist
Renewable energy apologists often argue that although the wind may not be blowing in your neighborhood, it’s blowing, somewhere. All we have to do, they argue, is build wind turbines and transmission lines all over the country so we can have renewable energy everywhere. It turns out this old chestnut is also completely wrong.
For example, the wind isn’t blowing in North Dakota or South Dakota, where more than 1,800 MW (a massive amount) of wind projects are operating or planned, at massive cost, by Minnesota electric companies.
In fact, the wind isn’t blowing anywhere.
Just look at California, the state that is consistently the most self-congratulating about how “green” they are. Wind is operating a 3 percent of installed capacity, solar is operating at 12 percent, natural gas is running wide open, and California is importing a whopping 27 percent of its electricity from Nevada and Arizona.
Days like today perfectly illustrate why intermittent, unreliable sources of energy like wind and solar would have no place in our energy system if they were not mandated by politicians, showered with federal subsidies, and lining the pockets of regulated utilities that are guaranteed to profit off wind and solar farms whether they are generating electricity, or not.
Isaac’s real-world message is starting to break through, at least here in Minnesota. Tomorrow morning the Star Tribune is running Isaac’s op-ed headlined “Bitter cold shows reliable energy sources are critical.”
Lawmakers considering doubling Minnesota’s renewable energy mandate to 50 percent by 2030 should use this week’s weather as a moment to reconsider their plans to lean so heavily on wind and solar.
[C]oal-fired power plants provided 45 percent of MISO’s power and nuclear provided 13 percent — most of this from Minnesota’s Prairie Island and Monticello nuclear plants (which we should keep open, by the way). Natural gas provided 26 percent of our electricity use at that time, and the remainder was imported from Canada and other U.S. states.
Natural gas also heated the homes of approximately 66 percent of Minnesotans this week, by far the most for any home heating fuel, but there wasn’t enough gas to combat the frigid temperatures.
Because of the extreme cold, Xcel Energy urged its natural gas customers in Becker, Big Lake, Chisago City, Lindstrom, Princeton and Isanti to reduce the settings on their thermostats, first down to 60 degrees, then to 63, through Thursday morning to conserve enough natural gas to prevent a widespread shortage as temperatures remained 14 below zero. Some Xcel customers in the Princeton area lost gas service, and Xcel reserved rooms for them in nearby hotels.
This week’s urgent notice from Xcel to conserve natural gas shows there is real danger in putting all of our eggs into the renewables-plus-natural gas basket. At a minimum, pursuing a grid powered entirely by solar, wind and natural gas would require more natural gas pipeline capacity, which is likely to be opposed by the factions that are currently challenging the replacement of the Line 3 pipeline.
If Minnesota lawmakers are sincere in their belief that we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible, they must lift Minnesota’s ban on new nuclear power plants, which has been in place since 1994.
Not only would nuclear power plants be essentially guaranteed to run in minus-24-degree weather, but a forthcoming study by American Experiment has found that new nuclear power plants could not only achieve a lower emissions rate by 2030, but also save Minnesota $30.2 billion through 2050.
Stay tuned. We will release that report in two weeks. I think it will be a bombshell, not only in Minnesota but in other states that are fecklessly mandating ever-higher utilization of intermittent, unreliable, inefficient “green” energy.
UNreliables related :
- GREEN ‘ENERGY’ FAIL : Victorian’s Sweat Through A Great Green Hoax | Climatism
- WIND TURBINES Are Neither Clean Nor Green And They Provide Zero Global Energy | Climatism
- GREEN JOBS : Helicopter De-Icing For Wind Turbines | Climatism
- WHAT I See When I See a Wind Turbine | Climatism
- ‘GREEN’ Energy Future | Climatism
- UNRELIABLE Energy – Wind and Solar – A Climate Of Communism | Climatism
- NOTE TO POLICY MAKERS : 41 Reasons Why Wind ‘Power’ Can Not Replace Fossil Fuels | Climatism
- TRULY GREEN? How Germany’s #Energiewende Is Destroying Nature | Climatism
- GREEN Energy Is The Perfect Scam | Climatism
“THE journalists come up and they’re not interested in what the truth is. They’re only interested in finding out where the ‘dead’ reef is. And when people who work right up and down the reef can’t actually take them to a single place that is going to suit their dooms-day story, then we sort of need a bit of balance…”
– Paul Talbott : GBR Tourist operator
STRAIGHT-TALKING former James Cook University marine geophysicist Professor Peter Ridd has been an outspoken critic of the relentless tide of fear-mongering, misinformation and anti-science hysteria advanced by climate change activists concerning the health of the Great Barrier Reef.
IN June of 2016, Ridd made the headlines after suspecting something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the apparent rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef:
AFTER attempting to blow the whistle on the bogus pictures, Ridd was censured and subsequently sacked by James Cook University. (Ridd is currently suing JCU)
After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”!
His crime was to encourage questioning of two of the nation’s leading reef institutions, the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, on whether they knew that photographs they had published and claimed to show long-term collapse of reef health could be misleading and wrong.” Graham Lloyd – The Australian – 11 June 2016
SIMILAR totalitarian treatment was dished out by
free-thinking James Cook University to the late and great Bob Carter, a former JCU adjunct Professor. Carter was a world renowned climate change expert and sceptic. His crime – speaking outside the permitted doctrine of global warming climate change.
PROFESSOR RIDD writes an ever insightful and eye-opening piece on the reef in today’s Australian.
RIDD comments on the recent backtracking by Scientists from James Cook University who just published a paper on the bleaching and death of corals on the Great Barrier Reef and were surprised that the death rate was less than they expected…
Coral can take the heat, unlike experts crying wolf
Scientists from James Cook University have just published a paper on the bleaching and death of corals on the Great Barrier Reef and were surprised that the death rate was less than they expected, because of the adaptability of corals to changing temperatures.
It appears as though they exaggerated their original claims and are quietly backtracking.
To misquote Oscar Wilde, to exaggerate once is a misfortune, to do it twice looks careless, but to do it repeatedly looks like unforgivable systemic unreliability by some of our major science organisations.
The very rapid adaptation of corals to high temperatures is a well-known phenomenon; besides, if you heat corals in a given year, they tend to be less susceptible in the future to overheating. This is why corals are one of the least likely species to be affected by climate change, irrespective of whether you believe the climate is changing by natural fluctuations or because of human influence.
Corals have a unique way of dealing with changing temperature, by changing the microscopic plants that live inside them. These microscopic plants, called zooxanthellae, give the coral energy from the sun through photosynthesis in exchange for a comfortable home inside the coral. When the water gets hot, these little plants effectively become poisonous to the coral and the coral throws them out, which turns the coral white — that is, it bleaches.
But most of the time, the coral will recover from the bleaching. And here’s the trick: the corals take in new zooxanthellae, that floats around in the water quite naturally, and can selectselecting different species that are better suited to hot weather.
Most other organisms have to change their genetic make-up to deal with temperature changes — something that can take many generations. But corals can do it in a few weeks by just changing the plants that live in them.
They have learned a thing or two in a couple of hundred million years of evolution.
The problem here is that the world has been completely misled about the effects of bleaching by scientists who rarely mention the spectacular regrowth that occurs. For example, the 2016 bleaching event supposedly killed 93 per cent, or half, or 30 per cent of the reef, depending on which headline and scientist you want to believe.
However, the scientists looked only at coral in very shallow water — less than 2m below the surface — which is only a small fraction of all the coral, but by far the most susceptible to getting hot in the tropical sun.
A recent study found that deep-water coral (down to more than 40m) underwent far less bleaching, as one would expect. I estimate that less than 8 per cent of the Barrier Reef coral died. That might still sound like a lot, but considering that there was a 250 per cent increase in coral between 2011 and 2016 for the entire southern zone, an 8 per cent decrease is nothing to worry about. Coral recovers fast.
But this is just the tip of the exaggeration iceberg. Some very eminent scientists claim that bleaching never happened before the 1980s and is entirely a man-made phenomenon. This was always a ridiculous proposition.
A recent study of 400-year-old corals has found that bleaching has always occurred and is no more common now than in the past. Scientists have also claimed that there has been a 15 per cent reduction in the growth rate of corals. However, some colleagues and I demonstrated that there were serious errors in their work and that, if anything, there has been a slight increase in the coral growth rate over the past 100 years.
This is what one would expect in a gently warming climate. Corals grow up to twice as fast in the hotter water of Papua New Guinea and the northern Barrier Reef than in the southern reef. I could quote many more examples.
This unreliability of the science is now a widely accepted scandal in many other areas of study and it has a name: the replication crisis. When checks are made to replicate or confirm scientific results, it is regularly found that about half have flaws. This is an incredible and scandalous situation, a view shared by the editors of eminent journals and many science institutions. A great deal of effort is going into fixing this problem, especially in the biomedical sciences, where it was first recognised.
But not for Barrier Reef science. The science institutions deny there is a problem and fail to correct erroneous work. When Piers Larcombe and I submitted an article to a scientific journal suggesting we needed a little additional checking of Great Barrier Reef science, the response from many very eminent scientists was that there was no need. Everything was fine. I am not sure if this is blind optimism or wilful negligence, but why would anybody object to a little more checking? It would cost only a few million dollars — just a tiny fraction of what governments will be spending on the reef.
But the truth will out eventually. The scare stories about the Barrier Reef started in the 1960s, when scientists first started work on it. They have been crying wolf ever since. But the data keeps coming in and, yes, sometimes a great deal of coral dies in a spectacular manner, with accompanying media fanfare. It is like a bushfire on land — it looks terrible at first, but it quietly and rapidly grows back, ready for the scientists to peddle their story all over again.
Peter Ridd was, until fired this year, a physicist at James Cook University’s marine geophysical laboratory.
SEE also :
- ALARMISTS U-TURN : Scientists Confirm Great Barrier Reef Is Recovering From Bleaching, Again | Climatism
“WE need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.“
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
REMEMBER when climate ‘scientists’ said “Corals on Great Barrier Reef will never be the same after back-to-back heat waves“ …
REMEMBER when climate ‘scientists’ said “Global warming has changed the Great Barrier Reef ‘forever’ …
REMEMBER when climate ‘scientists’ said “Great Barrier Reef is damaged beyond repair and can no longer be saved“ …
GREAT BARRIER REEF RECOVERS (Again)
The Great Barrier Reef fared better during an oceanic heat wave last year than during sizzling weather a year earlier that caused hundreds of miles of corals to bleach, according to a study published Monday that suggests the massive structure may be growing more tolerant to climate change.
The report in the journal Nature Climate Change analyzed how corals along the Great Barrier fared in back-to-back mass bleaching events. The reef ― a UNESCO World Heritage Site and the largest living structure on the planet ― was cooked by overheated seawater in 2016 and again in 2017, with images of sickly white coral horrifying people around the globe.
But the second event last year, which saw seas even hotter than 2016 in many places, didn’t harm the reef as badly as scientists expected. They speculated that the structure may be going through a forced evolution that has helped toughen it, at least in part.
“The good news is the Barrier Reef glass is still half-full,” said Terry Hughes, a lead author of the study and the director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. “Whether we’ll still have reefs in 50 years time … there’s a glimmer of hope that we will.”
AMAZING how quickly $444 MILLION of taxpayers hard-earned money can ‘fix’ the reef. Or, do vast amounts of free cash help dial down the hysteria from the Climate Crisis Industry and CO2-obsessed reef ‘scientists’?
REEFS RECOVER (With or without $444 MILLION!)
DRAMATIC recovery of a remote reef off WA, after 1998 El Niño coral bleaching event:
From The Abstract :
Coral reef recovery from major disturbance is hypothesized to depend on the arrival of propagules from nearby undisturbed reefs. Therefore, reefs isolated by distance or current patterns are thought to be highly vulnerable to catastrophic disturbance. We found that on an isolated reef system in north Western Australia, coral cover increased from 9% to 44% within 12 years of a coral bleaching event, despite a 94% reduction in larval supply for 6 years after the bleaching. The initial increase in coral cover was the result of high rates of growth and survival of remnant colonies, followed by a rapid increase in juvenile recruitment as colonies matured. We show that isolated reefs can recover from major disturbance, and that the benefits of their isolation from chronic anthropogenic pressures can outweigh the costs of limited connectivity.
CORAL BLEACHING IS A NATURAL PHENOMENON & REEFS HAVE SURVIVED & THRIVED IN FAR HIGHER TEMPS & CO2 LEVELS IN THE PAST
CORALS evolved during the Cambrian era when atmospheric CO2 levels were at 6,000-7,000 ppm, around 4,000 percent or 20 times higher than today’s “CO2-starved” environment of 400 ppm, with atmospheric and ocean temps temps far higher than today.
THE world was hotter during the Holocene optimum, yet somehow the Great Barrier Reef survived.
CORAL reefs have survived millions of years of dramatic and sudden climate change, yet climate alarmists want us to believe that a few hundred ppm more of essential trace gas CO2 “has changed the Great Barrier Reef ‘forever,’ (Wapo)” or that even a “Great Barrier Reef recovery [is] unlikely after ‘catastrophic die-off’“?!
BLEACHING is a naturally occurring phenomenon essential to the health and regrowth of coral reefs.
THE “Great Barrier Reef” is only “Great” because it has died off at least 7 known times over the millennia.
DR TERRY HUGHES & THE POWER OF GRANT MONEY
Terry Hughes, is the director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, the same University who recently censured physicist at James Cook University Professor Peter Ridd who has dared to question scientific findings that purport to show the Great Barrier Reef is in trouble.
IN June 2017, Ridd made the headlines after suspecting something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the apparent rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef.
AFTER attempting to blow the whistle on the bogus pictures, Ridd was censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack…
ABC FAKE, FAKE NEWS…
Australian Power Project chief executive Nathan Vass said taxpayers would be forced to effectively “pay twice” for the program — once when they pay their electricity bill and again through government support of the companies running the solar and wind farms. “Australian industry won’t get much of a benefit from this deal,” Mr Vass told The Australian. “This will only help manufacturing jobs in China, Europe or the US where most wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers are based.”
NOT only are jobs, industry and “emissions” going offshore thanks to skyrocketing ‘green’ energy bills, but now income from energy bills will be going to overseas multi-nationals who build and control Australia’s planned mega wind parks.
JUST when you thought things couldn’t possibly get any worse! Insanity on steroids….
For Australian households and businesses being crushed by out-of-control power prices the Paris Climate Agreement is a maniac’s suicide note.
With nothing else to justify the $60 billion being thrown in subsidies at chaotically intermittent wind and solar, renewable energy rent seekers are clinging to the notion that the deal done in the City of Light will forever hold them harmless from both political and commercial reality.
The more insane aspects of the Paris agreement are yet to bite in Australia: agriculture and transport will eventually suffer the same self-inflicted destruction that has been meted out in the power generation sector.
Australia’s cattle and sheep herds currently number in the tens of millions: 26 million beef cattle and 2.8 million milkers; sheep number around 74 million. Under the Paris deal sheep and cattle numbers will need to be slashed by more than 26% to meet its target for…
View original post 2,164 more words
PROOF : Climate ‘Scientists’ And The Media Openly Lie About Climate Change To Maintain Funding And Keep Global Warming Hysteria AlivePosted: September 27, 2018
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
“The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!” – South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.
A unique and fundamental difference, IMO, between climate change sceptics or realists, and climate change alarmists is that sceptics must absorb alarmist ‘science’ and corresponding media releases in order to provide a broad understanding of both sides of the debate. Objectivity and oversight can then be carried out, where the mainstream media will not, by detecting errors, exaggerations and even outright lies that exist within the masses of human-induced climate change information disseminated by the CO2-centric legacy media.
THIS is not a scientific observation, though it is quite accurate when you assess the complete lack of knowledge by climate alarmists to the vast body of climate science contradicting global warming dogma. The story or finding that best fits the alarmists catastrophic narrative qualifies, everything else is outlawed.
THIS is problematic as it foments a culture of groupthink where objectivity is heresy, scepticism is “denial” and questions are forbidden. In this environment, scientific discovery and advancement is stifled, debate is (intentionally) shut down, truth and reason an unnecessary evil.
THANKFULLY there are a growing number of dedicated and unpaid sceptics or climate realists across many different forums and mediums who are questioning what is all-too-often demanded as fact or the accepted view of the (bogus) “97% consensus”.
TRUTH seekers working in their free time are doing what the post-modern mainstream media will not do any more – question dogma, authority and the preferred wisdom of the day using little more than empirical data, common sense and reason.
Paul Homewood of the excellent site Not A Lot Of People Know That is one of the many truth seekers successfully calling out the pseudoscience and misinformation that riddles the field of climate ‘science’.
THIS recent post is a classic example of a typical BBC environmental article prefaced wth “climate change” that is completely shredded by Homewood using nothing more than ’empirical data, common sense and reason’…
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dave Ward
Emerging from the ice for a brief growing season every Antarctic summer, the lush green mosses of East Antarctica are finally succumbing to climate change.
That is according to a study of the small, ancient and hardy plants – carried out over more than a decade.
This revealed that vegetation in East Antarctica is changing rapidly in response to a drying climate.
The findings are published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
“Visiting Antarctica, you expect to see icy, white landscapes,” said lead scientist Prof Sharon Robinson from the University of Wollongong, in Australia. “But in some areas there are lush, green moss beds that emerge from under the snow for a growing period of maybe six weeks.”
While West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula are some of the fastest warming places of the planet, East Antarctica has not yet experienced much climate warming, so the scientists did not expect to see much change in the vegetation there.
“But we were really surprised when we saw how fast it was changing,” Prof Robinson said.
East Antarctica, the researchers say, has become colder, windier and drier due to the combined effects of climate change and ozone depletion.
So, apparently, global warming now means the East Antarctic is getting colder!!
The research was undertaken near Casey Station, the Australian research centre. They have been recording temperatures since 1989, and there is no evidence of temperatures either going up or down:
“Green Energy Future” Update…
By Paul Homewood
The following news release is from Vestas:
To sustain its competitiveness in the growing global market for wind energy, Vestas continuously introduces new products and optimises its global footprint to meet market demand across regions. By doing so, Vestas aims to ensure a competitive product portfolio, economies of scale and continuous optimisation of manufacturing, transportation, and sourcing costs.
Recent market developments have seen a decreasing demand for the 2 MW wind turbine platform in Europe, while the demand for the 4 MW platform in the region can be met by less capacity than currently provided by nacelles factories in Europe and other regions where Vestas recently has established production capacity.
Responding to these market developments and to sustain its competitiveness, Vestas intends to cease production at its assembly factory in León, Spain, affecting all of the factory’s 362 employees. The employees have been informed about the intention…
View original post 227 more words
UNRELIABLE Energy’s Dirty Dozen: 12 Reasons Why Chaotically Intermittent & Heavily Subsidised Wind & Solar Power Make No SensePosted: August 28, 2018
BRILLIANT ‘peer-reviewed’ list of 12 unequivocal reasons why weather-dependent wind and solar ‘power’ is guaranteed to wreck your economy and your livelihood…
ALWAYS like to highlight point 4 in debate with proponents of unreliables…
4. Renewable Energy Becomes More Costly The More It Is Deployed … Renewable Energy Expansion Ensures More Fossil Fuel Installation Is Necessary As Backup
IN other words, the more windmills or solar panels, the more *emissions!
(*If harmless CO2 emissions have been brainwashed into you as being the enemy within, that is.)
It takes a special brand of delusion to believe that the world can run on sunshine and breezes. For wind and sun worshippers, disastrous examples like South Australia – where mass blackouts and load shedding have become the new normal – require not just practiced delusion but a form of self-flagellating stoicism, as well. Oh, almost forgot to mention, that RE superpower suffers the world’s highest power prices. And it reached that infamous status after it blew up its last coal-fired power plant.
The wind industry has had more than 30 years to get its act together. It was built on subsidies and wouldn’t last a minute without them. But, still, there are plenty happy to roll out the excuses and plead for more of the same.
When STT kicked off in December 2012, it was hard to find anyone with a harsh word to say about wind power. However…
View original post 5,039 more words
“The data is further evidence that dilute and unreliable sources of energy like solar and wind cannot replace coal and other fossil fuels and will not lead to significant reductions in carbon emissions.”
AND, as a result of the reckless and ruinous “Save The Planet” pursuit of weather-dependent, intermittent, costly, symbolic, novelty sources of non-energy – wind and solar…
“Coal grew one percent in 2017 — its first growth since 2013…”
The point, if there was one, of throwing hundreds of $billions in subsidies at wind and solar was to slash emissions of carbon dioxide gas. Taxpayers and power consumers who are on the receiving end of the bill for all this environmental piety would, after almost 20 years, be entitled to ask just how much bang they’re getting for their buck?
The short answer is: not much.
STT leaves the battle over carbon dioxide gas to others.
Our view is pretty simple: if a naturally occurring beneficial trace gas, essential for all life on earth, really is killing the planet, then there is only one available solution. And that’s nuclear power.
In 2018, if a climate alarmist is still waging war on CO2 (although he’ll call it ‘carbon’) and not talking about nuclear power, you know you’re dealing with a deluded crank.
One character who’s still pretty fired up…
View original post 620 more words
“AT present, the combined subsidies to wind and solar exceed $4 billion a year, and the number of permanent jobs generated is completely trivial; the instant the subsidies go, so do the jobs briefly ‘created’: Cut the Subsidies and ‘Green’ Jobs Instantly Vanish: 80,000 German Solar Workers Sacked.
“The reason that we’re still talking about this nonsense is all political.
And the reason that it’s political is because there’s money in it. Serious money.
Being able to sell a product with no inherent value, takes audacity; but it can be done.
Here’s how: …”
The hundreds of $billions paid in subsidies to intermittent wind and solar constitute the largest wealth transfer in economic history.
In Australia, the Federal Government’s Large-Scale RET gouges $60 billion from power consumers over the life of the scam, and redirects it to such worthy outfits as AGL and our favourite whipping boys, Infigen. In the history of the Commonwealth, no other single industry subsidy scheme comes anywhere near it in value.
When motor manufacturers, General Motors Holden and Toyota put their hands out for a measly $500 million to maintain their Australian operations, then PM, Tony Abbott told them would “not chase them down the road waving a blank cheque at them“.
A mere half $billion would have saved something like 20 or 30,000 jobs across the sector.
At present, the combined subsidies to wind and solar exceed $4 billion a year, and the number of…
View original post 1,948 more words