In Australia the latest (unpublished) opinion poll shows concern about tackling climate change has fallen from 55% in 2007 to 35%.
Groupthinking struggles to understand:
The aversion to talking about climate change during the election campaign reflects a wider problem: our concern for this issue has fallen even while it has become larger and more urgent, writes Mike Steketee.
Climate change dropped off the political radar — ABC Drum
It sure does reflect a wider problem: that democracies need real public debate, real choice, and we are not getting it. Skeptics want climate change to be a voter issue — bring on a plebiscite. Let the public decide how much they should spend to change the weather. But that’s exactly what the believer politicians fear. They know they have to hide the topic because it’s electoral death. Everyone wants to stop pollution and “save the planet” — it’s motherhood and apple pie, but no one wants to pay much to try to change the climate. Eighty percent might believe the climate changes, but only12% want to pay two dollars to offset their Jetstar flight (and it’s less for Qantas). Therein lies a diabolical dichotomy.
IPSOS poll shows Australians care less — there are more skeptics
Common sense is winning.
… a sobering reality: in the last eight years, many Australians’ concern over climate change has fallen even while the problem has become larger and more urgent.
There is no conflict here. “The problem” has become almost non-existent — the rains filled most dams, the seas barely rose, and the temperatures didn’t warm — except for El Nino noise.
The market research company Ipsos has been conducting surveys on the issue since 2007. In that year 54 per cent of people who were presented with a list of issues said climate change was one that needed to be addressed. In the latest report, still to be released, this fell to 38 per cent last year. This is about the same as for the previous two years, although higher than in 2011 and 2012.
Different descriptions on the list for essentially the same issue confirmed the finding, but more strongly. For example, concern about tackling “global warming” fell from 55 per cent to 35 per cent over the eight years. Renewable energy was at the top of the list of issues that needed to be addressed but it also has fallen significantly – from 68 per cent to 51 per cent.
Climate skeptics are gaining ground:
But it also has meant ceding ground to climate sceptics. They certainly did not worry about selling their message too hard: to the contrary, they thrived on their shrill advocacy to grab attention.
The groupthink churns. Look at the language. Steketee thinks skeptics are “selling” something when the vested interests, rewards and resources are almost entirely on his side. And who’s selling “too hard” — the people who say the climate has always changed or the people who say Armaggedon is coming, and climate change causes volcanoes? The hard sell program is the one that tells us we are evil, selfish and stupid people if we don’t drink the kool aid.
And what does “thriving” mean? Believers have jobs and junkets. Skeptics get sacked, and live off donations if they’re lucky. If skeptics were thriving, the government would be giving them grants, awards, and paying for two week extravaganzas in Paris.
More polarisation — thanks to the ABC
Spot the conflict that Steketee can’t explain, but which I can:
The yet-to-be-published data from Ipsos shows a jump from 27 per cent to 44 last year in the group of so called “active believers” – those with a strong sense of urgency and concern about climate change.
Ignore that the numbers don’t add up — 44% are”active believers” but only 35% are concerned about tackling global warming. How is it that there are more skeptics overall and yet also more strident, passionate believers? If Steketee asked me (i.e. did some research) I could have told him. Long ago in 2010 a bigger more detailed opinion poll showed this issue was artificially U shaped, not a normal bell curve. If there was a real debate on a complex topic most people would be in the middle, not at the extremes. Gradually the middle would shift to one pole or the other as the issue resolved. Instead, the opposite has happened and opinions are polarizing rather than reconciling.
Only one side is right. The other side is bolstered, blinded and coached into fits of passion. One side leans to the correct, while the other to the politically correct. There is an artificial U curve because the issue is not calmly debated, it’s not discussed on its merits, and the topic has gone tribal. The ABC (and BBC and CBC) is largely to blame because they won’t allow the skeptical side to present their views. If the skeptics were wrong, a real debate would crush them.
Instead, the poor denizens of “ABC-World” are fed a litany of unbalanced, badly researched articles just like Mike Steketee’s. They hear ad hominem fallacies, innuendo, and wild conspiracies of fantasy “fossil fuel” funding that appeals to their base instincts. They are told they are smart for calling people names — “denier”. The hatred and sense of injustice inures them against rational arguments — even when skeptics are right they are wrong because they “must be paid liars”.
The ABC has burned years of trust and goodwill on this debate. Who wants public funded propaganda? Time to axe the funding, not because of its bias, but because of its incompetence.
Wherefore art the active 44%?
Looking at the IPSOS poll of 2015 the “27%” of active believers (that is apparently now 44%) comes from the researchers own categorizations which don’t even include an “active skeptic” position — a person can only be an active believer, an engaged moderate, or a passive doubter. There would be no “U” shape because of the poor design. In the US one recent poll showed 30% were happy to call climate change a “total hoax“. These would be categorised as “passive doubters” in Ipsos speak, which also finds that this group are least likely to have a university education — something that conflicts with other better surveys that show skeptics are better at science and mathematical reasoning. Still other large studies show there are proportionately more skeptics in the upper middle educated class than in the unskilled. The whole Ipsos survey is an online questionnaire. Whatever.
Believers have to hide the topic from voters
Abbott made climate change an issue and won resoundingly. Gillard gave mixed weak messages and barely won — then was caned when she broke promises and demanded hundreds of dollar per household in order to change the weather. The only time in the last five years that Australians got to vote on “climate” they chose the skeptical choice. Believer politicians have to hide this debate because they lose every way.
By the time the poll hits the MSM, language creep will ensure the “concerned” category will just be nudging 97%.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/science-and-sensibility/
Pointman
ps. Anyone want to contribute to a good cause? Except for me I mean. https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2016/04/15/why-do-you-come-here-were-never-going-to-get-better/
223
I recall seeing footage of Josef Goebbels in full flight behind a lectern spewing out harsh criticism of the enemies of Nazism.
I see similar activity to day from the paid-up CAGW mouthpieces….
Skeptics are the new “untermunchen” to the eco-nazis…
111
You have to love how zealot advocates like Steketee like to get on the front foot projecting their faults onto sceptics. “Shrill advocacy”? Sceptics are the ones talking down the scares, not shouting them from the rooftops. His disconnect with reality is now complete.
171
That’d be “Untermenschen”.
“untermunchen” could be lower-Munich. 😉
100
Munich, we’re talking equivalences here Bernd.
Punktmann
70
Or Nieder of cause.Not neither of them mind ewe.
50
It’s too bad polls don’t run governments around the world and the UN. We might be much better off.
91
“too bad polls don’t run governments”
They don’t ???
102
No they only run them in Poland
125
You don’t think that they are making this all up as they go along, do you?
151
No, no. They use a tried and true method of reaching decisions, called “expediency”:
“… a motive or rule of action; the consideration of what is politic as opposed to what is just and right.”
The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 1993.
120
Which involves … making it up as you go along!
Woohoo!
70
Let’s try and correct the headline here:
“Climate change” dropped off political radar, not Climate change “”dropped off” political radar.
Government media will always trumpet the whims of the political party in power, regardless of supposed commitments to be unbiased.
Government whims repeatedly shriek the dire inevitability of Thermageddon, while Good of’ Gaia just carries on giving the alarmists’ acolytes the finger.
And the point? Politicians trained to be politicians tend to be avid supporters of Thermageddon theory, while those who have spent time in the real world are more much likely to be sceptical about such an obviously dubious theory.
60
Or it could be:
“Climate Change””dropped off””political radar”. Many metaphors. 🙂
20
People are starting to realize that governments are NOT working in the best interests of it’s citizens…no matter who you vote in.
Massive suicide rates from having no alternative to what the future we are trapped in.
Basic survival has been made illegal as now you have to rely on the government when all else fails due to massive amount of laws and policies implemented on everyone and globalism is encouraged over it’s citizens no matter how they feel about it.
201
Wait until the penny finally drops with how much money has been fleeced from public money that should have gone to improving their lives, a bit of Cromwell will come out in everyone then.
At my work most people flat out know CAGW is BS but when you try to explain the sums of money involved they can’t believe it, everyone should look locally first at how much basic services have been cut verses increased bureaucracy, where you can’t find a rubbish bin or public toilet anywhere your local council will have a plethora of diversity officers throughout the “Community”.
171
Yes councils seem to be growing larger and larger, more of their core work is being outsourced, yet services are reducing and ratepayers are increasingly dissatisfied, and councils wonder why.
110
Where I live, we have an epidemic of orange road cones. A specialised truck will drive along, with a person placing these cones at regular intervals, in order to close a traffic lane.
Two hours later, another specialised truck will drive along, with two people in the back, collecting these cones, and placing them back in the truck.
Little or no obvious work was done on or near the road in the intervening time.
My theory is that somebody had a damn good lunch with a cone salesman, and bought so many, that the Council no longer has room to store them. Besides, it keeps five people inactively employed.
210
Reminds me of the day when a council resident happened to be driving down a local road and saw a couple of council workers at work [ Ok. thats an oxymoron but we will leave it go. ]
So he stopped to see what they were up to.
The first one was digging a series of small holes.
The second one was coming along behind and filling the holes back in.
The resident asked in great puzzlement, What the heck were they doing, digging those holes and then filling them back in!
Well says the first council worker, we are planting all these trees along the road here and I’m digging the holes for them.
The second council worker says, my job is to fill those holes back in after the trees are planted.
“But there’s nobody planting any trees ” is the very puzzled citizen’s next comment;
Nah!, says the council workers, “The guy who plants the trees has taken the day off”
211
Maybe the cones have marijuanna in them.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-19/nz-police-smoke-out-town-by-burning-seized-marijuana/7337014
“When part of the New Zealand town of Turangi became clouded by marijuana smoke, residents did not expect to find it coming from the local police station.”
30
Does the UK still have a “cone hotline”? I always found that hilarious….
30
… councils wonder why
No they don’t. The service people in a Council (unsackable, as they are “public servants”) just don’t give a rat’s @rse. The Councillors spend their time “networking” to gain pre-selection in State, then Federal, Parliaments
And I say this from hard experience
90
Remember to bring your symbolic barrel of gunpowder when you visit Parliament House.
😉
30
As I said to someone just today, the eco-nazis are the new Marie Antionette…..
30
You Aussies are lucky. In the US, Hillary and Bernie are in an alarmist arms war. Summary of recent debate: “You want to ban *some* frac’ing? I will ban *all* frac’ing plus coal, oil, hydro, *and* nuclear power!!” “Oh, you want 10 million new solar panels? My administration will have 500 million new solar panels!”
311
Don, we’ve just had 6 years of the most incompetent, destructive, divisive, irresponsible government imaginable. Efforts by a new government to repair the damage were deemed to be too unpalatable so we changed leaders. Now another election has been called and we will choose between two left wing parties.
“You Aussies are lucky”. Yeah, right.
190
Actually, scarey-bear stuff … does anyone believe a word these people ever say ?
50
Don, the USA is in a bad way – you have Communist Hillary and neo-marxist Obama and communist Sanders and Trump ( who wont get elected )….
There is not a dimes worh of difference between the Commi-crats and GOP
…
America is the new Pacific Soviet….Krushchev was right…sadly….
51
Ahah! Solar panels you say.
Perhaps that accounts for this:
All those proud solar panelists are finding that they’re not getting what they paid for. Their taxpayer subsidized “feed-in tariffs” are being chopped. Their electrical output is not matching up to the hype. Their pay-back period is extending to a point beyond the expected life of their panels, notwithstanding the taxpayer subsidy that went into the capital cost. They’re getting a practical lesson in green lies.
Then, of course, there’s the poor old Tasmanian who sucked on the green liquid but found their dams dry, damn it. And their inter-connector broken to boot. Never mind the mainland tax-payer continues to keep them afloat as their disproportionate amount of GST goes into the purchase of diesel gen-sets and the diesel to run them, just so they can stay warm this coming Winter. They’re getting a practical lesson in green lies too.
Now South Australia is finding its industries closing down because of high costs, including some of the highest electricity costs in the country. Manufacturing is put through the green mangler. “Whyalla wipe-out” is a national top ten hit on the poor buggers who believed their green Labor socialist utopia was going to deliver them a life in Nirvana. But never mind, the taxpayers in the rest of the country will bail them out (again) before they submerge beneath the economic tide. Submarines are what they need. Who gives a stuff if the taxpayer has to pay $7 billion more for South Australian ones than ones that come from overseas’ shipyards? They’re also getting a practical lesson in green lies.
It won’t be getting any better anytime soon. Vote for Malcolm Turnbull and you vote for a green Liberal who hankers after a Carbon dioxide tax of one kind or another.
Vote Labor and you’re sure to get a Carbon dioxide tax of one kind or another.
Stuff Australian industry and jobs. They really don’t care.
The answer?
Vote for the National Party and hope that they are able to hold a Coalition government together with a agreement like the one they currently have with Malcolm. The one that protects the country from a re-institution of a Carbon dioxide tax.
50
EU elites mirror the UN elites as does the media ABC and BBC etc
Ignore the realities and the people…
O/T
The Dutch voters who thoroughly rejected ( in a referendum !) the EU Ukraine deal have been totally ignored by their own politicians, who now intend to go ahead anyway.
The Dutch government has effectively voided their own people’s ability to effect policy via the vote !
What is the next step for the Dutch people ?
221
Not pleasant, I suspect.
140
The next step ?
Already visible … greenie politicians from the EU Parliamnt want to ban referenda/plebiscites because they may not give the correct answers.
Roll on, Brexit, I say. A good,hard, metaphorical punch in the nose.
110
Well its that or the European Soviet will become a true communist empire….
40
Guess whose birthday it is today.
20
Mine yesterday. Now officially an OAP.
Tony.
70
Congrats! It s fun as always getting on and all that- gliding through the 60s.
20
Happy Birthday Tony for yesterday!
20
Clues anyone?
20
OK. Adolf.
20
If it is yours, Happy Birthday!
20
Revolution,I suspect.
10
If we had actual reportage the desals would surely head the news, not in a good way. The Kembla wave generator would be burnt on to the national consciousness, as would Timmy’s Geothermia, SA wind and that Tassie stuff-up. How many millions are just burnt up each day as piety toward Green Blob, with nothing achieved or produced?
But we don’t have reportage. We have the ABC harpies and giggly man-boys to help us think like an inner-urban Herd Of Independent Minds.
Moo.
231
Wait. The next blackout in South Australia will really get attention, and it will be blamed on wind turbines even in the unlikely event they aren’t the cause.
70
This coming summer or the following?
There was some discussion about this on https://climanrecon.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/south_australia/ but you didn’t reply to the question asked. A reference for the temperature limit for operating turbines would be worth posting up (here, there or at Euan Mearns).
40
Sorry. I noted it without without the link. I have a bad habit of squirrelling away information that way.
Have been following it up today with my local MP, if I can ever get hold of him.
20
One can only hope ! 🙂
20
Timmy would be burnt if the full truth was reported by the MSM
30
“Hoax”, “mythical”, “con-job”, “non-existant”, “bullish!t”.
All quotes from Donald Trump. The only clear talker in the race.
Sez it all.
202
““Hoax”, ”mythical”, ”con-job”, ”non-existant”, ”bullish!t”.”
The economic climate change is not heating up at all.
Here is another example of people who will no longer have a Carbon footprint in droves.
Intel Fires A Massive 12,000 Workers, 11% Of Its Entire Workforce, As It Misses Q1 Sales, Guides Lower
“There were some rumors reported late last week that the world’s biggest chip maker was about to fire a major portion of its workforce. Moments ago the company confirmed these rumors, when it reported that it was firing a whopping 11% of its entire workforce, laying off a massive 12,000 workers.”
“Firing” is a word used to depict that these workers will no longer be able to create any fire. It actually means the opposite so that these workers will no longer be combustible, or able to afford petrol or electricity so that they can create CO2
70
New York. New York.
Trump that.
20
Trump for President, Hillary for Prison – 2016
20
Boaty McBoatface says it all.
“Science authorities in Britain put the naming of a new Arctic research ship to an online vote of the public. And the public chose.
“Boaty McBoatface,” which garnered 120,000 votes — four times that of the next closest choice.
“I think we were clear when launching the competition that we were looking for a name that would be in keeping with the mission,” Johnson said.
He noted the boat’s focus on polar research means it will aid the study of serious issues, such as climate change.”
~ ~ ~
Maybe the people who voted online have correctly grasped the “gravity and importance” of what you’re up to.
150
It’s a very British way of ‘taking the mick’.
30
Ha . .
I’ll bet those 120,000 voters all put “Jedi” down on their census form too.
40
Ah, how my heart rose at reading this article by Mike Stoketee.
This poor, poor man, who conveys bewilderment with more conviction than any since the late great Dermot Morgan as “Father Ted” (look it up all those till now deprived of this supreme classic comedy).
“This reflects a sobering reality: in the last eight years, many Australians’ concern over climate change has fallen even while the problem has become larger and more urgent.”
Quoting the 2015 IPSOS survey, not just climate change but ALL environmental issues. What a sublime stitch up that survey was, but full of unintended gems. My favourite –
“Almost a third (32%) of Australians believe that the hole in
the ozone layer contributes to climate change and almost
a quarter (23%) believe that litter is a cause. Neither the
ozone hole nor litter cause climate change”.
That’s 55% of respondents! In passing – they offer no references for their assertion about cause.
“Two thirds (66%) of Australians agree that climate change
poses a serious threat to our way of life over the next 100
years”
Well that will cause me to sink a couple of jars.
I’m afraid the poor Mike has suffered the fate of all those who rig polls, to believe their own deceptions.
“This reflects a sobering reality: in the last eight years, many Australians’ concern over climate change has fallen even while the problem has become larger and more urgent”.
“The argument has been that scaring people with stories about bushfires, cyclones and melting glaciers does not work.”
Because you have been saying the same thing for 30 years (a whole generation) AND NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. Compassion fatigue sets in when human disaster becomes an everyday event as does catastrophe fatigue when you continue to survive even though CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING NOW and it doesn’t seem so bad after all!
He just does not see that he is pissing off the man.
The quote that come to mind is “see you Judas your getting oan ma tits”
Source; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE9pxhm1ohQ
warning: bad language and blasphemy
80
That’s very unfair. I just wasted 45 minutes watching Billy Conolly monologues 🙂
Easily the funniest is the story of the Queen Mother, the King of Tonga and a royal horse. I fell off my chair 🙂
20
Inspite of nearly 100% coverage of AGW friendly stories by the media it is only when things go dramatically wrong, such as expedition to the Antarctic that required costly rescue due to incompetence of its leaders, that the real issues come to light; in this case they were trying to demonstrate a loss of ice levels when the opposite was occurring.
But the litany of failed prediction, never going to rain again and so on, generally receives little comment, whilst stories about the hottest month ever etc. get wide coverage. And people are starting to realise that, in fact, there is bias.
We are hearing about the urgent need for renewable energy to save the planet, for example Dr. Hewson on Q & A, Labor’s goal of 50% renewable by 2030, and nothing about it would need approx. 8,000 sq. km. of wind turbines, and then there are those days when most would only be producing at 10% capacity, or less, which mandates considerable fuel-fired back-up generation . Its only when things become unstuck that we get to hear about it, and then in the case of the Tasmanian fiasco it’s blamed on lack of rainfall which is at variance to BOM data.
91
As I was saying to my mother-in-law the other day, if you emptied the world of 7billion people and put them all into NSW alone, they would have a 3m x 3m space to each person. That sort of example has a tendency to make sense of the population size etc and gives people who arent technically literate a handle on things. Part of the issue is that your average voter has very little science understanding, so you need to explain it in terms they can grasp…raiative forcings and AR5 reports mean nothing to people who love their footy and dont think about tech stuff at all except getting bent out of shape if they miss a facebook post on someones new baby…
We have tech we havent explored yet, and my favourite – hydrogen – is a solution just waiting for th emoney to be spent on it to make it commercially viable.
40
I also think many people just assume stuff will just trundle on regardless….footy, beer, racing, the latest reality tv show, its about all that a lot of people think about. The problem is that the media has been saturated so all your average joe gets is tha
30
Bah…need more coffee….
final version :
I also think many people just assume stuff will just trundle on regardless….footy, beer, racing, the latest reality tv show, its about all that a lot of people think about. The problem is that the media has been saturated so all your average joe gets is “the sky is falling”. That said, for anyone who has been in an outdoors based job for 20+ years, they can tell you nothing has changed…
40
Poor Mike Steketee went looney over global warming. Worse even than Hannam and Arup over at the SMH. His columns in the Australian were OK until Climategate, then sadly he went off the planet. It’s no wonder he’s ended up at the ABC.
Signs are the la Nina is going to be big and cold, with possible enhancement from the swing down in the ocean cycles and solar activity. I wonder what these ‘journalists’ will write when that happens?
151
There is little chance that a journalist will include the sun, because the Klimatariat has already convinced the masses that our star has nothing to do with climate change.
Bruce we need to come up with a complete package to explain what is happening, otherwise we won’t bring about a paradigm shift.
For every warmist argument we need to have a counterpoint, its no good even saying to the brainwashed populace that climate change is natural. Sadly skeptics have to prove global cooling has begun or we won’t get any traction.
60
Bruce of Newcastle @ #12
Renewable energy and how it will Save the Planet from an ice age.
Barrier reef bleaching due to climate change forcing very cold Antarctic waters up to Australia and killing all the coral polyps.
Antarctic ice cap melting because climate change has set off the volcanoes under the Antarctic’s ice cap.
More droughts because climate change has led to colder weather and cold air doesn’t hold as much water as warm air.
Worse storms because the temperature differences between the warm air of the tropics and the colder mid latitude atmosphere leads to greater atmospheric turbulence and greater energy exchange [ probable ! ]
Fish will die because of the colder water.
Sharks will die because of the colder water and because the fish have died.
Sharks will attack swimmers even more because they are hungry; see above !
Birth rate will increase / decrease because it is colder.
Energy consumption must be reduced because there isn’t enough energy to go round.
Coal mines must close because there aren’t enough coal using generators to use all the coal; see above!
Hang on, I gotta go and turn the gas up as its getting a bit cold this morning!
141
Many a true word said in jest, but they might think in parody (not that there is anything wrong with that) so I’m more inclined to point out that the aircon runs like a stadium wave and its clearly illustrated here.
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/esrl-amo-thru-mar-2016.png
Note the unprecedented hiatus before 1879.
61
That data has not been homogenised yet as it appears trendless!!
20
OT a bit.. Interesting post on WUWT
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/19/systematic-error-in-climate-measurements-the-surface-air-temperature-record/
the money quote towards the end…. (I’ve done bold on some parts.. well, lots of parts 🙂
“The uncertainty estimate developed here shows that the rate or magnitude of change in global air temperature since 1850 cannot be known within ±1 C prior to 1980 or within ±0.6 C after 1990, at the 95% confidence interval.
The rate and magnitude of temperature change since 1850 is literally unknowable. There is no support at all for any “unprecedented” in the surface air temperature record.
Claims of highest air temperature ever, based on even 0.5 C differences, are utterly insupportable and without any meaning.
“
203
AndyG55:
I would hope that is the final nail but probably just provide an excuse for more adjusting of “data”.
Worthy of a separate post but the general public would only gather that there was something wrong with ‘climate science’. On that I note Jo’s quote “this group are least likely to have a university education” is typical of the attitude of those who’ve never worked in Industry who believe that the workers must all be dumb. I spent 40 years in manufacturing industry and I can assure you that this isn’t so. Sure, there are quite a few not favoured by the gift of understanding, but there are always a number with good common sense and they are the ones who are listened to by their co-workers. Look at the ‘leading hands’ and you will find them. The worst mistake made by my last employer (a multi-national USA Co.) was to demote the leading hands and insist on rigid rules off operation. I left so I never found out how they got rid of that 30 tons of (expensive) paint made according to all the rules – I knew what happened the next day, but the ‘management’ was still trying to understand what went wrong 3 weeks later ( there was no sabotage, just people following the rules exactly despite doubts).
92
Yes, the conclusion of the study is quite plausible, but will it see the light of day in the media?
40
“All you engineers and experimental scientists out there may go into shock after reading this. I was certainly shocked by the realization.”
I was shocked too. Can’t the warmists even get the measurements right? Do they even understand this? 30 years work by climate scientists shows nothing and proves nothing.
What about Robyn Williams (ABC Science show), will he ever understand?
112
Well up here in Canada the MSM is reaching a crescendo of so called climate change, world is ending topics. British Columbia has a carbon tax. Alberta is shutting down its coal plants going so called renewable with the corresponding energy coat rise and bringing in a carbon tax. Ontario has shut down its coal plants going with renewables also with fast rise in energy costs but so far its nuclear is keeping the region intact. The country is lead by our new dear leader Trudeau, is considering a carbon tax.
Oh back to our MSM, the government, taxpayer sponsored CBC, along with Global, CTV and my own town print and tv media are almost frothing at the mouth reporting any warmest side of climate change. Most people seem to bobble head along with it. I won’t even mention the impressible little dears in the universities.
So in Canada the lie lives on.
60
The fix is pretty easy – ask them how they will get on if their elderly parent is on an operating table in hospital when the eco-la-la-land wind power fails and the backup generator ( run with eco-hating deisel) doesnt come on line…..
That puts it in terms even the simplest of people will get….
I’d have thought Canadians would have gone a bit bolshie by now….
30
You’ll probably get a “dilligaf” response
20
Living proof people are getting stupider by the day…..has it always been thus, or is it a 20th century phenomena?
20
We really need a political party (any party) to start campaigning on CAGW being fundamentally incorrect. Then MSM couldn’t ignore the opinion polls.
BTW, we are still of the Commonwealth and not a republic so we should remain sceptics, not skeptics
81
I used to use either spelling interchangably, but that annoyed both groups.
So I am no longer a skeptic or a sceptic. Instead, I have come out as a septic, which is probably much more accurate.
80
Septic Yank is colloquial for American here. I’d be surprised if it didn’t get to NZ since the name was born in WWII among the ANZACS.
20
That’s good – a play on septic tank, and what it contains. I like that.
20
Septic Tanks,
Over sexed, Over paid and Over here!
20
Analitik – a couple of years ago a local (Alberta, Canada) politician dared to mention that the science behind global warming was questionable. The tremendous personal attacks (never any actual scientific evidence presented) from the alarmists were enough to force a retraction/rephrasing, even though Alberta has a LOT of geologists and geophysicists who realize what a scam the whole issue is. Politics is emotional, not logical.
122
When will they ever learn?
Never conduct a poll on climate change unless you already know the results!
Obviously in this case the IPSOS polling organisation got its conclusions from the poll completely wrong
IPSOS should have contracted that well known Climate Change polling duo of John Cook and Stephen Lewendowsky to conduct their poll.
Both of these gentlemen of course are very well known practitioners of the art of conducting climate change and moon landing “denier” polls and surveys that invariably provide the polling conclusions that are required by the climate change poll initiators.
And they would also ensure as in past practice, that any poll they conducted would always be carefully “adjusted” so as to provide the significant conclusion that a 97% majority of scientists support the Climate Change “consensus” belief.
Do I need a sarc/ ?
121
Steve McIntyre goes after Gavin Schmidt’s ( NASA Giss)trickery. This should be very interesting.
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/#more-21871
71
Your link lead me by a series of steps to look up Bart Verheggen
http://www.auc.nl/news-events/content/2015/12/auc-teacher-bart-verheggen-dutch-media-climate-change.html
Bart Verheggen is employed by the University of Amsterdam and is an active warmist blogger on Climate change. This tolerated by the University of Amsterdam.
Bart does not have a Wikipaedia profile, unlike JoNova and other well known skeptics so he may be a small player. None the less Steven McIntyre has taken note of him.
From the University of Amsterdam profile on Bart Verheggen:
Facts regarded as opinions
While it is generally considered good journalistic practice to represent a counter-position to every argument, when this principle is applied in the communication of proven scientific facts, the facts themselves are subsequently relegated to the sphere of opinion. This in turn propagates a culture in which science is represented as just another subjective viewpoint in the public debate.
The interview raises interesting questions, not only about climate change, but also about the role of journalism in communicating scientific research, and confirms the importance of a critical approach to methodology.
I would agree with the sentiment but I think they have it Ass About, as we would say with regard to the scientific facts..
Of course it is the undermining of these Scientific Facts, so beloved of warmists which is part of the focus of sceptics. And as soon as we dig we find that they are not scientific facts at all, but merely opinion. This seems to apply to all of the foundations of Global Warming, including the greenhouse theory.
30
“Climate change dropped off the political radar – ABC Drum”. No, “Global Warming” has. Even in this article, “global warming” is mentioned twice. “Climate Change” is mentioned 13 times.
Not only is “Climate Change” an unmeasurable and vague basket of many variables, no one has bothered to explain how CO2 produces “Climate Change” and “extreme events” without actually producing warming of the air. How does CO2 warm the oceans, as implied by the CSIRO on their new web site and yes, warmer oceans can produce “Climate Change”. There is just the logic free segue between “Greenhouse Gases”, warmer oceans and “Climate Change”.
So we need to ask, what happened to “Global Warming” and how is this new phenomenon of “Climate Change” due to mainly to man produced CO2. Of course there is still the implied story that the increase in CO2 was entirely due to man, when most are retreating from that position.
Then you get this outrageous deceit from our publicly funded scientists at the CSIRO
This enormous amount of carbon entering the oceans as carbon dioxide has changed the chemistry of the oceans, making them slightly more acidic.”
Slightly more acidic? The oceans are all alkali.
Finally the CSIRO say this about the oceans, a two faint admissions of undeniable science which destroys their blather
“They are the main long-term sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide and play an important role in controlling the rate at which carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere.”
So there you have it, the oceans control carbon dioxide. An admission at last the the oceans which contain 98% of free CO2 control atmospheric CO2 by Henry’s Law. Warmer oceans mean more CO2. The half life, an indisputable 14 years. So this man made CO2 driven Global Warming is fake. The new Climate Change waffle is not even connected to CO2 but no government wants to miss taxing the very air you breathe.
Ban or tax Carbon dioxide, breathing, trees, plants, animals, insects and the ocean. Only then will the CSIRO be saved from extinction.
142
As 2/3 of the planet is water, and the solubilty of CO2 is well known, it’s difficult to argue that this less important in the scheme of things than the atmospheric concentration of CO2 of around 0.04%. But what does not seem to be well understood is the role of photosynthesis, the photo-chemical reaction which is the basis of life itself. Some of it occurs in the forests and grasslands of the continents, but again most of it happens in the oceans with the phytoplankton.
Greenhouse growers have been using CO2 enhancement for crops of tomatoes, cucumbers, etc., which we consume, and concentrations of around 1200 ppm or 0.12% aren’t a problem, in fact they are very beneficial so what’s the problem with CO2!
81
Yes. It doesn’t just improve crop growth, without CO2, you would not have crops, plants, life on earth.
Photosynthesis is
CO2 + H2O + sunlight ==>> (CO2)m(H2O)n carbon dioxide hydrated
As Greenpeace founder Dr Patrick Moore wrote at 0.02%, life on earth would cease to exist. With a recent increase from 0.025% to 0.04% we are grateful to have missed a mass extinction event by a whisker.
80
The Atheist Broadcasting Commission has read Jo’s post.
This morning, their website is crowing about “hottest ever” months and years, coral bleaching and Tasmania’s “hottest ever” sea water.
70
Re the “coral bleaching”, quote of the day from a poster at Catallaxy
120
😉
40
Classic!
I love pragmatists….
50
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/19/curious-a-total-solar-irradiance-nosedive-seen-in-sorce-data/
Not confirmed yet.
40
Thanks for that Rocky,
I’ve not seen such a pairing of graphs with sunspot photo before.
Cheers,
Dave B
30
Speaking of ABC bias – here is a “Fact Check” on Julie Bishop’s statement that the Libs inherited the biggest debt and deficit of any incoming government (technically true in nominal dollar terms, which is what all budgets are based in – they eben admit this in the article):
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/julie-bishop-zombie-wrong-debt-and-deficit/7338956?ticket=ST-445-corRgVgQJ2wOYj9LZjHL-cas
Let’s see if my calling out of their “finding” is posted:
What’s the betting that if Labor had said this, they would use the nominal dollar value as the basis of a “truth” finding?
72
Seeing some of the pathetic replies at the ABC echo chamber (note I am marked -5 for speaking truth as of now), it is clear that those commenting see the truth as they wish it, not as it is. These are the same people who no doubt defended Gillard to the death over the “no carbon tax” deception. The fact that the ABC is so blatantly biased in this piece is damning … they could have reasonably said Bishop’s comment was deceptive, a partial truth or the like, but they flat out label it as “wrong” when, in fact, there own article admits at one point it is correct:
Yet this gets the big red stamp:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-18/bishop-wrong/6329710
Larger than other budget inheritances in nominal terms … end of debate, or should have been. The best way to compare money over time? No. But is it a lie as implied by the ABC? No. They are lucky she isn’t as litigious as Palmer.
42
eff it – official ABC complaint lodged. Won’t do any good of course, but this kind of behaviour going into an election cycle is unpardonable in my book. They are a disgrace.
52
Ken Stewart’s latest UAH March update still shows a pause in all the regions except the Nth extra tropics.
Here are the Globe and regions.
Globe a pause for 18 yrs 10 months, over half the record.
NH a pause for 18 yrs 4 months.
SH a pause for 20 years 9mths, over half the record.
Tropics a pause for 21 yrs 6 mths , well over half the record.
Trop oceans a pause for 22 yrs 4 mths ‘ as above.
Nth ex tropics no pause, but trend of just 0.13 C per century, so no Stat significant warming at all.
Sth ex tropics a pause for 20 yrs 7 mths. Over half record.
Nth polar a pause for 14 yrs 1 month.
S polar a pause or slight cooling since Dec 1978.
USA a pause for 18 yrs 10 months.
OZ a pause for 21 yrs 1 mth , over half the record.
Of course there is a longer lag time with Sat temps, so the pause could disappear in the coming months. But if a la nina returns later this year the pause may come back after that date.
So far not much to show in all the globe’s regions since 1997.
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/the-pause-update-march-2016-complete/
100
Great blogg Joe!
All that you have said is honest,true and to the point!
Unlike the ABC Drum – full of exaggeration & outright untruhs!
Geoff W
60
We now have the situation in Australia where about half of the adult population is living off the public teat. We are doomed!
70
That stat was somewhat interesting because they included all government employees according to my missus (I never read the article). Assuming a reasonable fraction of them are working gainfully (stop laughing :p) it would seem an unreasonable statistic.
42
probably also includes part pensioners
04
The proportion of public servants is climbing. This does not mean full employment. It just means more borrowing.
When the Queensland government says they have just hired 5,000 new public servants, you have to wonder who is going to pay for them? Governments do not have any money and public servants do not pay tax. That is a fantasy.
Imagine if a private company started up and hired 5,000 workers in Queensland? Considerthe 550 workers fired from Queensland Nickel. A disaster. However they get two years salary from the government? From whom? This is all borrowed money.
When Julie Bishop gives $1Bn for Climate Change, this is borrowed money. When we build desalination plants and take 25 years to pay for them, this $100Bn is all borrowed money. When we pay $1.3Bn annually for the ABC/SBS giant media or $1Bn for the CSIRO or the BOM, this is borrowed money.
Of course anyone with a job in mining, agriculture, manufacturing, electricity generation, smelting, refining should pay more tax. Someone has to pay for all this because borrowings are going up $4Bn a month and that is just the Federal government. More windmills please. Their ABC says that carbon dioxide is the greatest problem of a generation. It isn’t. ABC nonsense is.
80
I am not criticising public servants as such, just the actions of Labor government of borrowing money to hire people wholesale when anyone else in trouble would not be hiring.
It is an obvious political device to increase employment and to solidify a very shaky minority government with guaranteed votes and leave the mess of finding the money to pay everyone to the Federal government who have to tax all the people who have real jobs. Transparently the Campbell government lost votes when it reduced the public service. So what do the 5,000 extra people do? No one seems to care. The Government has plenty of money to give away.
30
Technically civil servants do pay taxes, but they are recycled taxes from “real payers” I guess, if that’s how you are looking at it. You be surprised how many civil servants are Lib supporters (especially those in fields such as economics/finance/accounting). Then again, I am basing this on WA experience … we are all Libs here LOL
52
In Queensland the number of public servants was reduced by 5,000 under Campbell Newman. Labor hired 5,000 people back. That is say $400,000,000 a year which has to be paid but you have to suspect there was no need, that it was a pay back. That is not the role of government, just to employ people?
Worse, the ABC has 5,000 people including an amazing 1,000 journalists and excluding SBS. Why? Why do we need a government media costing $25 million a week and $15,000 a week just for Mark Scott, twice that of the highest public servants? Why does the Australian public have to pay for this? Why not free Foxtel?
The same for the BOM and CSIRO? What are we getting for another $25Million a week? Glossy brochures and web sites about Global Warming, Extreme Events, Climate Change and deceit about acid oceans which are not acid and a Great Barrier Reef which even UNESCO says is fine? This is not science fact finding. This is socialism posing as environmentalism, a quote from our previous Prime Minister, removed because of his views on this farce.
30
ABC in particular, and MSM in general, should take note, even tho this is a poll of Americans:
17 Apr: AP: Poll: Carole Feldman/Emily Swanson: Getting facts right key to Americans’ trust in media
Trust in the news media is being eroded by perceptions of inaccuracy and bias, fueled in part by Americans’ skepticism about what they read on social media.
Just 6 percent of people say they have a lot of confidence in the media, putting the news industry about equal to Congress and well below the public’s view of other institutions. In this presidential campaign year, Democrats were more likely to trust the news media than Republicans or independents.
But trust today also goes beyond the traditional journalistic principles of accuracy, balance and fairness.
Faced with ever-increasing sources of information, Americans also are more likely to rely on news that is up-to-date, concise and cites expert sources or documents, according to a study by the Media Insight Project, a partnership of The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the American Press Institute…
The poll shows that accuracy clearly is the most important component of trust.
Nearly 90 percent of Americans say it’s extremely or very important that the media get their facts correct, according to the study. About 4 in 10 say they can remember a specific incident that eroded their confidence in the media, most often one that dealt with accuracy or a perception that it was one-sided…
Readers also are looking for balance: Are there enough sources so they can get a rounded picture of what they are reading? They want transparency, too. “Tell me what you don’t know and tell me how you’re going about reporting the story,” she said…
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/35c595900e0a4ffd99fbdc48a336a6d8/poll-vast-majority-americans-dont-trust-news-media
unbelievable nonsense from the anti-Catholic, anti-religious ABC:
15 Apr: ABC Breakfast: Australia ‘the most outstanding rogue nation’ on climate change: Bill McKibben
When it comes to climate change, it’s often thought that religion and science don’t mix. But American author Bill McKibben says religious leaders such as Pope Francis, the Dalai Lama, and the so-called ‘Green Patriarch’ Bartholomew 1—the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church—are becoming ‘a great asset’ in galvanising global action on climate change…
In America, he says religion and science have been trumped by political lobbying and cash from the fossil fuel industry.
He warns that Australia has become a ‘rogue nation’ disproportionately contributing to climate change.
Further Ino: 6th Hobart Oration
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/australia-'the-most-outstanding-rogue-nation'-on-climate/7328646
350.org: Tasmania recently experienced a record-breaking drought that has parched much of the state and led to the worst bushfires in memory.
This isn’t happening in isolation. Record-breaking temperatures have robbed the Arctic of its winter; February was the hottest month ever; Western Australia also had bushfires that were so fierce they created their own weather system.
The Northern Hemisphere recently hit 2 degrees above normal temperatures, 84 years ahead of the 2100 deadline we gave ourselves.
Far from being something that the planet would experience in a hypothetical dystopian future, the effects of climate change are being felt right now. In very real and powerful ways.
It is to this backdrop that Bill McKibben is delivering the 6th Hobart Oration on 17, April…
In delivering the Hobart Oration he will talk about the hottest year ever, and the hottest battle of our generation.
Bill will be introduced by Christine Milne, former leader of the Greens, and the event is open to all.
Tickets can be purchased for the event through the Bob Brown foundation.
70
Bill McKibben. Another activist journalist with no science expertise at all. Note however the new direction, not to mention Global Warming. It is all Climate Change. Global Warming is just to easy to disprove.
30
comment #25 is in moderation.
20 Apr: Sky News: AAP: Climate change science not settled: Brandis
Attorney-General George Brandis has questioned the science of climate change, saying he’s not ‘at all’ convinced it is settled.
Labor has seized on comments by the senior Turnbull government minister that there were a number of views about the cause of climate change, arguing it proves the deep climate scepticism in the coalition.
‘It doesn’t seem to me that the science is settled at all,’ Senator Brandis told parliament on Tuesday during debate on the tabling of documents relating to the CSIRO…
Senator Brandis said, if the science was settled – like Labor claims – why would Australia need climate researchers…
However, scientists say without continuous data collection – some of which is undertaken by the CSIRO in partnership with the Bureau of Meteorology – huge gaps could form that could never be recovered.
Labor said the attorney-general’s comments were breathtaking…
Senator Brandis’ office referred AAP to an interview conducted in 2014 in which the attorney-general told a reporter he was ‘on the side of those who believed in anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming and who believed something ought to be done about it.’
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2016/04/20/climate-change-science-not-settled–brandis.html
19 Apr: Newsweek: Climate Change: Obama Is Making Promises He Can’t Keep
By Paul “Chip” Knappenberger
(Paul “Chip” Knappenberger is assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute)
On April 22, Earth Day, leaders from countries around the world will attend a grand signing ceremony at the United Nations, officially reaffirming the greenhouse gas reduction pledges they made at last December’s U.N. climate conference in Paris.
Instead of rushing to reaffirm that pledge, President Obama should be working to rescind it…
Under the Paris Agreement, most major greenhouse gas-emitting countries offered rather timid emissions targets that aligned with existing projections. In contrast, President Obama pledged an aggressive goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025.
That is a promise he cannot keep.
Indeed, in the time since President Obama rallied international support at the Paris conference by extolling the U.S. leadership role in addressing climate change, a confluence of reality checks has revealed much of what he said to have been a grand illusion…READ ON
http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-obama-making-promises-he-cant-keep-449148
50
As to the second half of what pat shows us here: (my bolding here)
Hmm! Only now they realise this.
Back in April of 2015, last year, I wrote a 2 part series on how this was a target he had no chance of ever keeping to.
But hey, who’s ever going to believe anything I write?
Kyoto Revisited – President Obama’s Pledge For Paris – Intro (This is the short Intro. and the links to the two main Posts are at the bottom of this Intro.)
Tony
40
OK, you lot, gather around and pay attention. We will once again, take on the challenge of combatting CAGW with a comprehensive transition to a virtually 100% renewables energy (yes, energy – not just electricity) society.
http://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/article/downloads/ISF_100%25_Australian_Renewable_Energy_Report.pdf
This groundbreaking study has just been released by the Institute of Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney and was commissioned by GetUp! and Solar Citizens.
It is fully costed including:
– the conservative lifetime assessment of coal plants at 40 years (retired step-by-step at arate of approximately 750 MW per year)
– the overbuild of CSP mirror heliostats by 3 to allow for 24 hour generation
– rising fuel costs vs the free energy from the sun, wind, plants, geothermal, tides and waves
– annual PV installations at a rate not more than 4 times the PV market size of 2011, 2012 and 2015
– wind turbine installation equal to Germany between 1999 and 2014 (a country smaller in area than New South Wales!)
– hydrogen, synfuels and biofuels will power the transport that cannot be electrified (including aviation)
– robust generation forecasts will permit high rates of generation by wind and solar
– smart grids, demand side management, energy storage capacities and other options will increase the flexibility of the power system for grid integration, load balancing and a secure supply of electricity
This is new study so forget about what you’ve read in the past, here. Read it and see the vision for our future
Note: Grid infrastructure upgrading, transport capital investment, demand management and energy storage costs were outside the scope of this report.
51
Man,
I almost stopped reading at page one, the image where I saw the heading:
Cue Curly
Tony.
60
Sorry, I should have bolded the commissioning bodies in my post just to show how authoriative this study really is.
Everyone should read it to fully the understand the seriousness that the proposal deserves
20
The commissioning bodies do not make the final report authoritive. They may make it political though, but that would nullify everthing, wouldn’t it?
It is the science that makes the final report authoritive, nothing else matters, and so the science must be based on the laws of physics and chemistry and the implementation must be based on good engineering practice. If you can’t pass those barriers, you have nothing.
30
Hang on! Hang on! Hang on!
Before any of you get all indignant, be aware that this is a practical joke (/sarc Tony, how many time have I told you about this)
Even if this lot were in power now and started this now, there’s is ABSOLUTELY no way this can be achieved, ever. It’s a dream. Even if they had the money ….. only $800 Billion, between now and 2050, so that’s $23.6 Billion a year, they could not ever do it.
With each page, all I could do was laugh.
That’s power plants, cars, boats trains, planes the lot. All renewable.
Increase total electrical power consumption to 750TWH, and that’s current multiplied by 3.5, all to be generated from renewables.
Just a ballpark here on the table 3 at page 14.
Wind Onshore- their total 880GW, (current total multiplied by 220) with their Capacity Factor at 40.2$, current World total CF around 20%.
Wind Offshore = their total 660GW at a CF of 53.6%
CSP, which is evidently their source of 24/7/365 power – their total 18,500GW (current WHOLE OF WORLD total is 5GW, so this Oz total is current whole of world multiplied by 3,700) and for 24/7/365 power, I wonder why their CF is only 25.7%
Solar PV – Their total 24,100GW at a CF of 34%, and the current average is between 13 and 17%
Geothermal – 5140GW at a CF of 80%
I could call all this document out for what it really is, but, I would never get out of Moderation.
Suffice to say that it will NEVER be done, no matter what.
Tony.
70
Tony, whats the biggest solar heliostat system ( nameplate ) in the world currently? It occurs to me that would be a starting point ot unravel the nonsense, butif it was prepared for GetUp! then its pure leftist activist drivel….
40
I doubt you’ll unravel it. The sheep will just lap this stuff up. Facts don’t enter into it with these people.
The largest CSP plant are those ones in Nevada. Most average around 50MW, up to 125MW, if they can get those larger sized ones to work, still problematic at the moment.
Heat diversion capability varies as well, and at the linked article of mine, there’s a chart showing power generation from CSP, but again, be aware it’s just a model.
You’ve probably seen this article of mine about all those CSP plants in Spain, and how they are a flop. Most of those incorporate Heliostats.
Solar Thermal Power (Concentrating Solar) Fail – Just Look At Spain
Tony.
Heliostat – The mirror is mounted on a small table, which is motor driven, so the mirror follows the track of the Sun across the sky, always focussing the light on the top of the tower. All the power to drive those mirrors, sometimes many thousands of them, is supplied by, yep, the plant itself, also lowering the total output of the plant itself.
80
You are casting aspersions on (merino) sheep here, millions of them thrive in some of the harshest conditions imaginable in Australia and my family having been producers in the industry for over a hundred years can attest that sheep can run rings around the average ‘Joe’ from the city while yielding 6-7 kg of wool and rearing upwards of 100 percent of lambs most years.
40
Lots of pretty pictures here of the 4,000 acres with 173,500 heliostats at Ivanpah (nameplate 377 MW for the 3 towers combined)
https://newrepublic.com/article/124179/beauty-worlds-largest-solar-project
For the CSP to be stored for 24 hour use, an overbuild factor of 3 is required so just over half a million heliostats on 12,000 acres for 24 hours of 377 MW generation capacity.
Note: any daytime cloud cover or dirtying of the mirrors may drastically reduce either output and/or storage period.
40
Oh, and 9 towers instead of 3 plus molten salt storage.
Gas won’t be needed to preheat the system, though – however it may be needed at times to keep the salt molten during extended cloudy periods.
20
Lot’s of green jobs cleaning the mirrors… oh and picking up the dead streamers (aka birds).
52
Some arithmetic: 12,000 ac. for 377 MW (24 hour equiv.)
Therefore 4,860 ha. for 377 MW, or 13 ha. per MW.
Aust needs, say, 30,000 MW so 390,000 ha. or 3,900 sq. km. of mirrors. The area of greater Melbourne is 9,900 sq. Km.
The average of UK windfarms is about 1.4 MW per sq. Km (actual), so 30,000 MW of windfarm needs 21,428 sq. Km.
So heliostats use about a quarter of land than for windfarms, still a lot of land, but lots of room in the Simpson Desert, but a considerable transmission loss getting it to civilisation.
30
Robert O, thanks for those figures.
So in reality – future green city planners will need ot budget at least 30%-50% extra physical space for a city to house its solar power station, assuming the same hours and intensity of solar irradiance as that in Australia…..
Useful figure for arguments with greenies….
20
I’d like to see the aircraft powered by ‘geothermal’ energy…
00
I started to type comments critiquing each of the technologies mentioned, until I came to the line that reads:
At which point, I deleted my comments because I realised that whomever authored this has absolutely no idea about the reality of the engineering problems that will need to be addressed.
I would love to know where this “free energy” comes from, and how it can be considered “free”, given the high investment and maintenance costs of solar, wind, tidal, and wave motion; the seasonal nature of biogeneration, and the large capital and ongoing maintenance expenditure of geothermal.
In regard to that last point, New Zealand has a geothermal generation station, so we have some experence of the maintenance costs involved in keeping the site operating in the presence of the corrosive steam produced by volcanic reactions. The power ain’t free, by any means.
Similarly, solar panels get etched by airborne dust and grit, and so lose efficiency. Windmills can only operate when the wind is blowing, but not if the wind is blowing to fast. Wave motion has never really been a starter because of the detritus that gathers on such structures.
The reality is that somebody at the University of Technology, Sydney, has gotten themselves excited, over a mind-experiment, but has failed to research the historic literature to find out what has been tried before, and why it is not actually current practice today.
But nice try.
40
It has just been pointed out to me, that this might be somebody’s homework assignment. If so, I hope you get full marks for ingenuity.
40
The lead author is Sven Teske, the Renewable Energy Director of GreenPeace
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/greenpeace/2011/SvenTeske.D1%20DEF-1.pdf
He has a diploma of engineering with 29 publications to his name
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sven_Teske
including the GreenPeace “The Energy [R]evolution 2015” report on which much of this new study is based
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/energyrevolution/
21
Sorry, his GreenPeace position was prior to him becoming a Research Principal for the Institute for Sustainable Futures, Sydney
http://cfsites1.uts.edu.au/find/isf/staffcvs/cv_sventeske.pdf
And he also has a PhD in Engineering and Economics from the University of Flensburg/Germany
20
Engineering is a very wide field. In what branch of engineering does Doctor Teske specialise?
30
Environmental.
These guys generally have very little understanding of any real engineering.
Probably have never studied any real engineering AT ALL.
61
He was an author for the IPCC Special Report Renewables (SRREN) report 2006
11
Whoops, he wasn’t an author but he did review the report for the IPCC before publication
Here it is for interest – Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
10
Nice great big document isn’t it?
Has any one besides me ever noticed that they start out with the attitude that climate change is a given, sustainable development is a possibility and renewables will do the job and then go on from that point of view without ever questioning the underlying assumptions?
I sure wish I could run my life that way. Don’t you wish the same for running your lives? It would be so much easier.
30
Oh the poor buggers studying “Engineering” at UTS.
40
Always read the disclaimer.
It puts conclusions such as these into perspective:
The entire “report” is a piece of political fluff. Full of hot air claims and wishful thinking.
Any competent Engineer who’s worked outside the gates of the ivory towers and sheltered “research” workshops should be able to rip the report to shreds and expose it as the piece of fiction.
30
Bernd, you mention this,
I almost made it to near the bottom of page 1. (that’s page 5 of the pdf document as the earlier pages are credits and contents.)
Tony.
40
These simplistic, politically motivated reports actually have a negative impact on the development of non-fossil energy sources. The modelling software was stated as being used for the German Energiewende – that is an evolving disaster:
“The model used by ISF was created by the German Aerospace Agency in cooperation with Greenpeace International and has previously been used to inform the German government’s ‘Energiewende’ and climate mitigation scenarios for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ”
Any grid sourcing a large proportion of wind energy needs to be geographically dispersed and have efficient high power interconnections able to cope with large power swings from those dispersed sources operating at relatively low capacity factors. This report on China’s network at least gives the scope involved and the available resources plus some discussion on enabling technologies and framework that do not yet exist:
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/china_wind.pdf
One of the concluding statements:
“By 2050, power generation technologies will be more optimised and diversified. Coal-fired electricity’s share of
total installed capacity will fall to 35%, while wind power’s share is expected to rise to 25% to 30%.”
So even with this very aggressive timeframe, by 2050 coal will still be around 35%, which is more capacity than exists now because usage is expected to increase 3.5 times by 2050. It is possible to have 100% renewables but it is a completely impractical target even if storage technologies become a fraction of the current cost.
30
For wind power to provide “continuous” power, it must be spread over several weather cells.
As Germany has found, just about all of their wind power is either on or off at some time. Weather cells (highs/lows) have diameters of 800 km and more (in Australia, 3000km high cells over the Bight are not unusual) so to avoid power outages due to lulls in wind, electrical power must be transmitted over distances of more than 1000km. An “overbuild” of wind generating capacity is necessary so that enough is generated by wind turbines in a windy cell while the others are in lull.
There is a great deal of “and then magic happens” in the report. Everything from efficiency gains of the order of 30% to offshore wind with a long-term capacity factor of 50%.
20
Bernd, if you look at the site-energy.anero.id.au/wind- you find a lot of data about generation for coal, wind, hydro and even solar power. Specifically the wind turbines tend to operate in unison, even if they are 2,000 km. apart. Lately production has varied between 10 and 30% of capacity, and several times it has been below 400 MW (out of capacity of 3669 MW). For March capacity was 23% and this month it will be about the same.
10
Ohh yea!
“Solar photovoltaic at the household level is now cheaper than retail electricity prices (tariffs) in most industrialised countries. As such, it is now cost-effective for many households to produce their own power.
Wind power is now the cheapest technology worldwide for new power plants. This led to a huge global market for wind with 63,000MW of capacity added during 2015 – equivalent to installing a new turbine every 10 minutes”
Where on earth did they get their data from. Clearly they have not removed taxpayer subsidies or looked at the capital cost of turbines, solar or batteries. One despairs.
40
Wow! Just as when I brought up the Diesendorf renewable baseload report as a pi$$take, I am amazed that no one has realized I posted this 100% Renewable Energy report for the same reasons – humour + illustration of the mentality we are up against.
I thought that the report commissioners being GetUp! and Solar Citizens, the ridiculous summary points (eg 40 year lifetimes for coal plants, Germany vs NSW area) I extracted, along with the disclaimer for storage, grid upgrades etc being beyond the scope made it amply clear how preposterous the report is and how incredibly naive or dishonest those involved in any way with its publication must be.
The followup GreenPeace references I gave should have immediately indicated the satirical nature of my comments, let alone the IPCC reference. Anton almost picked it up when he said it was a practical joke – let’s lighten up, people. We’ll need to be in good spirits when the renewables lobby hits the MSM with this çrap and remember that Malcolm Turnbull was present for the launch of the Beyond Zero Emmissions policy launch.
40
***just wow to the final paras.
20 Apr: 7News: AFP: Is the 1.5C climate change target a mirage?
But scientists tasked with explaining how to get there are less than thrilled…
Some bridle against politicians meddling with the scientific agenda. Others insist the goal just can’t be reached.
“1.5 C is almost certainly not feasible without an overshoot,” said Peter Frumhoff, chief scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, expressing a view shared — if not frequently articulated — by climate experts.
The global economy simply cannot be weaned off fossil fuels quickly enough, they argue.
Joeri Rogelj, a climate modeller at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria agreed: “It will be very hard — if not impossible — to keep warming below 1.5 C during the entire 21st century.”…
And even if every oil-, gas- or coal-burning engine in the world were switched off tomorrow, lingering molecules of carbon pollution in the atmosphere would continue pushing temperatures up…
***Scientists critical of fudge were pressed by NGOs not to openly cast doubt on the 1.5 C goal at the Paris negotiations, according to a researcher who asked not to be named.
This, in other words, was where science and politics parted ways.
“Getting 1.5 C into the agreement was a moral target,” said (Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development in Dhaka).
“It’s our leverage, the whip we will use to hit everybody on the back so they can go faster.”
“Whether we achieve it or not is going down a dark track. From now on, it’s about raising ambition,” he added.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/31394873/is-the-1-5c-climate-change-target-a-mirage/
30
The warmist’s have no one to blame but themselves. They wouldn’t allow any debate on the issue (“the Science is settled”). The public are not completely stupid (IMHO). If a group pushing a certain agenda cannot stand up to even the smallest public scrutiny or scientific fact, through public forums or proper debates, then it can hardly claim the high ground.
50
Jo,
As you say of people inventing what sceptics do, “Steketee thinks skeptics are “selling” something”.
If sceptics are selling something, who pays them for the sale and how is it priced?
He is dead wrong to assume that. There’s no selling of anything, just injection of sceptical calculations done free. Your comments are spot on, thank you.
Geoff.
80
It seems we now have four (4) things that must not be mentioned at the dinner table: Religion, Politics, 9/11, and Climate Change. What is it, one wonders, that they all have in common? We’ll need a new shampoo. Something to get all that sand out of our hair.
Paul
10