The Myth of the German Renewable Energy 'Miracle' - "There is a widespread belief that Germany has demonstrated that large amounts of intermittent renewables can be easily integrated without adversely impacting the reliability of the bulk power grid. This article has noted that such a conclusion is not supportable: 1) Germany has not integrated as high a level of renewables as many suppose, 2) Germany is part of and relies upon a larger integrated grid which contains even lower levels of renewable resources and 3) Germany has incurred nontrivial transmission costs, reliability concerns, and marketplace dislocations associated with their efforts to integrate renewables."
Climate censorship is worse than you think - "The CPO reprimanded Peterson for, among other things, remarks he made on a Joe Rogan podcast concerning climate-change policy, a subject that bears no relationship to his clinical practice as a psychologist. Many observers have pointed out the chilling effect of the CPO ruling: members of any professional association (engineers, lawyers, accountants, medical professionals, teachers, etc.) will now hesitate to speak up on matters of public interest, even if these have nothing whatsoever to do with their professional activities. Even worse (if possible) have been the tactics used to discredit Peterson’s views. Consider an article by Josh Marcus in Britain’s Independent noting that Peterson supported his climate views by referring to a 2021 book (“Hot Talk, Cold Science”), one of whose co-authors, S. Fred Singer, was the founder of an organization that received some funding in the past from the Heartland Institute, which in turn received some funding in the past from Exxon. Conclusion: Peterson’s views are therefore to be completely discounted. Worse than merely an ad hominem attack, this is guilt by extremely indirect association. Moreover, Marcus failed to mention that Singer was a Princeton physics Ph.D., that his co-authors have Ph.D.s in atmospheric physics and climatology and that their book includes two forwards by Princeton physicists, one a former president of the National Academy of Sciences. Concerning the link with dirty fossil fuel money, the Heartland Institute notes, “When Exxon was a donor to Heartland, from 1998 to 2006, its contributions of about $50,000 never exceeded more than five percent of our annual budget.” Needless to say, Peterson’s views should not automatically be accepted because of the credentials of the authors he cited. On the other hand, they should not automatically be dismissed for the reasons the Independent invokes — even if they were true. Like any propositions about science or public policy, they should be discussed and debated openly and publicly and evaluated on their merits. Peterson makes no claim to being a climate scientist. But intelligent, well-informed lay persons who have clearly done their homework must not be discouraged from participating in open debate. These days, however, censorship extends not only to intelligent lay persons such as Peterson but also to views that have passed peer review and been published in prestigious academic journals... a group of Italian scientists published a paper in The European Physical Journal Plus that, relying on official data, assessed trends in extreme weather events. They concluded — correctly given the data but not politically correctly — that there are no noticeable trends in the frequency or severity of extreme weather events in recent years. The article initially passed peer review and was published in 2022. Then, a group of academics including Michael Mann of Climategate fame, complained to the editors, who retracted the article. The second case is a good example of the chilling effect of censorship. Patrick Brown, co-director of the climate and energy team at the Breakthrough Institute and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, published (with co-authors) a paper in Nature on California’s wildfires entitled “Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California.” More important than the contents of the paper are what it left out, however. In an article in the Free Press, Bari Weiss’ new media company, Brown wrote, “I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell … And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain pre-approved narratives — even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.”... Citizens are expected to vote concerning matters such as climate-change policies. They benefit from exposure to all sides of these issues. Those who would instead deny climate dissent need to recall a famous line from John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty: “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”"
If you don't Trust the Science, you are a Climate Change Denier
EXPOSED: Climate change documentary 'The Year Earth Changed' used photoshopped images - "The wildly popular climate change documentary "The Year Earth Changed" has now been thoroughly debunked by various sources, showing that, among other things, it used doctored images... In the trailer itself put out by the BBC, a man says on camera at the 38-second mark, "For the first time in a lifetime, we can see the Himalayas", which shows the same shot as in the video above. One can clearly see the same people dressed in the same clothes (pink t-shirt, blue t-shirt) inside the frame"
The One Person Who Shows Just How Unhinged Global Warming Alarmism Has Become - "Greta Thunberg has been thrust into the spotlight, tagged as the child who will lead us away from our inevitable climate disaster — if only we let her. Adults hang on her words, regard her as an omniscient oracle, insist that we are in the presence of our savior... But then if that voice had instead been telling us capitalism has lifted more than a billion out of poverty, Thunberg would have no forum. Though true, it doesn’t fit the narrative. Because her message does fit, this child mystic of Sweden has been allowed to speak at the Davos economic conference, in Britain’s Parliament, and at a United Nations convention. She’s inspired a global school walkout and protested in front of Sweden’s legislature when she should have been in school. The kids at Vox have declared that when watching Thunberg speak, “it’s hard not to think of Cassandra, the brash young warrior of Greek myth who beseeched Apollo for the gift of prophecy.” The more reasonable among us see a young lady who’s being exploited by an intractable, alarmist movement and a set of parents craving, what, relevance maybe. The Voxers are correct though in observing that “Thunberg’s fearless rhetoric has proven to be enormously influential.” And therein is the problem... When Thunberg says “we need to rapidly remove all fossil fuels from our everyday life and leave them in the ground,” that “we must remember that this is above all an emergency — not primarily an opportunity to create new green economic growth. We need a whole new way of thinking,” she is doing nothing more than following the alarmist handbook. There’s no revelation there, no new words from Heaven. Just the tired, unoriginal rhetoric we’ve endured for years... Of course Thunberg, her handlers, and fanatic followers will count our commentary as an attack on her. It’s a cheap way to deflect and invalidate legitimate criticism. In fact, they’ve even dared doubters to speak. In The Guardian’s recent fawning coverage, Thunberg said “I think that as long as they go after me personally with insults and conspiracy theories then that is good. It proves that they don’t have any arguments.” Actually, skeptics and lukewarmers, even the “deniers,” have arguments. And they are compelling.
To start with, the temperature record is unreliable. This blogger has it exactly right when he says: “The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.”
The data used to reach the “consensus” that man’s fossil fuel habits are causing the planet to overheat have been doctored.
The models on which the entire edifice is built have been consistently wrong.
Predictions that storms would become more common and more destructive have also been wrong.
Those pushing the hardest for extreme measures to “fight” global warming have been hiding their true agenda, which is to dismantle and replace capitalism. Some are even suggesting that the “fight” is an opening to establish authoritarian control.
Earth’s climate has always changed and nothing is occurring today outside of the historical variability.
Carbon dioxide, a weak greenhouse gas, is one of many variables that affect climate.
Science does not work on “consensus,” nor is it ever “settled.”
Claims that 97% of scientists agree that man is causing climate change have been debunked.
Man’s use of fossil fuels has yielded unprecedented human progress."
Greta Thunberg pleads not guilty after arrest at London protest - "The 20-year-old was detained by police on Oct. 17 after she and dozens of demonstrators locked arms to obstruct the entrances to a hotel where an oil and gas conference was taking place... As she left the court building in central London, a small group of climate demonstrators chanted "Climate protest is not a crime"... She appeared in court alongside four other protesters who all pleaded not guilty... Before her arrest in Britain, she has this year been detained by police or removed from protests in Sweden, Norway and Germany."
Good luck to anyone blockading a climate change conference
Climate activist Thunberg flogged for 'crush Zionism' chant - "Footage showing climate activist Greta Thunberg chanting “crush Zionism” at a recent pro-Palestinian rally in Sweden is provoking harsh-worded criticism of her by prominent Jewish environmentalists. The actions by Thunberg, whom many regard as a symbol of the environmentalist movement, reflect how “large parts of ‘the left’ or ‘progressives’ have been intellectually captured by a naive, distorted and frankly bigoted anti-Zionism,” Nigel Savage, a UK-born environmental activist and founder of Jewish environmental nonprofit organization Hazon, tells The Times of Israel... Alon Tal, a former Israeli lawmaker and a prominent environmental studies scientist, says that Thunberg has had “a historic role in raising global awareness about climate change,” but has “misused her stature to promote racist, violent positions.” A Swedish 20-year-old who dropped out of school in 2018 to pursue a full-time activism career against what she warns is an impending climate-related crisis, Thunberg is a vocal supporter of Palestinians and has posted photos of herself with signs supporting Gaza, including ones reading: “Stop the Holocaust” and “Jews for the liberation of Palestine.”"
We won’t stop speaking out about Gaza’s suffering – there is no climate justice without human rights | Greta Thunberg and Fridays for Future Sweden
People dying actually reduces carbon emissions, so
Why do left wing positions always come in a package?
How the 'octopus' became a symbol of anti-semitism and landed Greta Thunberg in trouble - "Climate activist Greta Thunberg has deleted a pro-Palestine social media post after critics claimed a stuffed blue octopus visible in the photo could be viewed as an 'anti-Semitic' symbol."
Greta Thunberg briefly interrupted by man on stage at climate protest in Amsterdam - "Climate activist Greta Thunberg was briefly interrupted Sunday by a man who approached her on stage after she invited a Palestinian and an Afghan woman to speak at a climate protest in the Dutch capital... a man came onto the stage and told her: “I have come here for a climate demonstration, not a political view,” before he was ushered off the stage."
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change - "The 97% number was popularized by two articles, the first by Naomi Oreskes, now Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, and the second by a group of authors led by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland. Both papers were based on analyses of earlier publications. Other analyses and surveys arrive at different, often lower, numbers depending in part on how support for the concept was defined and on the population surveyed. This public discussion was started by Oreskes’ brief 2004 article, which included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords “global climate change.” The article says “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” of anthropogenic global warming. Although this article makes no claim to a specific number, it is routinely described as indicating 100% agreement and used as support for the 97% figure. In a 2007 book chapter, Oreskes infers that the lack of expressed dissent “demonstrates that any remaining professional dissent is now exceedingly minor.” The chapter revealed that there were about 235 papers in the 2004 article, or 25%, that endorsed the position. An additional 50% were interpreted to have implicitly endorsed, primarily on the basis that they discussed evaluation of impacts. Authors addressing impacts might believe that the Earth is warming without believing it is anthropogenic. In the article, Oreskes said some authors she counted "might believe that current climate change is natural." It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it. On that basis, I find that this study does not support the 97% number. The most influential and most debated article was the 2013 paper by Cook, et al., which popularized the 97% figure. The authors used methodology similar to Oreskes but based their analysis on abstracts rather than full content. I do not intend to reopen the debate over this paper. Instead, let’s consider it along with some of the numerous other surveys available. Reviews of published surveys were published in 2016 by Cook and his collaborators and by Richard S. J. Tol, Professor of Economics at the University of Sussex. The 2016 Cook paper, which reviews 14 published analyses and includes among its authors Oreskes and several authors of the papers shown in the chart below, concludes that the scientific consensus “is robust, with a range of 90%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology.” The chart shows the post-2000 opinions summarized in Table 1 of the paper. Dates given are those of the survey, not the publication date. I’ve added a 2016 survey of meteorologists from George Mason University and omitted the Oreskes article. The classification of publishing and non-publishing is that used by Cook and his collaborators. These categories are intended to be measures of how active the scientists in the sample analyzed have been in writing peer-reviewed articles on climate change. Because of different methodology, that information is not available in all of the surveys. The categorization should be considered an approximation. The chart shows that over half the surveys in the publishing category and all the surveys in the non-publishing category are below 97%. Cook is careful to describe his 2013 study results as being based on “climate experts.” Political figures and the popular press are not so careful. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly characterized it as 97% of scientists. Kerry has gone so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position... it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false. In the strict sense, the 97% consensus is false, even when limited to climate scientists. The 2016 Cook review found the consensus to be “shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists.” One survey found it to be 84%. Continuing to claim 97% support is deceptive. I find the 97% consensus of climate scientists to be overstated. An important consideration in this discussion is that we are attempting to define a single number to represent a range of opinions which have many nuances. To begin with, as Oreskes says, “often it is challenging to determine exactly what the authors of the paper[s] do think about global climate change.” In addition, published surveys vary in methodology. They do not ask the same questions in the same format, are collected by different sampling methods, and are rated by different individuals who may have biases. These issues are much discussed in the literature on climate change, including in the articles discussed here. The range of opinions and the many factors affecting belief in anthropogenic climate change cannot be covered here. The variety of opinion can be illustrated by one graph from the 2013 repeat of the Bray and von Storch survey showing the degree of belief that recent or future climate change is due to or will be caused by human activity. A value of 1 indicates not convinced and a value of 7 is very much convinced. The top three values add to 81%, roughly in the range of several other surveys."
Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energy technologies: The German experience - "The allure of an environmentally benign, abundant, and cost-effective energy source has led an increasing number of industrialized countries to back public financing of renewable energies. Germany’s experience with renewable energy promotion is often cited as a model to be replicated elsewhere, being based on a combination of far-reaching energy and environmental laws that stretch back nearly two decades. This paper critically reviews the centerpiece of this effort, the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), focusing on its costs and the associated implications for job creation and climate protection. We argue that German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio. To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security."
The Myth of Green Energy Jobs: The European Experience - "Spain has long been considered a leader in the drive to renewable power. Indeed, Obama singled out Spain as an example in a 2009 speech...
Since 2000, Spain spent 571,138 euros on each green job, including subsidies of more than 1 million euros per job in the wind industry.
The programs creating those jobs destroyed nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy (2.2 jobs destroyed for every green job created).
The high cost of electricity mainly affects production costs and levels of employment in metallurgy, nonmetallic mining and food processing, and beverage and tobacco industries.
Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs elsewhere in the economy on average.
These costs do not reflect Spain’s particular approach but rather the nature of schemes to promote renewable energy sources.
Spain has found its foray into renewable energy to be unsustainable... And then, there is the matter of corruption... A similar situation has played out in Italy, also a leader in wind and solar-power deployment. A study performed by Luciano Lavecchia and Carlo Stagnaro of Italy’s Bruno Leoni Institute found an even worse situation...
'the same amount of capital that creates one job in the green sector, would create 6.9 or 4.8 if invested in the industry or the economy in general'... The researchers also found that the vast majority of green jobs created were temporary...
[In Germany,] Rather than bringing economic benefits in terms of lower-cost energy and a proliferation of green-energy jobs, the implementation of wind and solar power raised household energy rates by 7.5 percent. Further, while greenhouse gas emissions were abated, the cost was astonishingly high: over $1,000 per ton for solar power, and over $80 per ton for wind power. Given that the carbon price in the European Trading System was about $19 per ton at the time, greenhouse gas emissions from wind and solar were not great investments...
Denmark can only produce and consume as much wind power as it does due to a convenient circumstance: neighboring countries have a lot of hydro power that can quickly and effectively balance the flow of electricity on its energy grid, allowing it to export surplus wind capacity. “Denmark manages to keep the electricity systems balanced due to having the benefit of its particular neighbors and their electricity mix. Norway and Sweden provide Denmark, Germany and Netherlands access to significant amounts of fast, short term balancing reserve, via interconnectors. They effectively act as Denmark’s ‘electricity storage batteries.’... the CEPOS study found that Danish consumers are the ones who take it on the chin. Denmark’s electricity prices are the highest in the entire European Union. And the greenhouse gas reduction benefits? Slim to none, since the exported wind power replaces hydro power, which does not produce significant greenhouse gas emissions. The wind power consumed in Denmark does displace some fossil-fuel emissions, but at some cost: $124 per ton, nearly six times the price on the European Trading System. Regarding green jobs, CEPOS found “that the effect of the government subsidy has been to shift employment from more productive employment in other sectors to less productive employment in the wind industry. As a consequence, Danish GDP is approximately 1.8 billion DKK ($270 million) lower than it would have been if the wind sector work force was employed elsewhere.” Not surprisingly, Denmark is also finding renewable power unsustainable and is backing away from the technology...
the UK and Scotland have fared no better than the other countries discussed above in their pursuit of the new green-energy/green-jobs economy, as a recent report by consultancy Verso Economics points out. The study is particularly interesting because its methodology is touted as superior to the methodology used in the Spanish and Italian studies. Verso uses what economists refer to as “input/output” tables to estimate the number of jobs that were foregone in the UK general economy in favor of the green jobs “created” through government subsidies... While the UK and Scotland may have avoided the problems of corruption that afflicted Spain and Italy, they learned something that the warmer countries did not: wind turbines can freeze in winter."
From 2011
Woke eco-protesters offered therapy for 'climate change stress'
Too bad it won't solve their neuroses over climate change, but encourage them
Jury clears climate protesters of causing damage to HSBC London HQ - "Nine climate protesters have been cleared by a jury of causing £500,000 worth of criminal damage to the windows at the headquarters of HSBC bank in London. The women, who were all taking action as members of Extinction Rebellion, sang and chanted as they shattered the custom-made glass windows with hammers and chisels at about 7am on 22 April 2021... Opening the case, Sally Hobson, prosecuting, said: “They accept that on 22 April 2021, they went to the HSBC building armed with hammers and chisels and they also accept that they used those tools to break the windows – they were responsible for the damage. “The value of the damage caused is in the region of £500,000 and additional security measures caused further expenditure so as to ensure damage was not caused again. “Although the defendants accept they caused the damage, they deny that their actions amount to criminal conduct. Simply put, the damage was caused during a protest and the defendants say that they were lawfully justified in doing what they did. “We say that whatever the purpose behind them causing the damage there was no lawful excuse for doing so. It was, we say, unlawful conduct outside of a lawful protest.”"
Good luck causing damage if it's a cause the left disapproves of
Ten years on, and we haven’t learned a thing from “Climategate” - "Every layperson who identifies as an alarmism skeptic has his or her own pivotal moment, and that idiotic “news” story in the Globe was mine. When reporters and editors act like deer in the headlights in the reception and dissemination of demonstrably impossible “information,” it’s clear evidence that they have been gripped by a socially contagious virus. These are the people who in the 19th century would have believed tulip bulb prices were never going to peak, even if every single family on the planet had enough tulip bulbs to fill a half-acre garden. The late writer Michael Crichton, author of the best-selling 2004 techno-thriller, “State of Fear,” was one of the first independent students of environmentalism to define environmentalism as a “religion,” and to observe that its principal characteristic was to cater to the state of alarm he believed is an inherent human need. Its dogmatists act as though they have been appointed Morals Police. And they do not take kindly to dissent. Al Gore, whose 2006 documentary film An Inconvenient Truth was received with uncritical awe, (one of my friends, normally very brainy, described it as a “religious experience”) was later found by a UK court to contain “nine key scientific errors.” It was deemed rife with “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush” and the judge ruled that the “apocalyptic vision” presented made it not an impartial scientific analysis, but a “political film.” He continues to hector the world as though that never happened from the depths of a home whose electricity kilowatt hours exceed twenty times the national average. In 2007, environmental guru David Suzuki stormed out of a Toronto radio station interview when the host suggested global warming was not yet a “totally settled issue.” The incident revealed the mindset of the enviro-ayatollahs. (We see its 16-year-old version in little Pied Piper leader of the Children’s Crusade Greta “how-dare-you” Thunberg.) Suzuki perceived the radio host as a blasphemer, unworthy of his rational rebuttal. Suzuki actually felt enviro-infidels should be literally suppressed, and even opined that politicians who aren’t on board with his views should go to prison. You’d think a guy that far down the rabbit hole would be minding his own enviro P’s and Q’s, but like Al Gore, his real estate portfolio is humongous and his carbon footprint immense. Ordinary Canadians were afraid to criticize Suzuki, but he got his comeuppance in 2013 in Australia when, speaking to an audience of actual scientist who knew their stuff, he revealed his ignorance about actual climate data. I confess to a very satisfying hour of Schadenfreude in watching him make him a fool of himself on camera. Thankfully, hopefully feeling a bit chastened, he retired from the scene in 2014... Let me offer a word of advice to my fellow non-scientists who think they do not deserve to have a voice in this discussion for lack of credentials. Do not allow yourself to be intimidated by those who wield the scimitar of “authority” to speak on this issue because you are not a “peer-reviewed” PhD or because you don’t cite “primary sources.” You’ll notice they don’t scold Greta Thunberg for her reliance on others."
