EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:39 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1272 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 ... 85  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:51 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
Rut row number two.

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/01 ... 38279.html

Quote:
A Washington-state judge has left climate activists steaming after he ruled the ‘necessity defense’ couldn’t be used in the trial of an oil-pipeline saboteur. Ken Ward, an extreme activist and co-founder of Climate Disobedience Center, argued before Judge Michael E. Rickert he broke the law to “save the planet.” That didn’t play well with the Skagit County judge who also said he acknowledges there is a great deal of controversy over whether #Climate Change even exists.

Rickert said the “extent of what we’re doing to ourselves and our climate and our planet, there’s great controversy over that.” Those comments came after Ward presented a “necessity defense” in court, arguing that he was justified in his actions due to the “grave threat of climate change.” The judge is now coming under fire from activists for blocking the unusual defense, who argue the ‘#Science is settled’ and that the courts should recognize this consensus.


Well, it looks like the Climate Scientologists took a hit in the legal world. :-({|= :-({|=

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:47 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/31/u-s-scientific-integrity-rules-repudiate-the-un-climate-process/

Quote:
There’s nothing equivocal about these statements. When scientists produce a document that says one thing, but their findings get massaged and manipulated by the people upstairs, scientific integrity has been violated. That is the clear position of the US government.


Perhaps you need to take a look at what's going on in this country. :-$


You mean under the Trump administration? It is pretty bad.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:29 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
And, the beat goes on fence sitters.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/02/01/ ... xtremists/

Quote:
By JEFF STIER
The EPA just threw out five years of fracking safety research to appease green extremists. Although early drafts found no evidence that fracking has had a “widespread, systemic” impact on drinking water, the final report claims that there isn’t “enough information to make a broad conclusion.”
How absurd. An honest look at the science should have environmentalists waving the white flag in their fight against fracking. It’s time for both the EPA and green crusaders to quit this political charade and recognize that fracking technology has boosted the economy, helped wean America off imported oil and gas, and dramatically reduced CO2 emissions.
In 2015, a draft of the EPA’s report found that fracking operations have not “led to widespread, systemic impact on drinking water.” Since then, the underlying science in the report hasn’t changed. But the EPA, under pressure, adjusted its conclusion to suit critics to the left even of the administration, who would have been left without a leg to stand on in their efforts to sow doubt about fracking safety.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:18 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
And, the beat goes on fence sitters.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/02/01/ ... xtremists/

Quote:
By JEFF STIER
The EPA just threw out five years of fracking safety research to appease green extremists. Although early drafts found no evidence that fracking has had a “widespread, systemic” impact on drinking water, the final report claims that there isn’t “enough information to make a broad conclusion.”
How absurd. An honest look at the science should have environmentalists waving the white flag in their fight against fracking. It’s time for both the EPA and green crusaders to quit this political charade and recognize that fracking technology has boosted the economy, helped wean America off imported oil and gas, and dramatically reduced CO2 emissions.
In 2015, a draft of the EPA’s report found that fracking operations have not “led to widespread, systemic impact on drinking water.” Since then, the underlying science in the report hasn’t changed. But the EPA, under pressure, adjusted its conclusion to suit critics to the left even of the administration, who would have been left without a leg to stand on in their efforts to sow doubt about fracking safety.


Is it not the new administration which is purging information? Perhaps the assumptions made as to the reason are invalid and any data not supporting the energy industry is being deleted.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:18 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
And, the beat goes on fence sitters.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/02/01/ ... xtremists/

Quote:
By JEFF STIER
The EPA just threw out five years of fracking safety research to appease green extremists. Although early drafts found no evidence that fracking has had a “widespread, systemic” impact on drinking water, the final report claims that there isn’t “enough information to make a broad conclusion.”
How absurd. An honest look at the science should have environmentalists waving the white flag in their fight against fracking. It’s time for both the EPA and green crusaders to quit this political charade and recognize that fracking technology has boosted the economy, helped wean America off imported oil and gas, and dramatically reduced CO2 emissions.
In 2015, a draft of the EPA’s report found that fracking operations have not “led to widespread, systemic impact on drinking water.” Since then, the underlying science in the report hasn’t changed. But the EPA, under pressure, adjusted its conclusion to suit critics to the left even of the administration, who would have been left without a leg to stand on in their efforts to sow doubt about fracking safety.


Is it not the new administration which is purging information? Perhaps the assumptions made as to the reason are invalid and any data not supporting the energy industry is being deleted.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:04 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
And there is this fence sitters. Once again follow the money.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/04/ ... rocedures/

Quote:
They played fast and loose with the figures -NOAA whistleblower


Quote:
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.


Quote:
In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.


Quote:
Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.

Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’

The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.


This is becoming a hallmark of the Climate Scientologist. Nothing they do can ever be repeatable. By giving others enough data to do so gives others the very information detailing how they cheated, and evidence that what they are doing is not science.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:32 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2590
Location: Central Colorado
Thanks to people like "milton", mainly last century. Overpopulation and its demands produced industrialization, which, with the use of fossil fuels, became gross overpopulation of fire apes. Just like a couple other times in geologic history, the CO2 buildup hit 1.5*C, inducing methane turnover. We are now in process of methane runaway, possibly stoppable with a large super volcanic eruption(s) or equivalent for a couple years. Mass death of humans is not far off. The heat first kills our crops, then us. Some will be in bio- underground fortresses, and maybe last a thousand years down there. The effect produces 100% global 200,000 foot thick clouds rapidly with the abrupt heat gain, followed by no solar thermal gain for 100K years. Storms on the surface with atmospheric change to toxic, wipe out the remaining soil. There is the problem of H2S oceans, radioactive leaks and waste for the triple kill. It takes almost all life, and all on the surface, with several million years to evolve new surface life, and 30 million to reach maximum species diversity. It has been too late all this century to reduce population to long term sustainable (now, near zero), and to go near zero carbon. It was anti-any-nuclear who stopped our last chance with Clinton destroying great and ready plans for Gen 4 which could have replaced all other generations of nuclear and fossil fuels power, along with solar and other HGHG emissions free power. Now, everyone could die today and it would still go on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSnrDRU6_2g

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:54 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
Hey Johhny. Welcome back to the thread. Love your passion. =D>

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:00 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
And the beat goes on fence sitters.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... ealed.html

Quote:
Dr. John Bates, a former high level NOAA scientist, set off a furor by revealing that a recent NOAA paper, which claimed global warming hadn’t “paused” during the past 20 years, was fraudulent. The paper was timed to undergird Obama’s signing of the hugely expensive Paris climate agreement.

This is only a tiny fraction of the climate fraud.


Quote:
This is only a tiny fraction of the climate fraud.

Fortunately, high-tech research has finally sorted out the “mystery factor” in our recent climate changes—and it’s mostly not CO2. Even redoubling carbon dioxide, by itself, would raise earth’s temperature only 1.1 degree. That’s significant, but not dangerous.

CERN, the world’s top particle physics laboratory, just found that our big, abrupt climate changes are produced by variations in the sun’s activity. That’s the same sun the modelers had dismissed as “unchanging.” CERN says the sun’s variations interact with cosmic rays to create more or fewer of earth’s heat-shielding clouds. The IPCC had long admitted it couldn’t model clouds--and now the CERN experiment says the clouds are the earth’s thermostats!

In 2000, for example, the sun was strong, and few cosmic rays hit the earth. Therefore, skies were sunny, the earth warmed and crops grew abundantly. The Little Ice Age sun was far weaker and its heavy overcast clouds deflected more of the solar heat back into space. The earth went cold and the weather became highly unstable. Huge numbers of both humans and animals starved, due to extreme droughts, massive floods and untimely frosts.

We haven’t seen the likes of that extreme weather in the past 150 years!

The Old Masters paintings in the world’s museums are mute testimony to this cycling. The Medieval Warming’s paintings show mostly sunny skies. The Little Ice Age skies are shown as heavily overcast. London held ice fairs on the Thames—and once an elephant was led across on the river’s ice!

Henrick Svensmark, a Danish astrophysicist, proposed the cosmic ray-cloud connection in 2008, after ultraviolet light quickly produced huge numbers of tiny cloud seeds in his “cloud chamber.” The climate modelers dismissed Svensmark, saying his cloud seed particles were too small, and would just evaporate in the open air.

Now, CERN has unraveled the earth’s cloud chemistry--and confirmed Svensmark’s theory--with their Large Hadron Collider producing the “cosmic rays.” CERN found that the climate modelers totally failed to understand the interaction of electrically charged cloud particles created by the cosmic rays, which produced one or two orders of magnitude more clouds. The ionized clouds also reflected more heat back into space—and lasted longer. CERN’s lead author, Ken Carslaw, said in the CERN Courier (December 2016) that all the projections of the climate models should thus be revised downward.

But what about the Ice Age predictions of the 1970s, and the “parboiled planet” forecast by James Hansen in 1988? And why the “pause” over the past 20 years? Those events were produced by another, shorter, natural cycle that’s embroidered over the thousand-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. The Pacific Oscillation is only 60 years long, but it fooled us—and supposedly NOAA—into thinking each of those 30-year segments was a new permanent trend. Our media were supposed to give us a longer perspective, but didn’t.

CERN’s preliminary findings about the cloud/cosmic ray interaction were even published in the London Express in October of 2015. However, the rest of the world’s media ignored the story. They preferred scare headlines about polar bear extinction and New York City under water.

NOAA is guilty of publishing the “pausebuster study” by suddenly-retired Tom Karl. His paper adjusted top-quality new sea surface data from 3,800 ARGO floats to match poor data from ship’s “preheated” engine intakes. (Karl, Science, June 2015) It was rushed out just before Obama signed the Paris treaty.
The IPCC is guilty of ignoring any and all science that contradicted the CO2 theory.
The UN is guilty of giving the IPCC a mandate to find a “human cause” for the “unprecedented warming.”
They all ignored an earlier “unprecedented warming” from 1915–1940—a warming too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2.
All of this is all relatively new science. The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle wasn’t understood until the Greenland ice cap was cored in 1983. The satellites, with their more complete temperature coverage, didn’t fly until 1979. The Pacific Oscillation wasn’t recognized until 1996. The high-quality sea temperature data from the Argo floats—which Karl dismissed in his paper—has only been gathered since 2000.

But can we forgive the 25-year hyping of a CO2 theory based on a tiny fragment of time that ignored all the weather extremes of the past “Little Ice Ages”? NOAA didn’t tell us about the key Pacific Oscillation, even after it was recognized. Now evidence is emerging that the official climate statistics have been fraudulently altered all over the developed world, to make the past seem colder than it was. That “justified” the recent string of “hottest years.”

This was all created by the political Left. which so famously “cares more” about people. A U.K. Member of Parliament told us 20 years ago that he was astounded to have constituents demanding that he rise their taxes “to save the planet!” The Left has ridden that tax-gathering horse literally to death. Meanwhile:

Europe overpays for Russian gas, and so is burning more coal than ever.
London’s new smog is created by burning wood pellets instead of natural gas,because gas prices have tripled to pay “renewable” subsidies.
South Australia has suffered five recent electrical black-outs because it closed its last coal-fired power plant. (Their wind turbines don’t turn when the wind dies.) One blackout caused $1 billion in losses; molten steel hardened in the suddenly-dead furnaces.
Millions of Third World women die from tending open fires in their huts, for lack of kerosene or electricity. Their governments are denied financing for urgently needed coal-fired power plants when the world has ample coal.
The climate modelers made a perhaps-honest mistake by assuming a warmer world would hold more moisture in its atmosphere, thus amplifying the greenhouse effect. That’s how those guesses about radical future warmings were created. But NASA data have shown no increased atmospheric moisture. Nor did the government-sponsored modelers correct their mistake.

Instead, perhaps lured by big headlines and lavish government “research” grants, they continued to claim overheated disaster lay ahead. A skeptical House Science Committee subpoenaed Karl’s research data right after the fraud was published, but President Obama’s Commerce Secretary blocked the subpoena.

That’s unlikely to happen with Donald Trump in the White House. He’s already expressed his doubt about the CO2 theory, and his administration will likely pursue the Karl fraud even as it extols CERN’s new high-tech climate change findings.

The Left has demanded we pay proper attention to the science. Now it’s their turn.


And now its time for the Climate Scientologists to close their eyes. Cover their ears. And, open their mouths.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:00 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
And the beat goes on fence sitters.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... ealed.html

Quote:
Dr. John Bates, a former high level NOAA scientist, set off a furor by revealing that a recent NOAA paper, which claimed global warming hadn’t “paused” during the past 20 years, was fraudulent. The paper was timed to undergird Obama’s signing of the hugely expensive Paris climate agreement.

This is only a tiny fraction of the climate fraud.


Quote:
This is only a tiny fraction of the climate fraud.

Fortunately, high-tech research has finally sorted out the “mystery factor” in our recent climate changes—and it’s mostly not CO2. Even redoubling carbon dioxide, by itself, would raise earth’s temperature only 1.1 degree. That’s significant, but not dangerous.

CERN, the world’s top particle physics laboratory, just found that our big, abrupt climate changes are produced by variations in the sun’s activity. That’s the same sun the modelers had dismissed as “unchanging.” CERN says the sun’s variations interact with cosmic rays to create more or fewer of earth’s heat-shielding clouds. The IPCC had long admitted it couldn’t model clouds--and now the CERN experiment says the clouds are the earth’s thermostats!

In 2000, for example, the sun was strong, and few cosmic rays hit the earth. Therefore, skies were sunny, the earth warmed and crops grew abundantly. The Little Ice Age sun was far weaker and its heavy overcast clouds deflected more of the solar heat back into space. The earth went cold and the weather became highly unstable. Huge numbers of both humans and animals starved, due to extreme droughts, massive floods and untimely frosts.

We haven’t seen the likes of that extreme weather in the past 150 years!

The Old Masters paintings in the world’s museums are mute testimony to this cycling. The Medieval Warming’s paintings show mostly sunny skies. The Little Ice Age skies are shown as heavily overcast. London held ice fairs on the Thames—and once an elephant was led across on the river’s ice!

Henrick Svensmark, a Danish astrophysicist, proposed the cosmic ray-cloud connection in 2008, after ultraviolet light quickly produced huge numbers of tiny cloud seeds in his “cloud chamber.” The climate modelers dismissed Svensmark, saying his cloud seed particles were too small, and would just evaporate in the open air.

Now, CERN has unraveled the earth’s cloud chemistry--and confirmed Svensmark’s theory--with their Large Hadron Collider producing the “cosmic rays.” CERN found that the climate modelers totally failed to understand the interaction of electrically charged cloud particles created by the cosmic rays, which produced one or two orders of magnitude more clouds. The ionized clouds also reflected more heat back into space—and lasted longer. CERN’s lead author, Ken Carslaw, said in the CERN Courier (December 2016) that all the projections of the climate models should thus be revised downward.

But what about the Ice Age predictions of the 1970s, and the “parboiled planet” forecast by James Hansen in 1988? And why the “pause” over the past 20 years? Those events were produced by another, shorter, natural cycle that’s embroidered over the thousand-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. The Pacific Oscillation is only 60 years long, but it fooled us—and supposedly NOAA—into thinking each of those 30-year segments was a new permanent trend. Our media were supposed to give us a longer perspective, but didn’t.

CERN’s preliminary findings about the cloud/cosmic ray interaction were even published in the London Express in October of 2015. However, the rest of the world’s media ignored the story. They preferred scare headlines about polar bear extinction and New York City under water.

NOAA is guilty of publishing the “pausebuster study” by suddenly-retired Tom Karl. His paper adjusted top-quality new sea surface data from 3,800 ARGO floats to match poor data from ship’s “preheated” engine intakes. (Karl, Science, June 2015) It was rushed out just before Obama signed the Paris treaty.
The IPCC is guilty of ignoring any and all science that contradicted the CO2 theory.
The UN is guilty of giving the IPCC a mandate to find a “human cause” for the “unprecedented warming.”
They all ignored an earlier “unprecedented warming” from 1915–1940—a warming too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2.
All of this is all relatively new science. The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle wasn’t understood until the Greenland ice cap was cored in 1983. The satellites, with their more complete temperature coverage, didn’t fly until 1979. The Pacific Oscillation wasn’t recognized until 1996. The high-quality sea temperature data from the Argo floats—which Karl dismissed in his paper—has only been gathered since 2000.

But can we forgive the 25-year hyping of a CO2 theory based on a tiny fragment of time that ignored all the weather extremes of the past “Little Ice Ages”? NOAA didn’t tell us about the key Pacific Oscillation, even after it was recognized. Now evidence is emerging that the official climate statistics have been fraudulently altered all over the developed world, to make the past seem colder than it was. That “justified” the recent string of “hottest years.”

This was all created by the political Left. which so famously “cares more” about people. A U.K. Member of Parliament told us 20 years ago that he was astounded to have constituents demanding that he rise their taxes “to save the planet!” The Left has ridden that tax-gathering horse literally to death. Meanwhile:

Europe overpays for Russian gas, and so is burning more coal than ever.
London’s new smog is created by burning wood pellets instead of natural gas,because gas prices have tripled to pay “renewable” subsidies.
South Australia has suffered five recent electrical black-outs because it closed its last coal-fired power plant. (Their wind turbines don’t turn when the wind dies.) One blackout caused $1 billion in losses; molten steel hardened in the suddenly-dead furnaces.
Millions of Third World women die from tending open fires in their huts, for lack of kerosene or electricity. Their governments are denied financing for urgently needed coal-fired power plants when the world has ample coal.
The climate modelers made a perhaps-honest mistake by assuming a warmer world would hold more moisture in its atmosphere, thus amplifying the greenhouse effect. That’s how those guesses about radical future warmings were created. But NASA data have shown no increased atmospheric moisture. Nor did the government-sponsored modelers correct their mistake.

Instead, perhaps lured by big headlines and lavish government “research” grants, they continued to claim overheated disaster lay ahead. A skeptical House Science Committee subpoenaed Karl’s research data right after the fraud was published, but President Obama’s Commerce Secretary blocked the subpoena.

That’s unlikely to happen with Donald Trump in the White House. He’s already expressed his doubt about the CO2 theory, and his administration will likely pursue the Karl fraud even as it extols CERN’s new high-tech climate change findings.

The Left has demanded we pay proper attention to the science. Now it’s their turn.


And now its time for the Climate Scientologists to close their eyes. Cover their ears. And, open their mouths.


Political presentation over scientific publication .... and you want anyone to believe you have science supporting your flawed position?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:15 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
Just another example of the huge problems with renewable energy.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-austr ... SKBN16F2U3

Quote:
The rise of wind and solar power in Australia was supposed to be the death knell for coal use in the world's biggest exporter of the fossil fuel, but the shunned fuel is finding a new lease of life and may yet attract subsidies to keep the lights on.

Growth in electricity demand and a drop in supply since 2014 have strained the Australian grid, triggering outages amid heatwaves and storms. The worst - an eight-hour blackout in South Australia last year - crippled industry for up to two weeks and provoked public outrage.

Supplies are set to tighten with France's Engie SA closing Australia's dirtiest power station, Hazelwood, this month. That means the national electricity market will need to replace about 10,350 gigawatt hours of "baseload power" that can be called upon when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.


Quote:
"The blackout in South Australia was a real wake-up call when 1.7 million people went into the black," Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg told Reuters in an email, adding that security and affordability were the government's top energy priorities.

In the short term, the government and market operator will have to change the way the market prices electricity to put a premium on baseload power, generators and industrial users say.

Financial incentives are needed for one or more generators to supply baseload power when needed, companies including Origin Energy and BHP Billiton have said in recommendations to a federal review into the security of the national power market, due to be completed by mid-year.

"It needs to be enough to enable those (baseload plants) to run. They may run more frequently or they need to be running on reserves so they can start quickly," Origin Chief Executive Frank Calabria said recently.

The upshot for consumers? Power bills will have to rise further, in a country where household electricity prices have roughly tripled since 2000.


It always ends up the people pay more. Start this renewable crap and electricity prices triple, and more and more people are thrust into situations of energy poverty. Tell me again who is for the little guy?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:53 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Just another example of the huge problems with renewable energy.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-austr ... SKBN16F2U3

Quote:
The rise of wind and solar power in Australia was supposed to be the death knell for coal use in the world's biggest exporter of the fossil fuel, but the shunned fuel is finding a new lease of life and may yet attract subsidies to keep the lights on.

Growth in electricity demand and a drop in supply since 2014 have strained the Australian grid, triggering outages amid heatwaves and storms. The worst - an eight-hour blackout in South Australia last year - crippled industry for up to two weeks and provoked public outrage.

Supplies are set to tighten with France's Engie SA closing Australia's dirtiest power station, Hazelwood, this month. That means the national electricity market will need to replace about 10,350 gigawatt hours of "baseload power" that can be called upon when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.


Quote:
"The blackout in South Australia was a real wake-up call when 1.7 million people went into the black," Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg told Reuters in an email, adding that security and affordability were the government's top energy priorities.

In the short term, the government and market operator will have to change the way the market prices electricity to put a premium on baseload power, generators and industrial users say.

Financial incentives are needed for one or more generators to supply baseload power when needed, companies including Origin Energy and BHP Billiton have said in recommendations to a federal review into the security of the national power market, due to be completed by mid-year.

"It needs to be enough to enable those (baseload plants) to run. They may run more frequently or they need to be running on reserves so they can start quickly," Origin Chief Executive Frank Calabria said recently.

The upshot for consumers? Power bills will have to rise further, in a country where household electricity prices have roughly tripled since 2000.


It always ends up the people pay more. Start this renewable crap and electricity prices triple, and more and more people are thrust into situations of energy poverty. Tell me again who is for the little guy?


It is not about the "little guy" as much as it is about not screwing up the climate, but you cannot seem to get past politics at all.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:08 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
Because this is a political issue.

http://principia-scientific.org/federal ... evelation/

Quote:
The Commerce Department is investigating claims by one of its former scientists that an Obama administration climate change study was rushed out using “unverified” data.

Republican lawmakers are waiting for an update on the federal probe, which was initiated a month ago. But a Commerce Department spokesman declined to comment on any of its specifics.


“They will be holding a third-party investigation into the process related to this study,” said a senior GOP aide on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has begun its own probe into what it describes as agency “misconduct” involving the scientific process.

The committee’s chairman, Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, said last month that the new “revelations raise additional questions as to whether the science at [Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] is objective and free from political interference.”


Quote:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration briefly stated last month that it would be looking into statements made by one of its former employees, John Bates, who until last year was one of two officials in charge of vetting all NOAA data before publication. It said it “takes seriously any allegation that its internal processes have not been followed and will review the matter appropriately,” a spokesman said.

A furor broke out last month when Bates told the British newspaper the Mirror on Sunday that a report refuting previously released scientific data on a global warming hiatus had not crossed his desk before publication and therefore was “unverified.” The global warming hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 in which the rise in global temperatures had been slowing.

Conservative groups and Republican lawmakers had criticized the 2015 study as a politicized tool used to justify the goals of former President Barack Obama’s climate change agenda, noting that it was released during the same year as the Paris climate change talks.

Bates said the lead author of the warming hiatus study, Thomas Karl, is guilty of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:42 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Because this is a political issue.

http://principia-scientific.org/federal ... evelation/

Quote:
The Commerce Department is investigating claims by one of its former scientists that an Obama administration climate change study was rushed out using “unverified” data.

Republican lawmakers are waiting for an update on the federal probe, which was initiated a month ago. But a Commerce Department spokesman declined to comment on any of its specifics.


“They will be holding a third-party investigation into the process related to this study,” said a senior GOP aide on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has begun its own probe into what it describes as agency “misconduct” involving the scientific process.

The committee’s chairman, Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, said last month that the new “revelations raise additional questions as to whether the science at [Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] is objective and free from political interference.”


Quote:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration briefly stated last month that it would be looking into statements made by one of its former employees, John Bates, who until last year was one of two officials in charge of vetting all NOAA data before publication. It said it “takes seriously any allegation that its internal processes have not been followed and will review the matter appropriately,” a spokesman said.

A furor broke out last month when Bates told the British newspaper the Mirror on Sunday that a report refuting previously released scientific data on a global warming hiatus had not crossed his desk before publication and therefore was “unverified.” The global warming hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 in which the rise in global temperatures had been slowing.

Conservative groups and Republican lawmakers had criticized the 2015 study as a politicized tool used to justify the goals of former President Barack Obama’s climate change agenda, noting that it was released during the same year as the Paris climate change talks.

Bates said the lead author of the warming hiatus study, Thomas Karl, is guilty of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”


No, it is NOT a political issue because the bulk of the scientific community is in agreement on the science. This is a political effort to find anything to claim there is a problem with that science because of the beliefs of one group.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:26 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/03/ ... e-big-lie/

Quote:
The climate scam depends on fake temperature data, rewriting history, hiding the past, using flawed logic, and constantly lying to the public – day in and day out.


Yep. Pretty much sums it all up. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1272 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 ... 85  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group