By Paul Homewood
From Stop These Things:
When the wind industry and its worshippers start chanting their mantras about the ‘wonders’ of wind, it isn’t long before they start preaching about the examples purportedly set by the Europeans; and, in particular, the Nordic nations.
That the great wind power fraud was driven by Denmark’s struggling turbine maker, Vestas probably has a fair bit to do with the worshippers’ fanatic-cult-like veneration of Scandinavia.
But, hold the phone?
It seems that economics works in precisely the same fashion in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway, as just about everywhere else (save Cuba and North Korea, say?).
When you’re trying to sell a ‘product’ with NO commercial value, the ‘business’ – for want of a better word – can only be about what you can extract from gullible/compliant governments (and unwitting power consumers), in the form of massive and endless subsidies.
Now, in the wind industry’s heartland, the Danes too have rumbled the fact that the wind really isn’t ‘free’, as the wind cult claims. Oh no.
Worshipping the Wind Gods comes at a staggering cost, as Danish households and businesses have fast come to realise.
As with everywhere else, power prices matter to consumers in the same way votes matter to politicians. The mounting anger of the former has forced a panicked retreat by the latter: Denmark’s Climate and Energy Lars Christian Lilleholt has just slashed support for offshore wind projects in an effort to cut billions of Danish kroner from the cost to power consumers of being forced to perpetually subsidise wind power.
After more than 40 years of promising to stand on its own 2 feet, the Danish wind industry is still (surprise, surprise) wholly dependent on massive subsidies to survive.
Denmark’s leading Daily, Jyllands Posten, exasperated at the need for endless subsidies and “lies about the economic competitiveness of the renewables market”, is demanding an end to the electricity tax that retail customers pay to fund them (referred to as the Public Service Obligation – ‘PSO’).
Adding to the Dane’s lament about crippling power bills is the fact that they are surrounded by thousands of these things, which drive their neighbours to despair – just like everywhere else – with, as the Editor of the Jyllands Posten calls it, their “destructive, low-frequency noise”.
Thousands of angry wind farm neighbours and runaway power bills make for a politically toxic cocktail, as these reports lay bare.
Read the full account from Jyllands Posten here.
By Paul Homewood
Most people will have been unaware of the letter to the Times last week, which attempted to pressurise the editor into stopping publishing articles in the least bit sceptical of establishment climate science.
Fortunately, Booker has widened the debate:
By Paul Homewood
We know that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) does not always reflect what is actually in the scientific chapters. But evidence is now emerging that the US State Dept has attempted to influence what was written in both the SPM and chapters.
Ron Arnold has this damning essay on CFACT:
Many have suspected that U.S. political intervention in climate science has corrupted the outcome. The new emergence of an old 1995 document from the U.S. State Department to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms those suspicions, or at least gives the allegation credence enough to ask questions.
It’s troubling that a FOIA lawsuit came up empty – “no such correspondence in our files” – when the old 1995 document was requested from the U.S. State Department late last year. This raises a certain ironic question: If I have a copy of your document, how come you don’t?”
State’s response is also somewhat unbelievable because the document that fell into my hands showed State’s date-stamp, the signature of a State Department official and the names of persons still living – along with 30 pages of detailed instructions on how to change the IPCC’s science document and the summary for policymakers.
The document itself consists of a three-page cover letter to Sir John Houghton, head of IPCC Working Group I (Science), from Day Mount, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Acting, Environment and Development, United States Department of State, along with the thirty-page instruction set with line-by-line “suggestions,” written by scientist Robert Watson and others.
Among the more revealing tidbits is a remark scolding a scientist for being honest about the weakness of aerosol forcing data: “We clearly cannot use aerosol forcing as the trigger of our smoking gun, and then make a generalized appeal to uncertainty to exclude these effects from the forward-looking modeling analysis.”
One instruction was to change a correct statement about warming rates into a flat lie: “Change ‘continue to rise’ to ‘rise by even greater amounts’ to provide a sense of magnitude of the extended change.”
The entire document is too convoluted and technical to summarize here, so it is posted here in PDF form for your detailed examination. The document posted here is unchanged and unaltered in any way from exactly what I received from a well known and credible source that must remain anonymous to avoid harm or retribution.
There is evidence that the document is authentic based on a specific mention in the 2000 Hoover Institution report by S. Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz, “Climate Policy—From Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000—and Beyond.”
The 1995 document raises 2016 questions about the State Department’s actions in the subsequent United National IPCC Assessment Reports. What did they do? Where are the correspondence and instructions to change the science in all the IPCC Assessments? What is the Obama State Department doing to corrupt climate science to its forward its radical social and political agenda? Some of that is obvious. It’s the clandestine part we need to know.
I don’t expect our government to answer truthfully. If they did, they might have to start a RICO investigation of themselves.
Read the State Department document and decide for yourself whether these questions are worth asking.
Robert Watson’s name crops up a lot. He has filled various roles in the climate and environmental establishment down the years, including the World Bank and DEFRA. He was chairman of the IPCC from 1997 to 2002, and is currently Director of Strategic Development at the Tyndall Centre.
Andrew Revkin once described him as "outspoken advocate of the idea that human actions—mainly burning coal and oil—are contributing to global warming and must be changed to avert environmental upheavals." Which does not say much for his scientific objectivity!
The document that Ron Arnold links to has a lot of technical stuff, but I spotted some interesting snippets.
By Paul Homewood
In an energy news round up:
GWPF carry a report from Germany’s Wirtschaft Woche:
Because of the boom of renewable energy, more and more wind turbines have to be switched off. The reason is power overloading. The network operators must turn down electricity generated from windmills when their power threatens to clog the network. Originally, this was intended only as an emergency measure. The operators of wind and solar parks, however, are being subsidised for electricity that is not produced.
For the grid operator Tennet alone, these costs added EUR 329 million in 2015 – two and a half times as much as in the previous year. The other network operators 50Hertz, Amprion and EnBW had a combined cost of 150 million euros, according to a survey of Wirtschaftswoche among the four network operators in Germany.
No surprise then that electricity in Germany is more expensive than ever, as Die Welt reports:
The online German national daily Die Welt has a piece by business journalist Holger Zschäpitz on Germany’s sky-high, ever climbing electricity prices.
Awhile ago it looked as if prices had finally stabilized. But now Zschäpitz writes that German electricity prices, already among the highest in the world, have jumped once again.
To put the situation in perspective he writes: “Power consumers are now more burdened than automobile drivers” — who are brutally taxed to begin with. In Germany, even in these times of rock-bottom petroleum prices, motorists still cough up some 5 euros ($5.60) every single US gallon for gasoline they buy. Recently, proposals have been made to tax large cars even more, and to massively subsidize electric cars (which would be forced to charge up on the exorbitantly expensive electricity).
According to a recent analysis, writes Zschäpitz, “Consumers are now paying more for their power than ever before” — some 30.27 euro cents per kilowatt hour. Families today are paying 21% more for electricity than they did 5 years ago.
So what is driving the rapid upward price spiral?
Zschäpitz reports that it’s due mostly to the “Energiewende” – Germany’s push away from nuclear and fossil generated power to renewables such as wind, solar and biogas. Also driving the price are the energy price breaks that are granted to big power consumers, and liability costs for offshore wind parks. Moreover Zschäpitz reports that consumers are also forced to pick up the tab for upgrading the power grid so that it is able to handle the wildly fluctuating power supply from wind and sun.
In the meantime, Germany’s CO2 emissions have been rising, and thus consumers are not really getting anything for the massive amounts of money.
To illustrate the distortion gripping the German power market, Zschäpitz tells readers that today only 27% of the power price is made up of “pure raw material costs”. The electricity production cost by itself has in fact “fallen by 25% over the past few years“. However this cost reduction has been offset and more by other feed-in and grid operating surcharges levied as a result of the Energiewende. This leads Die Welt’s Zschäpitz to conclude:
“Thus power consumers are now more burdened with state taxes and fees than automobile drivers.”
For relief, power consumers do have the option of switching to private power providers, and doing so is non-problematic, Zschäpitz writes. However one thing is sure: Electricity prices are expected to keep rising.
Meanwhile, Tata Steel boss hits out at UK energy prices in front of the Business Select Committee:
GEORGE OSBORNE risks killing off British manufacturing with sky-high green taxes and business rates – the Indian boss of the Port Talbot steelworks blasted today.
Tata Steel chief Bimlendra Jha said his UK business would be MAKING money if it had Germany’s electricity prices.
And he told MPs that the Government’s existing policies – such as eco taxes which send energy costs through the roof – meant it was almost impossible for firms “bleeding money” to recover.
(Readers may recall that Germany took the decision to protect its own energy intensive industry from the costs of the Energiewende).
By Paul Homewood
As a footnote to the New Scientist piece on Greenland meltdown, it is interesting to note that Jennifer Francis is pushing her widely derided theory that loss of Arctic ice is causing the jet stream to slow down – something she then uses to blame every bit of bad weather on.
Readers will no doubt recall that fellow junk scientist, Dr Paul Williams of Reading University, has been claiming that global warming is causing the jet stream to become stronger.
In climate science, it seems that you can make up whatever BS you want!
UK taxpayers are paying Mr Williams £91k a year for this nonsense.
By Paul Homewood
h/t Malcolm Bell
Malcolm drew my attention to this article in New Scientist:
After record low amounts of sea ice across the Arctic Ocean last winter, spring has begun with an unprecedented early melt of land ice on Greenland.
Temperatures soaring above 10 °C caused more than a tenth of the island’s vast ice sheet to start melting on Monday and Tuesday this week, says Ruth Mottram of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen.
Previously, the earliest melting recorded over more than a tenth of Greenland was on 5 May 2010, Mottram said. Normally, significant melting does not begin there until at least mid-May.
The melt was driven primarily by weather fronts bringing warm air and heavy rain from the Atlantic Ocean to the south of the island, she says.
Meteorological records dating back to 1873 show temperatures this week are a record high for the time of year. “This would be a warm day in July, never mind April,” said Robert Fausto of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, in a blog post on Tuesday.
It is more of the usual alarmist nonsense we are used to seeing in New Scientist.
This is the actual report from NSIDC:
By Paul Homewood
You’ve probably all read about luvvie Emma Thompson’s encounter with a muck spreader, while illegally protesting a farmer’s field against fracking.
Josh hits the nail on the head!
By Paul Homewood
From the BBC:
Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants.
A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA.
Climate sceptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet.
But the researchers say the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.
They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.
The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.
The new study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change by a team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries.
It is called Greening of the Earth and its Drivers, and it is based on data from the Modis and AVHRR instruments which have been carried on American satellites over the past 33 years.The sensors show significant greening of something between 25% and 50% of the Earth’s vegetated land, which in turn is slowing the pace of climate change as the plants are drawing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Just 4% of vegetated land has suffered from plant loss.
Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption The extra growth is the equivalent of more than four billion giant sequoias – the biggest trees on Earth
This is in line with the Gaia thesis promoted by the maverick scientist James Lovelock who proposed that the atmosphere, rocks, seas and plants work together as a self-regulating organism. Mainstream science calls such mechanisms "feedbacks".
The scientists say several factors play a part in the plant boom, including climate change (8%), more nitrogen in the environment (9%), and shifts in land management (4%).
But the main factor, they say, is plants using extra CO2 from human society to fertilise their growth (70%).
Harnessing energy from the sun, green leaves grow by using CO2, water, and nutrients from soil.
"The greening reported in this study has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system," said a lead author Dr Zaichun Zhu, from Peking University, Beijing, China.
The authors note that the beneficial aspect of CO2 fertilisation have previously been cited by contrarians to argue that carbon emissions need not be reduced.
Co-author Dr Philippe Ciais, from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-sur‑Yvette, France (also an IPCC author), said: "The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged.
"Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time." Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients.
A co-author Prof Pierre Friedlingstein, from Exeter University, UK, told BBC News that carbon uptake from plants was factored into Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models, but was one of the main sources of uncertainty in future climate forecasts.
Warming the Earth releases CO2 by increasing decomposition of soil organic matter, thawing of permafrost, drying of soils, and reduced photosynthesis – potentially leading to tropical vegetation dieback.
He said: "Carbon sinks (such as forests, where carbon is stored) would become sources if carbon loss from warming becomes larger than carbon gain from fertilisation.
"But we can’t be certain yet when that would happen. Hopefully, the world will follow the Paris agreement objectives and limit warming below 2C."
Nic Lewis, an independent scientist often critical of the IPCC, told BBC News: "The magnitude of the increase in vegetation appears to be considerably larger than suggested by previous studies.
"This suggests that projected atmospheric CO2 levels in IPCC scenarios are significantly too high, which implies that global temperature rises projected by IPCC models are also too high, even if the climate is as sensitive to CO2 increases as the models imply."
And Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: "It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models).
"These disagreements are at the heart of the public debate on climate change, and these issues should be debated, not dismissed."
It is pleasing to see alternative views from the likes of Nic Lewis and Judith Curry put forward for a change.
The comment from the lead author that “the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms”, must be taken with a hefty dose of salt, as his funding is at stake.
In any event, it is impossible to quantitatively compare large scale global greening with the items he quotes, which are either not necessarily all bad,or are inconsequential or simply “predictions”. Either way, it is clear that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere and the warming seen since the Little Ice Age have so far been extremely beneficial for the world.
By Paul Homewood
GWPF carry the story of Adair Turner’s grossly misleading statements about the Paris Treaty on yesterday’s Today programme.
David Campbell, Professor of Contract Law, of Lancaster University Law School, writes:
Everything Lord Turner said about the Paris Agreement and China’s and India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions was wrong.
By Paul Homewood
Roger Harrabin – BBC Environment Analyst
This blog made a false allegation that Roger Harrabin has financial links with extreme green groups.
This allegation was first made in the Mail on Sunday, who were forced to withdraw it after a legal challenge from Mr Harrabin.
We accept that the allegation is damaging and untrue, and therefore libellous. We apologise and have withdrawn the comment.