Green Britain: Energy Blackouts Imminent

Enza Ferreri is an Italian-born, London-based Philosophy graduate, author and journalist. She has been a London correspondent for several Italian magazines and newspapers, including Panorama, L’Espresso, and La Repubblica. She is on the Executive Council of the UK’s party Liberty GB. She blogs at www.enzaferreri.blogspot.co.uk.


Fuel-Poverty-Action-Group-007The UK is facing its greatest risk of blackouts since 2007/08 in the coming winter. The National Grid, responsible for balancing the country’s supply and demand of energy, last week has given this warning because Britain’s reserves of electricity have halved in 12 months.

The UK and the USA are in the same boat here. Both countries have governments that have – or pretend to have — fallen for the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory hook, line, and sinker.

The Obama Administration’s regulations to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, which The New York Times has described as “an aggressive move by Mr. Obama to bypass Congress on climate change with executive actions he promised in his inaugural address this year,” have been denounced as part of the president’s “war on coal.”

White House climate adviser Daniel P. Schrag, director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, admitted in an interview with the paper that this is exactly what it is:

The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.

The new rules will be aimed at new gas-fired power plants, but mostly at coal power plants, being the form of energy generation that emits most CO2.

According to a report released earlier this year by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, over 280 coal-fired units are expected to close down partly because of the new, stricter EPA regulations, 5 times more than the number predicted by the EPA itself. One of them is New England’s largest coal-fired power plant.

Some say that the rules will kill the future of coal and raise electricity costs.

In Britain, skyrocketing utility bills and “fuel poverty” are already a reality. “Fuel poverty” is a new condition, one in which energy bill expenditure makes up 10% or more of the household’s net income. One in four British households is suffering from it. Some people have to choose to eat less in order to keep warm.

The exceptionally high gas and electricity bills are due to the fact that householders are obliged to subsidize ineffective “renewables,” like the totally useless wind farms that are now blotting the country’s landscape and seascape against the fierce but crushed opposition of the local residents.

The Renewable Obligations Order system, introduced by Tony Blair’s Labour government in 2002, forces companies supplying electricity to buy a proportion of their electricity from non-fossil sources. Since these are highly ineffective, the energy companies have to pay inflated prices, which they pass on to their unfortunate customers through their electricity bills.

In March 2003 the Blair government published an Energy White Paper. In its Section 4.7 it says explicitly:

We have introduced a Renewables Obligation for England and Wales in April 2002. This will incentivise generators to supply progressively higher levels of renewable energy over time. The cost is met through higher prices to consumers. By 2010, it is estimated that this support and Climate Change Levy (CCL) exemption will be worth around £1 billion a year to the UK renewables industry. [Emphases added.]

It also estimated that meeting the CO2 reduction targets would increase household energy bills by up to 15%.

With the Climate Change Act of 2008 the UK government, by its own description, “passed legislation that introduces the world’s first long-term legally binding framework to tackle the dangers of climate change.”

It was an unprecedented piece of legislation, which The Telegraph journalist Christopher Booker, author of books on the global warming scare, described as:

by far the most expensive law in history, which commits Britain, uniquely in the world, to reducing its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent in 40 years. By the Government’s own estimates, this will cost up to £18 billion a year. Any hope that we could begin to meet such a target without closing down most of our economy is as fanciful as the idea that we can meet our EU commitment to generate 30 per cent of our electricity by 2020 from ‘renewable’ sources, such as wind and solar.

Many want that law scrapped. The UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change has taken much more seriously the second part of its name than the first, and now the country is facing the consequences, with the first blackouts of possibly a long series, while fracking is hysterically opposed by environmentalists, who with their celebrity-filled protests, managed to stop it in some locations.

This is the paradox of the AGW theory of man-made climate change. Not only are UK pensioners suffering and dying from some of the coldest winters on record – which refutes the theory, since temperatures haven’t increased with the risen levels of CO2 in the last 15 years, as the computer models based on the theory predicted — but they also may not be helped by an efficient energy system, providing the heating that could save their lives, because of policies dictated by the very same theory.

For years energy experts have warned of an impending energy shortage crisis in the UK due to the closure of many coal-based and gas-fired power plants, while new ones have not been built and the reliance on an astronomical number of newly-built wind farms to generate the necessary energy has proven a huge mistake.

The IPPC, the United Nations body responsible for research and policy recommendations on climate change, is a confused mixture of science and politics.

The IPPC comprises scientists and government officials, some of whom are scientists and some are not. There are two main types of IPCC documents: the reports written by scientists and the Summaries for Policy Makers which officials write on the basis of the scientists’ reports often in greatly altered and misrepresented form.

The Summaries for Policy Makers are usually the only IPCC documents that journalists and governments see. Repeatedly the scientists who wrote the original scientific essays referred to have complained that their views had been misunderstood and inaccurately reported in the documents for policy makers, invariably to make them appear more strongly in favour of the AGW theory than they actually are.

Even allowing for the remote possibility that there was some truth in that theory, whatever the reality about climate change, the policies of both the UK and the USA are nothing short of insane.

With China and India, the world’s most populous, fast-developing (and polluting) countries, with 40% of the planet’s human inhabitants between them, never subscribing to AGW theory — mainly supported by Western nations — and never accepting even the minimum restriction to their CO2 emissions because this would have hampered their economic growth, Britain’s and America’s attempt to cut down CO2 will only serve to damage their economies without helping the environment in any way, shape or form.

This is what Columnist Charles Krauthammer has recognized when he called Obama’s proposals “nuts.” A diagnosis which is hard to fault.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • renewableguy

    “Inside every liberal is a totalitarian waiting to get out?”
    In the United States the dictator bent people are attracted to the Republican Party. Why else would we have a government shutdown?
    CO2 Correlates to higher temperatures all through the earth’s history found in ice cores and other reconstruction techniques. A milder warming in the last 15 years does not mean the warming has stopped or will not resume. It will resume at some point as it has done in the past.
    Ignoring the IPCC who conservatively review the world’s climate science is to put our future generations at risk. An educated organized society will get through this easier than a disorganized, group of self interested individuals not caring about other good neighbors. With good energy efficiency programs in place, we can cut down on energy consumption to offset the possible higher rates of energy prices. Those that do their homework can actually have a lower energy bill.
    Coal is what makes our society sicker. That is a given with all that comes out of the smoke stacks at faster rates around the world. Replacing fossil fuels needs to be the world’s number 1 priority. Anything less punishes our future generations.

    • Hank Rearden

      Oh, dear. You must live in Rio Linda. The Republican Party is the party of smaller government. Ours is supposed to be a limited government of enumerated powers. The government shutdown is due to the Republicans’ view that we cannot go on increasing debt as a % of GDP. But by ANY measure, shutting down the government makes it grow less, not more. Larger government is dictatorial government. Just ask the Park Service.

      CO2 correlates with global warming WITH A LAG. First the warming, then the increased CO2. Have you ever opened a warm Coke? Cold water retains more CO2 than warm water. When the oceans warm, they release CO2.

      You must be the last person on earth who thinks the IPCC is even marginally competent. Why would we listen to a bunch of politicians on a subject like this? Particularly politicians who need a Summary for Policy Makers meaning that (a) they are ruling on an issue THEY think is critical to the survival of mankind yet (b) can’t be bothered to read the entire report. Why is that? Because the private jet is spooling up on the tarmac?

      I have an idea! Why not cut down on CO2 by having everybody stop breathing! Stalin would be proud! (not the nomenklatura of course)

      • renewableguy

        You must be the last person on earth who thinks the IPCC is even marginally competent
        ####################
        Anti science bent have you?
        No science organization in the world rejects global warming theory.
        NONE.
        The IPCC gets some things wrong not from exaggeration but from being too conservative in their statements.
        All five IPCC’s are saying stop emitting co2 and you think they are incompetent. 97% of peer reviewed writing scientists are supporting agw theory. And you say they are wrong?
        The incompetence finger points straight at the deniers with where is your winning science argument of what is causing the warming. The deniers loose that one every time.

        • Hank Rearden

          Well, that is certainly a lot of words.

          Give the citation. What paper are you talking about that “97% of peer reviewed writing scientists” are citing?

          And if it is true, why was the data at East Anglia and Penn State fudged and STILL not released to the profession and the public?

          And if it is true, why are IPCC members flying around in private jets, the transportation with the greatest carbon footprint by far?

          Agw is a watermelon – green on the outside, red on the inside.

    • davarino

      You can only gather so much energy from the sun, and wind is sporadic, and they are both expensive. Besides that, try changing the CO2 content while China and India are adding CO2 faster than we can take it out. Besides that, did you know that CO2 is a tiny fraction of air composition, with humidity having the largest affect on trapping solar energy? By the way, how do you like the cost of your mercury filled bulbs? I have to say, its all just dumb and sad that people who are not scientists are the most gullible with issues like this. You think there is no possibility that there are ulerior motives associated with this global warming scam. Wait till people start burning wood to stay warm, then you’ll be pissed : )

      • A Z

        WARNISTS are LIARS!

        “Besides that, try changing the CO2 content while China and India are adding CO2 faster than we can take it out.”

        Warmists say we have to reduce are carbon output by X in the next 20 years or we are doomed (Y).

        We cutback because of tech or “economic downturn” (really is the latter) and China and India produce X carbon or more. So according to warmists we are doomed.

        Or in simpler terms

        IF X, then Y.

        Well we have X. So we are have Y.

        Yet do you see an Warmists preparing for the last days? Are they prepping?

        • renewableguy

          Sorry AZ. The source of lieing is the one you have been reading for your truth all along. Science is intensely competitive about being right whatever their study is. This Is now bullet proof and you just wont accept it.

          • A Z

            Scientists can be rent seekers like anyone else. They are social animals.

            Get out your waders and because China has almost double the CO2 output as the U.S. and that is after they generate 16% of their power from the 3 Gorges River Dam

          • renewableguy

            Scientists can be rent seekers like anyone else. They are social animals.
            ###########
            That says you make things up that aren’t true, which is a very Fox News thing to do. If the science of one is wrong, another one comes along and gets it right and gets all the credit for it. You don’t win being wrong. Unlike Hertiage foundation, get paid to be wrong, or watts up with that.
            Why haven’t they overturned the science>

          • A Z

            I have not been to Foxnews in 2 or 3 years. Ever since they changed their forum.

            It is just not as live as it use to be.

            Yahoo also change its forum when the got a new CEO.

            Hi(s)ler got 100 scientists to denounce Einstein’s theories. Einstein said one would have been enough if they had been right.

            So why are you playing the #s game again?

            Oh right, you got nothing except social engineering to work with.

            How much are they paying you. Whatever it is they are overpaying. In fact they should sue you for damages.

      • renewableguy

        100% can and will be done. It’s just a matter of time.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
        Mark Z. Jacobson says producing all new energy with wind power, solar power, and hydropower by 2030 is feasible and existing energy supply arrangements could be replaced by 2050. Barriers to implementing the renewable energy plan are seen to be “primarily social and political, not technological or economic”. Jacobson says that energy costs with a wind, solar, water system should be similar to today’s energy costs.[3]

    • Biff Henderson

      The Third World is reeling from the impact of the rising prices of foodstuffs because of the earth-friendly corn to ethanol fiasco. There isn’t a mechanic in the land that isn’t jumping for joy over the prospect of the engine rebuilds coming their way over the 15% ethanol blend mandated by the EPA. Do you have a number, a cut-off point of the body count of pensioners and the poor in the West freezing to death to meet your goal?

      • A Z

        Yes we burned food, food spiked around the world, people got hungry in Tunisia and Egypt and rioted. We got the Arab Spring. the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) rode that wave, but the wave was caused by burning food.

        As an aside financially the Egyptians were close to economic collapse under the MB

        http://www.tradingeconomics.com/egypt/foreign-exchange-reserves

        • Biff Henderson

          Brazil is energy independent because it slash-cuts/burns their rain forests that emits CO2 and diminishes nature’s natural scrubbers of the atmosphere and sugar cane is the crop/ethanol source. The science of madmen that defies logic as their are no bad neighbors in a utopian’s mindset. What we have here is an underclass in need of a talking to but we’re willing to be patient until after they reach a level of material parity with the West. A falafel maker in every hut and then a round of gentle persuasion is in the offing.

          • A Z

            I am not to sure where all the sugar cane is grown in Brasil.

            There is only so much you can do with the jungle proper in the Amazonian region. Or so I have been told.
            I have read that the soil is poor and you only get a few good crops and then ruin. That was certainly true of the Sand Hills. It was farmed for a while and then the farmers were unable to make a living. It is poor farming ground but good grazing ground. But pre-Columbian Amazonia had lost of agriculture that aerial archeology is showing. So it you may be you can raise crops there year after year. More research needs to be done. Why did the civilization disappear. Was it because of the pox, climatic conditions, nutrient depletion?

            Sugarcane is certainly grown in in the Sate of Sao Paulo. there is a lot of agriculture in Mato Grosso but I am not sure of what type. The state of Parana is hot enough for cane too I think.

            ***

            “We’re willing to be patient until after they reach a level of material parity with the West”

            I do not believe in Global warming when they say we have to do X before year Y or game over. Yet there are definite milestones timetables or caps for any non Western country. That makes it one of the worst negotiations in history.

    • Drakken

      Why yes of course we should cut all of our fossil fuels just to make useful idiot leftards like you feel better about themselves and put humanity back a 100 years and impede progress because it hurts your feelings, God help us from you leftist useful idiots and your good intentions.

      • renewableguy

        Being radical far right pretty much says you can’t handle or understand change, hence your visceral reactions to liberals like myself. Which is fine, I accept that.
        What you aren’t able to accept is the overwhelming science of climate change. We did it. And its up to us to fix it. I believe we can and know how. You refuse to even accept it can be done. Hence fulfilling your obligation to resist intelligent change to a very large job ahead.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
        Mark Z. Jacobson says producing all new energy with wind power, solar power, and hydropower by 2030 is feasible and existing energy supply arrangements could be replaced by 2050. Barriers to implementing the renewable energy plan are seen to be “primarily social and political, not technological or economic”. Jacobson says that energy costs with a wind, solar, water system should be similar to today’s energy costs.[3]

        • Drakken

          Good luck trying to pay for it, green energy is everything but.

          • renewableguy

            There are plans that can expand renewable energy with minimal or no increase in energy rates.

  • Graham Ford

    Oh Dear. Not often does FrontPage give space to so many factual inaccuracies in one article. Climate change is happening. Its readily measured, and the only thing that accounts for the change is fossil fuel burning, the same fossil fuel burning that is causing the damage to our economies due to the high cost of oil. Time to change your viewpoint on this, please.

    • veritaseequitas

      “Oh dear”…get real Graham. When are you Eco Nuts going to realize that man does not control the climate, the weather, the temperature…really anything?
      The Creator, who created everything, controls everything. And while we can be good stewards of what God has created, trying to control the weather or the temperature is not one of them.

      • Graham Ford

        Dear Veritaseequitas,

        Luke 21:25-26 (YLT) “on the land [is] distress of nations with perplexity, sea and billow roaring; men fainting at heart from fear, and expectation of the things coming on the world, for the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.” It seems Jesus himself prophesied this.

        As to your tone, I leave you to read John 8:49. Graham

        • A Z

          veritaseequitas’s tone was disparaging but not nasty.
          Their tone was borne out of frustration and exasperation.

          You are choosing favorites as to which “expert” you believe. You have not done due diligence on your research.

          For example Roy Spencer has studied the interaction of cloud formation and climate. They denigrated him and said he is only a meteorologist. Then CERN confirmed it in the last 2 years.

          Clouds are a W.A.G. in the various climate models.

          I have had a class in modeling in general. people with bachelors, masters and PHDs and expensive computers still fool themselves all the time. They believe since they can solve this or that problem and have a lot of computing power that they understand everything.

          You should do as much research in AGW as you do reading the bible.

          • Graham Ford

            As a FrontPage fan, I do not believe that the answer to Climate Change lies with Big Government. But neither is it to be solved by denial of what is already taking place, nor by denying the evidence put forward by the science, nor denying the evidence of our eyes. Winters in the UK, even bad ones, are considerably less harsh than they were 50-70 years ago. Why? Out of all the potential changes that have happened in that time, one and only one new process can be the explanation, the historically unique massive combustion of fossil fuel. Why is it left wing, ignorant or evil to acknowledge that? This is a serious question, and it requires a serious answer, even in a conservative campaign such as FrontPage. If not, we run the risk of being on the wrong side of the argument, and the facts will loose you support, not gain it.

          • A Z

            Did you not get the Medieval Warming Period?

            The Roman Warming period?

            The Little Ice Age?

            I have come to a quick conclusion while writing this. In school I would not want you to be my lab partner. In business I would not want to be on the same research team as you.

            Yes, they have climate models and yet after 40 years of research those models have a large element of WAG (wild @ ss guess). In particular when it comes to the effects of clouds.

            He who does not work shall not eat. I bet you can take that and apply it to knowledge of science. Are you going to spend as much time becoming numerate as you do reading the Bible?

            Innumeracy is as big of a problem as illiteracy.

          • Graham Ford

            Dear A Z
            It is likely that the last 30 years have been the warmest in the last 1400 years. This change cannot be explained by solar, orbital, volcanic or internal variability. This change is explained by the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, to levels that the Earth has not experienced for 3 – 5 million years ago. There is data to show that when the earth had these levels of carbon dioxide for sustained periods, the earth was 3 degrees warmer. So, why is reasonable to believe that, for all the uncertainty in climate sensitivity due to response of clouds to warming, the effects are immaterial? I look forward to receiving a fact-based and science- based reply, rather than one that denigrates. For your information, I am a practicing engineering consultant with 35 years experience, a graduate of Cambridge University, a director of two businesses and am extremely familiar with predictive modelling, since we use these in the business routinely. Graham

          • A Z

            Medieval Warming Period: You did not answer this criticism.

            What caused the Roman Warming period? Solar? orbital? Volcanic? Internal variability?

            What is the cutoff of the The Little Ice Age?

            The climate models have the WAG. Why should we believe them?

            I know a predictive model that has been massaged so that predicts data sets of past events too well usually does a crappy job of predicting the future. Yet, researchers make these mistakes all the time.

          • Graham Ford

            Dear A Z,

            The graph at – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png shows the temperature reconstructions from the MWP to the present. The feature of the graph that is most striking is just how fast the current warming is happening. It looks like a very different event than the MWP, because the pace of change is so obviously different. This ought to alert us to the present not being due to the same cause as the MWP. It isn’t walking like a duck, it isn’t quacking like duck, so it probably isn’t a duck. :-)
            The accusation that the data is fudged has now been well tested. The data looks solid.
            So, my concern is that the AGW looks like being both real and potentially serious, and ought to merit a response that is neither ‘Do Nothing’ nor ‘Leave it to Big Government’. It isn’t the only threat, of course, but I would hate to see the Conservatives on the wrong side of the argument, me being one.
            Graham

          • Graham Ford

            File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

          • A Z

            Well I checked you bona fides and they seem to check out unlike anor277.

            The only place I can see temperature not rising in accord with the models if you believe them is internally as they put it. It is like the inflation brought about by Bernanke’s r=printing. Critics said where is the inflations. Well people like Kudlow (who I respect) said that he was wrong. Well the inflation went to places. First the government CPI calculation is a fraud. Second inflation went to places like Vietnam which experience a lot of it. The dollar as a reserve currency can have worldwide effects. the printing had an inflationary effect. It just was not felt in the U.S,. as much as it should have been. It was felt overseas.

            I believe that satellites more, but there has been some manipulation done there as well. I have seen too many temperature measuring station next to heat source like diesel engines airport runways.

            i have seen to much temperature swing from being in a city and its outskirts or country side. I believe satellite measurements are or can be better.

          • Graham Ford

            Dear A Z

            It was the southern ocean data that finally convinced me this was real. Anyway, a good discussion. Thank you.

            Graham

          • A Z

            The Red line makes it look like a normal rebound from the Little Ice Age. The red line is even going down.

          • Graham Ford

            Dear A- Z

            This is the background to the graph:

            http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

            The red line is proxy data, the black etc is instrumented. I cannot see a good reason to ignore the instrumented.

            This is the results paper by Berkeley study into all the data following the hockey stick graph scandal (Mann’s ‘trick’):
            http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.pdf

            It looks like the temperature was going up. Yes, it has stopped in the last few years – it has yet to be determined whether that is an effect of the ABC (Atmospheric Brown Cloud, a.k.a Chinese Smog) or something else. But, I don’t see it coming down.

          • fish

            Same goes for predicting the stockmarket

          • Drakken

            If you buy that nonsense that it is the warmest it has ever been, your dumber than a bag of hammers an useful idiots like you should be dismissed for being stupid.

          • fish

            If you zere qs fq,iliqr zith predictive modelling as you claim you would know that anybody who claims to be able to predict the weather more than 3 days in advance is lying.

          • renewableguy

            There was a European model that predicted the path of Hurricane Sandy 7 days ahead of time. They were right.

          • renewableguy

            Present temperatures have dwarfed the past 2000 years.

          • A Z

            Give up.

            Michael Mann is radioactive. As far as I am concerned he is a rent seeking scientist. The East Anglia group is equally radioactive.

            Until you can get India and China and others to live under the same carbon caps as everyone else, you might as well say I am from the government I am here to help and to rape your women.

            Do you understand now?

            I am all for solar power. I sat in a L5 Society (defunct an now part of the Space Society) presentation at the local planetarium about spaced based solar power.

            When the presenters were asked where they would get the money they replied the insurance companies. Yes it had a large element of pie in the sky. Still I like solar.

            I like solar for individual homes. It is a way of getting off the grid. I have some prepper in me.

            “Catch the Fire!”

            http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featfire#.UlyBvkCXwrY

            I like solar just to cut bills. Idealab out of California was highlighted in Discover magazine. They had a design using stirling engines, hyperbolic mirror sections stepper motors (off the shelf computer parts put in a 3 x 6 array of something like that. Supposedly 2 arrays could power a house. Your d/mn right I like solar.

            I also like hydro, geothermal and wave based electricity

            I like the ideal of putting a giant turbine off the east coast of Florida in the Gulf Stream with the blades big enough and moving slow enough for a whale to swim thru. that was shown in popular Mechanics (not sure about that one).

            I like the ideal of electric cars with motors in each wheel of something like that. A person could do most of the maintenance on their car. A person could certainly swap out a wheel sized motor.

            i also like nuclear such as the Iter fusion reactor. that should be in the news all the time. that should be an Apollo type project.

            Bill Gates has also been spending philanthropy money seeing that safer nuclear fission reactors are designed such a “pebble” reactors & other types.

            The EU is crap. The UN is crap. The UN could not do meals on wheels in Somalia in 1991. They could not do Food for oil in Iraq. El Baradiei was a a travesty. The UN is crap.

            With the let wanting carbon caps yada, yada, yada and no talk of the ITER and other stuff, it is all crap.

            If you are a minute man, then talking about other alternatives at this point is crap.

          • A Z

            Give up.

            Michael Mann is radioactive. As far as I am concerned he is a rent seeking scientist. The East Anglia group is equally radioactive.

            Until you can get India and China and others to live under the same carbon caps as everyone else, you might as well say I am from the government I am here to help and to rape your women.

            Do you understand now?

            I am all for solar power. I sat in a L5 Society (defunct an now part of the Space Society) presentation at the local planetarium about spaced based solar power.

            When the presenters were asked where they would get the money they replied the insurance companies. Yes it had a large element of pie in the sky. Still I like solar.

            I like solar for individual homes. It is a way of getting off the grid. I have some prepper in me.

            “Catch the Fire!”

            http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featfire#.UlyBvkCXwrY

            I like solar just to cut bills. Idealab out of California was highlighted in Discover magazine. They had a design using stirling engines, hyperbolic mirror sections stepper motors (off the shelf computer parts put in a 3 x 6 array of something like that. Supposedly 2 arrays could power a house. Your d/mn right I like solar.

            I also like hydro, geothermal and wave based electricity

            I like the ideal of putting a giant turbine off the east coast of Florida in the Gulf Stream with the blades big enough and moving slow enough for a whale to swim thru. that was shown in popular Mechanics (not sure about that one).

            I like the ideal of electric cars with motors in each wheel of something like that. A person could do most of the maintenance on their car. A person could certainly swap out a wheel sized motor.

            i also like nuclear such as the Iter fusion reactor. that should be in the news all the time. that should be an Apollo type project.

            Bill Gates has also been spending philanthropy money seeing that safer nuclear fission reactors are designed such a “pebble” reactors & other types.

            The EU is crap. The UN is crap. The UN could not do meals on wheels in Somalia in 1991. They could not do Food for oil in Iraq. El Baradiei was a a travesty. The UN is crap.

            With the let wanting carbon caps yada, yada, yada and no talk of the ITER and other stuff, it is all crap.

            If you are a minute man, then talking about other alternatives at this point is crap.

          • A Z

            Give up.

            Michael Mann is radioactive. As far as I am concerned he is a rent seeking scientist. The East Anglia group is equally radioactive.

            Until you can get India and China and others to live under the same carbon caps as everyone else, you might as well say I am from the government I am here to help and to rape your women.

            Do you understand now?

            I am all for solar power. I sat in a L5 Society (defunct an now part of the Space Society) presentation at the local planetarium about spaced based solar power.

            When the presenters were asked where they would get the money they replied the insurance companies. Yes it had a large element of pie in the sky. Still I like solar.

            I like solar for individual homes. It is a way of getting off the grid. I have some prepper in me.

            “Catch the Fire!”

            http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featfire#.UlyBvkCXwrY

            I like solar just to cut bills. Idealab out of California was highlighted in Discover magazine. They had a design using stirling engines, hyperbolic mirror sections stepper motors (off the shelf computer parts put in a 3 x 6 array of something like that. Supposedly 2 arrays could power a house. Your d/mn right I like solar.

            I also like hydro, geothermal and wave based electricity

            I like the ideal of putting a giant turbine off the east coast of Florida in the Gulf Stream with the blades big enough and moving slow enough for a whale to swim thru. that was shown in popular Mechanics (not sure about that one).

            I like the ideal of electric cars with motors in each wheel of something like that. A person could do most of the maintenance on their car. A person could certainly swap out a wheel sized motor.

            i also like nuclear such as the Iter fusion reactor. that should be in the news all the time. that should be an Apollo type project.

            Bill Gates has also been spending philanthropy money seeing that safer nuclear fission reactors are designed such a “pebble” reactors & other types.

            The EU is crap. The UN is crap. The UN could not do meals on wheels in Somalia in 1991. They could not do Food for oil in Iraq. El Baradiei was a a travesty. The UN is crap.

            With the let wanting carbon caps yada, yada, yada and no talk of the ITER and other stuff, it is all crap.

            If you are a minute man, then talking about other alternatives at this point is crap.

          • A Z

            Give up.

            Michael Mann is radioactive. As far as I am concerned he is a rent seeking scientist. The East Anglia group is equally radioactive.

            Until you can get India and China and others to live under the same carbon caps as everyone else, you might as well say I am from the government I am here to help and to rape your women.

            Do you understand now?

            I am all for solar power. I sat in a L5 Society (defunct an now part of the Space Society) presentation at the local planetarium about spaced based solar power.

            When the presenters were asked where they would get the money they replied the insurance companies. Yes it had a large element of pie in the sky. Still I like solar.

            I like solar for individual homes. It is a way of getting off the grid. I have some prepper in me.

            “Catch the Fire!”

            http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featfire#.UlyBvkCXwrY

            I like solar just to cut bills. Idealab out of California was highlighted in Discover magazine. They had a design using stirling engines, hyperbolic mirror sections stepper motors (off the shelf computer parts put in a 3 x 6 array of something like that. Supposedly 2 arrays could power a house. Your d/mn right I like solar.

            I also like hydro, geothermal and wave based electricity

            I like the ideal of putting a giant turbine off the east coast of Florida in the Gulf Stream with the blades big enough and moving slow enough for a whale to swim thru. that was shown in popular Mechanics (not sure about that one).

            I like the ideal of electric cars with motors in each wheel of something like that. A person could do most of the maintenance on their car. A person could certainly swap out a wheel sized motor.

            i also like nuclear such as the Iter fusion reactor. that should be in the news all the time. that should be an Apollo type project.

            Bill Gates has also been spending philanthropy money seeing that safer nuclear fission reactors are designed such a “pebble” reactors & other types.

            The EU is crap. The UN is crap. The UN could not do meals on wheels in Somalia in 1991. They could not do Food for oil in Iraq. El Baradiei was a a travesty. The UN is crap.

            With the let wanting carbon caps yada, yada, yada and no talk of the ITER and other stuff, it is all crap.

            If you are a minute man, then talking about other alternatives at this point is crap.

          • A Z

            Give up.

            Michael Mann is radioactive. As far as I am concerned he is a rent seeking scientist. The East Anglia group is equally radioactive.

            Until you can get India and China and others to live under the same carbon caps as everyone else, you might as well say I am from the government I am here to help and to rape your women.

            Do you understand now?

            I am all for solar power. I sat in a L5 Society (defunct an now part of the Space Society) presentation at the local planetarium about spaced based solar power.

            When the presenters were asked where they would get the money they replied the insurance companies. Yes it had a large element of pie in the sky. Still I like solar.

            I like solar for individual homes. It is a way of getting off the grid. I have some prepper in me.

            “Catch the Fire!”

            http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featfire#.UlyBvkCXwrY

            I like solar just to cut bills. Idealab out of California was highlighted in Discover magazine. They had a design using stirling engines, hyperbolic mirror sections stepper motors (off the shelf computer parts put in a 3 x 6 array of something like that. Supposedly 2 arrays could power a house. Your d/mn right I like solar.

            I also like hydro, geothermal and wave based electricity

            I like the ideal of putting a giant turbine off the east coast of Florida in the Gulf Stream with the blades big enough and moving slow enough for a whale to swim thru. that was shown in popular Mechanics (not sure about that one).

            I like the ideal of electric cars with motors in each wheel of something like that. A person could do most of the maintenance on their car. A person could certainly swap out a wheel sized motor.

            i also like nuclear such as the Iter fusion reactor. that should be in the news all the time. that should be an Apollo type project.

            Bill Gates has also been spending philanthropy money seeing that safer nuclear fission reactors are designed such a “pebble” reactors & other types.

            The EU is crap. The UN is crap. The UN could not do meals on wheels in Somalia in 1991. They could not do Food for oil in Iraq. El Baradiei was a a travesty. The UN is crap.

            With the let wanting carbon caps yada, yada, yada and no talk of the ITER and other stuff, it is all crap.

            If you are a minute man, then talking about other alternatives at this point is crap.

          • A Z

            Give up.

            Michael Mann is radioactive. As far as I am concerned he is a rent seeking scientist. The East Anglia group is equally radioactive.

            Until you can get India and China and others to live under the same carbon caps as everyone else, you might as well say I am from the government I am here to help and to rape your women.

            Do you understand now?

            I am all for solar power. I sat in a L5 Society (defunct an now part of the Space Society) presentation at the local planetarium about spaced based solar power.

            When the presenters were asked where they would get the money they replied the insurance companies. Yes it had a large element of pie in the sky. Still I like solar.

            I like solar for individual homes. It is a way of getting off the grid. I have some prepper in me.

            “Catch the Fire!”

            http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featfire#.UlyBvkCXwrY

            I like solar just to cut bills. Idealab out of California was highlighted in Discover magazine. They had a design using stirling engines, hyperbolic mirror sections stepper motors (off the shelf computer parts put in a 3 x 6 array of something like that. Supposedly 2 arrays could power a house. Your d/mn right I like solar.

            I also like hydro, geothermal and wave based electricity

            I like the ideal of putting a giant turbine off the east coast of Florida in the Gulf Stream with the blades big enough and moving slow enough for a whale to swim thru. that was shown in popular Mechanics (not sure about that one).

            I like the ideal of electric cars with motors in each wheel of something like that. A person could do most of the maintenance on their car. A person could certainly swap out a wheel sized motor.

            i also like nuclear such as the Iter fusion reactor. that should be in the news all the time. that should be an Apollo type project.

            Bill Gates has also been spending philanthropy money seeing that safer nuclear fission reactors are designed such a “pebble” reactors & other types.

            The EU is crap. The UN is crap. The UN could not do meals on wheels in Somalia in 1991. They could not do Food for oil in Iraq. El Baradiei was a a travesty. The UN is crap.

            With the let wanting carbon caps yada, yada, yada and no talk of the ITER and other stuff, it is all crap.

            If you are a minute man, then talking about other alternatives at this point is crap.

          • renewableguy

            http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

            Do you understand there are 11 different reconstructions mostly confirming each others work. You have a lack of understanding of the science. You are only hearing what your programming is telling you. With a little more work you
            be able to do a little better next time.

          • nightspore

            Are you one of those guys who bought an outdoor swimming pool because it was supposed to turn Mediterranean at your latitude any year now? These hockey-stick graphs are like cockroaches; as soon as Steve McIntyre squishes one of them another 3 or 4 arrive. But you can’t keep this nonsense up forever.

          • renewableguy

            The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.

            Winston Churchill
            Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu129864.html#SHIsmlAExo4IJAm6.99

            ##############
            Science hasn’t dropped it, but you still can’t stand it. (hockey stick) 11 scientists have worked on this. We are warmer now than the past 2000 years. Kind of sticks in the denier craw though.

          • Softly Bob

            Eleven different constructions with different people’s work, yet they all give different answers? What, they’re all scientists but not one of them knows how to read a thermometer properly? What a joke.

          • renewableguy

            Ohhhhh. Was that suppose to be funny.

          • Drakken

            The only ones in denial is you bloody environazis who want to limit and push back human progress, we have had enough of you commi control freaks wanting to control our lives, well enough is enough.

          • renewableguy

            Denial is a conservative habit that hurts them in the long run. There are conservative scientists on board with AGW. This is really not political but some people in the world cannot handle the truth right away and hide out in the Republican Party.

          • Drakken

            Nobody is buying what you environazis are selling anymore because every prediction you nutjobs have ever made turned out to be completely wrong. So your going to have to excuse me if I take what you have to say with a ton of salt. The global warming myth is nothing but an extortion racket to line the pockets of the people who are trying to sell this garbage science.

          • renewableguy

            You aren’t in a gas chamber are you? If you are out of touch with science, how can you even come out and even tie that in with reality? How are you going to show me you are in touch with reality?

          • Graham Ford

            Dear Drakken,
            The predictions of the scientists is that the earth will warm by 2 C to 8 C depending on how much fossil fuel we burn, over the next 100 years. They predict that the planet will warm, but the warming will be subject to the natural variation it has had in the past, which means it will go up, faster or slower. Yes, sure the climate models aren’t perfect but, if the answer was ‘it won’t warm’ why has it warmed so far? Why is the arctic sea ice shrinking rapidly and 98% of the world’s glaciers receding? Why are farmers in the UK planting crops in places their fathers couldn’t, because it was too cold back then?
            At some point we humans are collectively going to have to leave some fuel in the ground, or find a way not to put the exhaust in the air. It’s a question of when, not if. The question is how to do that and preserve our freedoms. Scripture calls on people to come out of ‘Babylon the Great’, the prophesied world city of luxury. In case we hadn’t noticed, that is our modern rich-world civilization, and we need to ‘get out’ before we suffer the consequences also prophesied. Oh, and the time to be doing this is now. One can either ignore the Almighty’s warnings and be destroyed, or start building a new and better civilization. Now that’s what I call progress.
            Enough already.

          • tracy

            There you go.You got it Graham!

      • tracy

        Have you heard about HAARP? Google 1978 ENMOD treaty between Canada,U.S.,and Russia. This is a weather warfare site in Alaska.also ecology.com and/or just Google the acronym, pops right up.

    • Drakken

      You environazis really are something, there is no global warming from man made causes and there is no way to make it any plainer than that, you refuse to see what is in front of you because oh darn it’s all about feelings instead of cold hard facts. If we let you useful idiots have your way we will be back in the dark ages and progress a thing of the past.

      • Graham Ford

        Dear Drakken, The ‘cold hard facts’ are that the earth has warmed about 1 deg F. That much is now plain. The question is simple: will the warming continue, and if so by how much, and for whom will this be a problem, what should be done and how? As for being a Nazi, I am arguing that any solutions should NOT and cannot lie with Big Government. How that makes me a Nazi is not clear. As for progress, the only question is in what direction, not if. The world has many problems to solve, as FrontPage eloquently describes. Have a great day.

      • renewableguy

        You are focused on the people and not the science. The deniers do not have an explanation in science because they hate, reject, and vomit over the science. If we were Nazis as you say then you would be in a gas camp now and I’m quite sure that you are safe and sound at home. There Is vast array of conservative scientists that find agw theory real and alive in our climate now. Its your choice to reject it, because you just can’t handle the truth of the matter. There is already in you the distrust of the group process that brought the evidence that only gets stronger with time. This stuff is real no matter how many times you vomit about it.

        • Drakken

          I do completely and utterly reject it because every model and prediction you nutjobs have ever made turned out to be completely wrong. So pardon me for laughing at gullible stupid people like you who have bought into this extortion racket.

          • renewableguy

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
            Scientists play to win the argument with real world data. I can’t even call you a skeptic, because you are out of touch with science reality. Y

          • Drakken

            Scientist play to win grant money to justify their existence. The only one out of touch with reality is folks like you, if you want to pay for energy that can longer be affordable, you go ahead, the rest of us won’t tolerate it. Your real world data is manipulated garbage to fit the current narrative of the sky is falling.

          • renewableguy

            Lets see if their science is wrong or they cheat they don’t get grant money. Hmmm, you don’t think the scientists have behavior controls enforced, then this is just out of touch conservatives again.

      • A Z

        renewableguy is a johnny one note. He is not quite as in your face as justquitnow but just as annoying and condescending. He also has no game.

        Graham is more interesting.

    • nightspore

      “climate change is happening”, “climate change is happening”, repeat it loud and often and maybe enough people will believe it. In fact, it doesn’t seem to be any warmer now than it was in 1940. Strip away all the adjustments to the temperature record and temperatures world-wide have been remarkably stable for the last several decades – as I. Giaever noted. (He’s one of those pesky particle physicists that refuse to get with the program.)

      • Graham Ford

        Excellent. Please inform the arctic sea ice, 98% of the world’s glaciers, the sea level, the cloud forest, the stratosphere, the permafrost and the fish in the sea (which are moving further polewards) that they really need not be doing what they are actually doing, and we can all get on with other problems to fix.

    • Softly Bob

      Wrong. Your science is faulty. You have got false data there buddy. Time for you to change your viewpoint my friend.

  • A Z

    Let’s look at 2 cases.
    The 1st case is that the Warmists are right. What do the East Anglia papers show? That they hid data. Like they had to hide the Medieval Warming Period. Then they lied and said is was a regional event. Instead of engaging in good science and seeing if it happened in the southern hemisphere there was inquiry When someone one found warming during the same period in the southern hemisphere there was science. In school if you get the right answer for a test question but your method and calculations do not support it, you get no points for the test question and might be accused of cheating at least in the real sciences.

    The second case is that the Warmists are wrong. Then it was about rent seeking scientists, control freak politicians and church lady finding a new way to feel holier than thou.

    • anor277

      Misrepresentation of data or fabrication would be professional suicide for an academic. When the original Climategate emails were revealed, there was considerable venom in the press and a host of committees were formed both in the UK and the US to investigate allegations of scientific fraud. The result of the investigations? That the scientists involved were guilty of nothing, and that their data were reproducible.

      • justquitnow

        What were they have supposed to have done? What were they guilty of….I can’t remember.

        • anor277

          They were supposed to have misrepresented data. Contemporary press reports were quite scathing. Bipartisan committees exonerated them, though the press was a bit more reluctant to publicize their vindication. All of the researchers whose candid emails were hacked are still (as far as I know) tenured professors.

          • justquitnow

            What was the data and how was it misrepresented?

          • fish

            There is no data: Its an unrepeatable event: All they have is computer simulations. Computer simulations cant predict the weather one week in advance. Ever heard of the butterfly effect? There are so many parameters and they are so porely estimated that you could tweak them to get pretty much any output from the model. Pure pseudo science.

          • renewableguy

            So Called skeptics which you truly aren’t, you are a denier, owe science the winning explanation of why the earth is warming. The risk of harm from climate change is highly certain confirmed by the 5th consecutive IPCC. No one can make you listen and you are very successful in that area.

          • Minnalousha

            You disgust me with your pollution and subversion of the scientific method to further your sick, psychopathic communist death cult.
            Shut up and do your part to save the world from man-made global warming by just blowing your own gd head off you pos.

          • renewableguy

            Touch a nerve there Bud.

            http://www.desmogblog.com/republican-brain-science-why-they-don-t-believe-science-or-many-other-inconvenient-truths

            I bring up data and you vomit all over everything because you hate it so much. Its also part of the reflexive group think of the conservatives. The liberals have you somewhat figured out and you can’t handle that either. What is coming in the climate is a slow moving train wreck and your in big time denial about it. Not skepticism, denial.

          • Minnalousha

            You don’t appear to onderstand the scientific method.
            Neither did the Lysenkoists.

            Btw, Uncle Joe Stalin beat you to it when it comes to pathologizing your opposition.

            Truth is, this is a waste of my time. *I* am perfectly willing to re-evaluate my stance given credible, empirical evidence. You have more in common with your so-called “deniers” than you do with anyone who actually lives by the scientific method.

          • renewableguy

            Peter Ferrara article? How funny. Science is an aggressive sport to win at being right. You have won the game of science denial. Good luck on that one.

          • Minnalousha

            “Science is an aggressive sport”…
            You’re as pathetic as a goodthinkful fishwife at a Two Minutes Hate.

            Tell me, did you always fancy yourself as an O’Brien with might making you right?

            Enjoy the vicarious delusion of power you get as a pet Minah bird in a cage. They’ll eat you, you know.

          • renewableguy

            Gov shut down is a hideous way to do democracy. In that shutdown event, the right feels weak if they compromise. Call me all the names you want, when the right wing finally can change their view of the world, work can be done to correct a serious problem ahead of us.
            http://www.desmogblog.com/let-s-just-say-it-when-it-comes-science-right-problem

            This weekend in The Washington Post, two deans of the Washington establishment, the Brookings Institution’s Thomas Mann and the American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein, finally stated what has been increasingly obvious: The problem with U.S. politics is coming from the right, not from “both sides.” In their piece, provocatively titled “Let’s Just Say It: The Republicans Are The Problem,” they note that Republicans and conservatives have become extreme and unwilling to compromise. And as they stress, this is not something the Democrats or liberals are “just as bad” at.

          • A Z

            “Gov shut down is a hideous way to do democracy”

            Are you for real?
            Do you do anything but troll?

            The 1st 4 shutdowns (that I have heard of) were every year of Jimmy Carters Presidency. the were brought to us gratis by a Democrat controlled Congress.

            I think the only problem for you is that 1995 shutdown and this shutdown had a Republican Congress facing off against Democrat Presidents.

            Oh and I read that we defaulted in 1971. So we have defaulted before. Not that I am recommending it.

            And President F. Roosevelt debased the currency by somewhere like 30%. That did wonders for our credit rating. His motto was more money in circulation was always better. We could do better than such nostrums.

            ***
            “Let’s Just Say It: The Republicans Are The Problem,”

            Let’s just say it, you are part of the problem

          • renewableguy

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States
            The other shutdowns did not have such a drastic effect on things. Like I have pointed out, you aren’t strong enough to see your own behavior and how it effects others. You are too busy being right and everybody else wrong.

          • Minnalousha

            In fact, I don’t know which “side” is right because there are far too many non-scientific interests muddying things with whatever dogmatic approach is more amenable to padding their wallets.

          • renewableguy

            You will always find a way not to accept the science. Its too much conflict for you.

          • nightspore

            We have you figured out, turkey, better than you have us (or at least some of us).

            Unbelievable, quoting desmosblog as “data”. You could at least quote BAMS or Nature – that would give you more verisimilitude.

          • renewableguy

            That means you haven’t read the article. Bad denier habit.

          • nightspore

            The usual rant, i.e. the usual nonsense. Changing your opinion-rating from 90% to 95% isn’t science, it’s pretense, whether you’re renewableguy or the IPCC (or Isaac Newton, for that matter). You’re the one in the echo-chamber, who will never listen because you can’t hear anything other than your own party line.

          • renewableguy

            Changing your opinion-rating from 90% to 95% isn’t science, it’s pretense
            ###############################
            It shows you don’t understand the science. That is 90 increased

          • justquitnow

            Is that what the email said? Because that is what I was asking about. I was looking more for the emails that had come to light that they are calling Climategate which proves all the scientists around the world are working together in a AGW conspiracy.

        • Minnalousha

          You’re not supposed to , Winston. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

      • Minnalousha

        Yes. They investigated themselves and came to the completely unexpected conclusion they had done nothing wrong.

  • justquitnow

    Enza needs to tell this to Britian…it would be news to them. But hey, you guys aren’t going to check up on this story anyway. And to just say that China and India don’t think that climate change is real is an absurd lie.

    • A Z

      I have been to China.

      What did I see on the railways? Coal fired trains outside a museum for the 1st time in my life. It was on the Beijing to Xi’an line

      Another interesting Chinese railway fact is that you the toilet empties onto the tracks between the rails. You can see the ties and gravel when the lid is up.

      Year CO2 Emissions ( thousands of Metric tonnes)
      2008 7,031,916
      2009 7,463,289
      2010 8,240,958
      2011 9,700,000

      If we cut to 1990 levels, China will make it up.

      China’s aviation sector looks good. All those nice shiny fuel guzzling planes flying hither and thither. Fly from Beijing to Chengdu sometimes.

      I really like justquitnow. They are not worldly; they are provincial in the worst, most ignorant sort of way.

      • justquitnow

        I’m never been to China, you got me there. Oh they’re burning coal huh? I didn’t know that. Well if they are burning any coal, then they all think climate change isn’t real. They all think it’s a hoax and they are laughing at us. I stand corrected. Does India burn coal too? I haven’t been there either and therefore don’t know anything about the country at all.

        • A Z

          “World Coal Consumption To Surpass Oil By 2020 Due To Rising Demand In China And India”

          “”If you take China and India out of the equation, what is more surprising is that under current regulations, coal demand in the rest of the world will remain at current levels,” Durbin said.”

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/14/world-coal-consumption-oil_n_4095221.html

          http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/china-bans-new-coalfired-plants-in-3-regions/article5120587.ece

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

          http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/09/where-one-coal-power-plant-stops-another-begins/7050/

          Rush was right. He argued that whatever we cut, other countries would replace and then double down. We were told that if we did not cut then we are doomed.
          World wide there were not cuts. So we are doomed to sea level rise per the Warmists. What was their year 1990 or 2000 estimates 6 inches, massive flooding and world wide chaos?

          Well all the developing countries including the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India & China) want to penalize Europe and the U.S. yet they do not cut back. Either they are suicidal or they do not believe it.

          My stays at Beijing looked like the film the Lorax. On my 1st stay I saw a very small whole in the smog where I saw a patch of blue. Morning were eerie. It just gradually brightens in a an orangish glow. there is not real distinct sunrise.

          If the Chinese continue to be prosperous than they will clean up their environs without outside prodding. I have an in-law who has an eye ailment and we are pretty sure it is due to the smog. If you believe the book “How to win Friends and Influence People” . It states that people’s #1 concern is health. The Chinese people will take care of it at some point.

          • justquitnow

            AZ, we have all the stuff already….refrigerators, AC, hot water heaters, cars, the whole ball of wax. Of course all these other countries want those same things. If the whole world develops in the same dirty way (which is what is happening) then yes, “we” are fooked. And by we I mean a lot of humanity…not you and I. We will probably be dead before the whole things really comes to a head. However, the idea that it will get taken care of or we will design some technology that will do it. or we will just adapt…those aren’t plans. And whatever technology, or ideas that come along to improve things, you will fight all the way. Basically you’re whole thing is “nothing is wrong or will be wrong” and now you’ve ideologically backed yourself into a corner where solar and other developing tech is just part of the commie conspiracy. Maybe you think there is a little something wrong, but that the market will fix it. idk. Even if global warming is a big hoax and you manage to convince everyone in the country not to do anything and keep subsidizing fossil fuels…then grats.

          • A Z

            Same people that that were into Zero population growth (ZPG) are the same people who are into AGW.

            The ZPG people are causing a demographic crisis in China. the Chinese government is moving glacially like the Vatican in addressing the problem. they are hinting at getting rid of the 1 child policy.

            The ZPG people are responsible for Eurabia and in part the immigration problem we have.

            Oil companies pay royalties on oil withdrawn. I really enjoy how the windmills put so much good corn ground under gravel access roads and concrete bases.

            Now the left is going to create more crises like the Arab Spring (burning food grains worked wonder). It boosted grain prices and the Middle East went without.

          • justquitnow

            WTF is talking about Zero population growth? Can you not stay on the subject.

          • A Z

            WTF! WTF! WTF!

            Can you say anything else besides curse words in every post?

            Have you seen the movie PCU?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCU_(film)

            There is the scene where the protesters literally have a flipboard so they can go from leftist protest to leftist protest. In one scene the lead character, Droz, tells a protester they are displaying message, so she changes her flipboard to the right slogan for the right protest cause.

            Point was these are all, the same people (The same CAUSE Heads). It all had a Malthusian theme about it. It is all about gaining power. They gained no traction on ZPG so they went to global warming and then climate change.

        • Drakken

          The Chinese and Indians are laughing us stupid westerners for cutting our own throats and you useful idiots on the left are helping them hold the knife.

    • A Z

      The U.S. is pretty steady at 5,400,000 CO2 Emissions ( thousands of Metric tonnes) for the last 4 years.

      China is on the way of doubling what we output.

    • Graham Ford

      Dear justquitnow,
      The UK spends £900m per year on subsidies for windfarms. The UK spends £13,000m per year just on natural gas. The price of natural gas has more than doubled in the last few years, not least since the Fukushima disaster. Natural gas is cheap in the US; it is three times the price in the UK. The UK is also determined to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, leading the way that sooner or later all nations will have to go.

      The UK is dependent on coal- most of the economically mineably coal has gone. The UK is dependent on oil – North Sea oil and natural gas are both now in steep decline, as the easy oil and the gas has been burned.

      China – their coal production is likely to peak in around ten years time. There are two issues here. Both climate change and the end of easy fossil fuel. Doing nothing is not an option, gentlemen. Why isn’t FrontPage ahead of the curve?

      I live in Britain. I see its stupidity. But I also see its continued determination to survive. I cannot write it off just yet.

      Graham

      • justquitnow

        That’s the other layer of this particular crap sandwich, is that we will run out of fossil fuels. It will take time, but it will happen.

  • anor277

    It is quite remarkable that many posters here, as well as the author of the article above, think that the annual release of 31,000 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has no environmental consequence. The figure is set to increase next year and the environmental consequence is quite clear. Temperatures have risen steadily for the past 15 years, with the year 2010 recorded as the hottest year on record (the next hottest year was 2005). You either accept these data or you do not, but they are honest, open, and reproducible measurements.

    • A Z

      You have posted 32 comments over 4 months on about 4 stories all AGW or environmental issues.

      Not sorry but I do not believe a word you say.

      Warmists ridiculed Roy Spencers on his research on the effects of clouds. the CERN did a similar paper. Now we have silence from the MSM. Clouds are a WAG in the climate model calculations.

      The Warmists downplayed the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). they said it was regional and only affected Europe. Subsequently warming was found in the south hemisphere in the same period. Now they are quiet.

      We say the East Anglia emails and the conspiracy to massage the data.

      Now we have had a 10 years pause in temperature. At first the it was denied. Skeptics said it was due to the 11 year solar cycle. The warmists said the skeptics were dumb. Then they acknowledge it. Now you are jot even acknowledging the pause.

      You are mendacious.

      • anor277

        I am mendacious am I? The data I cite are matters of record. You are free to believe or disbelieve. After all, ‘ignorance is strength’.

        • justquitnow

          You should go turn your disqus activity to private the way A Z does. I think it’s to cover the fact that he’s a muslim.

        • A Z

          “Temperatures have risen steadily for the past 15 years,”
          - anor277

          “Warming ‘pause’ gives thought for scientists, sceptics”

          http://news.yahoo.com/warming-pause-gives-thought-scientists-sceptics-023225894.html

          Yup, the word mendacity covers your actions to a T.

          • anor277

            Evidently, you have not engaged with the findings of the latest IPCC report. You are certainly free to ignore these data, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UlwZzxDBqXh

          • A Z

            Those have already been discussed. It all but a mea culpa.

          • anor277

            This is news to me. Perhaps you would direct me to the discussion?

          • A Z

            You are not looking hard enough.

    • fish

      How exactly do you reproduce the weather?

  • tracy

    China and India do NOT care,their countries are cesspools of toxic waste and chemicals that run straight into their drinking water,on a good day you might see the sun, while you adjust your face mask.Cancer is RAMPANT,(maybe we should send Obamacare over there) China and India can NOT be used as a comparison to us,although the time is coming with continued complacency and no diligence we will be in the same boat.This issue is about the ONLY campaign promise that he seems to have made some kind of a plan (any one know that is?) I know, we do NOT want to go broke fulfilling it.And the issues NEVER seem to get easier,and for THEM and I mean THEM,left,right,inside out,to continue this tantrum 101 is irresponsible,unacceptable at the taxpayers expense.They are still getting paid,they are NOT working,they are costing us money, on top of what they are ALREADY getting paid! And then, closing up park revenues,OUR revenues.Then we can all get slammed with OBAMACARE,TAXES,IRS with GUNS,taking our driver’s license,our bank accounts,and OUR PROPERTY,and what ever else they can redeem,to please THEIR Accounts.Talk about a welfare state, and they have already cut 40 BILLION from WELFARE over a 10 year period.Well children your lunch is in a DRONE somewhere over Pakistan, as soon as it kills some children there, it will be back to get you.We don’t want you and Nana to go hungry,do we?

    • mlebauer

      You missed the point. China and India sinking into cesspools of waste, if true, would be their problem. China and India not observing any CO2 restrictions is everyone’s problem, if AGW theory is valid science.

      Making that assumption, if China and India, with almost 40% of world population between them, make no effort to control themselves, while the OECD (“rich” countries) with under 20% of world population cuts CO2 emissions, the sacrifice will make little difference. Therefore, why make the sacrifice? Better course of action is to figure out how to cope with any repercussions.

      • tracy

        Yes,that is a good analysis you can see things from a more scientific view.I’m seeing it through an ecological standpoint.

      • renewableguy

        Where the world stops emitting co2 is huge. This is a
        projection out to the year 3000. Notice the world doesn’t cool off. What we go through is nothing compared to the next several hundred generations.

  • Sheik Yerbouti

    Global Warming/Climate Change/AGW are all distractions. Pollution can be easily measured. When we pull toxic crap out of the bowels of the planet and burn it on the surface and discharge that crap into the air, we are polluting the environment. That pollution can be measured, smelled, seen and tasted. IF it is causing a massive climate change is actually a secondary concern. The real concern should be the FACT that we are indeed polluting our biosphere and NONE of us can escape that.

  • More Light

    Green… it’s the new Black

    • boeningsol321

      My Uncle Brody recently got an almost new white Subaru
      Impreza WRX STI by working part-time from a macbook air… important site T­e­c­7­0­.­ℂ­o­m

    • Minnalousha

      Nope. It’s the Old Red.

  • renewableguy

    http://www.desmogblog.com/let-s-just-say-it-when-it-comes-science-right-problem

    As I explain in The Republican Brain (which cites Hetherington and Weiler), authoritarianism means seeing the world in black and white. It means refusing to compromise. It means being intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and needing order and structure.

    Authoritarians tend towards right wing politics and fundamentalist religion. They tend toward belief affirmation and ideological rigidity, rather than exploring new ideas or considering that other sides might have valid perspectives. For authoritarians, there is only one way of doing things, one right way—and one’s opponents are weak and absolutely wrong.

    ################
    Not only is this true in climate discussions, this is the thinking of the far right in the gov shutdown. This really isn’t about the science, this is about reflexive ideology. Another words the far right is so scared they can’t see straight.

    • A Z

      “The left likes to depict any patriotic or nationalistic group as Nazis.”

      - Daniel Greenfield

      http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/collaborating-with-nazis-in-the-counterjihad/

      The left also like to say people who are conservative or Republican tend to Authoritarianism.

      Are you done now or are you going to do some more Truthspew.Yes that was the brilliant postname of a leftists on Yahoo or Foxnews. It is about as preachy and lefty as your postname.

      • renewableguy

        The southern elite republican actions are an interesting set of behaviours to watch. Voter restrictions attempted in some cases and successfully in some others. “Compromise is weakness” Those are actions of authoritarian thinkers.

        Republicans are quite choosy about the science they are going to accept. If it conflicts with their ideology, ideology wins and the science goes in the garbage.

        http://www.desmogblog.com/republican-brain-science-why-they-don-t-believe-science-or-many-other-inconvenient-truths

        Republicans are being studied as to why as a group their behavior is so way out of whack as to what the truth is. The liberals like ourselves roll our eyes hearing how Fox News skews the information. We have been watching the whacked out thinking ever since Obama came into office.
        Can’t accept the change, declare it bullshit and be done with it.

      • renewableguy

        Well AZ, this is a peer reviewed paper being written about the odd behavior of not accepting the truth about climate and an assortment of other things going on.

        http://www.desmogblog.com/conservative-ignores-science-why-conservatives-ignore-science

        What kinds of scientific issues evoke a skeptical response from Republicans? Thanks to the Yale group and others, we know the scientific answer to that. These are issues that, among other things, appear to conflict with their individualistic and hierarchical values.

        http://www.desmogblog.com/there-bias-asymmetry-between-democrats-and-republicans

        Weiler argues (as have I) that the “Republican war on science,” a term that I coined, is really just a subset of the “Republican war on reality.”

        ##################
        Republicans have a serious issue with what’s in their head and what the reality is.

        • A Z

          desmogblog is a lefty site.

          It even has a MANIFESTO!

          I see you have been to Climate skeptic.

          I find it interesting that you respond to this comment thread but not another thread in which you first started rebutting me.

          • renewableguy

            As a group, the right has become more extreme, not accepting reality in the outside world. Paranoia about the left is no excuse. Strong people own up to what they are doing to themselves and the rest of the world. You aren’t ready yet. The IPCC is not a blank blank blank organization as you term it. They have consistently said it’s time to stop emitting co2. Within that group is also strong conservatives who accept the science in the world. This really isn’t about the science, its about the people who can’t come to grips with very strong evidence of a serious problem coming down the pipe.

          • A Z

            “The left likes to depict any patriotic or nationalistic group as Nazis.”

            - Daniel Greenfield

            http://frontpagemag.com/2013/d

            The left also like to say people who are conservative or Republican tend to Authoritarianism.

            You did nit answer that charge.

            ***
            IPCC was set up by the UN. If it were successful it would be the 1st UN organization or sponsored organization that was successful.

            The UN could not even feed the people of Somalia in 1991.

            ***

            “They have consistently said it’s time to stop emitting co2″

            And Iran has consistently called for the elimination of Israel.

            So they are consistent. Does consistency automatically make your argument right?
            ***

            The slow down in warming makes it look like to me that we are coming to an inflection point. I am not sure about it, but at least I am more honest than the IPCC that for a decade said warming is still going on at the same pace. the spaced based satellites data had been fudged. Nice of NASA and others to do that

  • Drakken

    1 degree? Whip te do! I don’t like the fact the environuts are trying to extort people out of their hard earned money to provide themselves with our tax money. To racially alter our political, business and energy policies to put us back into the dark ages is not an option.

    • renewableguy

      2 degrees is considered a goal to keep us safer from harm of the climate change coming. 4*C is considered social disruption.

  • Flowerknife_us

    The Polar icecap has been melting for over 15,000 years. The Climate changes every day, every season, every year, year after year for years on end.

    There is evidence that “Sea level” has risen some 130 feet over that time.

    There are how many BILLIONS of us pesky Humans now? Even after suffering how many catastrophic “life ending” floods?

    If the rising waters don’t kill us-The Government will. Or intends to over time so we don’t really notice it right away. Cold and hungry to Starving and frozen with no Medical cure allowed in the Budget.

  • Graham Ford

    What a fascinating set of comments. No wonder we are having troubling fixing the mess. May I propose the following:
    1. Let’s not entirely trust the left-right, liberal-conservative labels. The truth is I am drawn to either side of each axis, depending on the issue, because no side has all the answers. Why can’t we look out for UP-DOWN? UP = things are better, fairer, cleaner, less threatened, easier, safer. DOWN = things are worse, unjust, filthier, more threatened, harder, more dangerous.
    2. Let get smarter, finding the evidence, rather than fitting the evidence to fit our beliefs. If we have a belief, let’s be prepared to challenge it with evidence. If its right, it will withstand such challenges, growing better informed in the process and stronger. If it is wrong, then it will weaken and then be abandoned as the evidence builds. If we cannot know, then lets admit that. One man with the right answer is still right, even if the whole world disagrees. Trying to win arguments by insult does not make the world better, any more than it makes the world a better place by blowing up people who don’t buy into a particular set of untested myths.
    3. Let’s remember what we are ALL trying to do here – make the world a better place for our kinds and grandkids, despite the headwinds. In this, we are all on the same side, I hope.

  • Fritz

    What I find amusing in all this is how the Earth Warmers still found time to bash Republicans for the partial shutdown of the U.S Government. They decry the shutdown of what are mostly useless and redundant government agencies, which waste vast amounts of resources. For some reason the waste and inefficiencies of government are never taken into account, thousands of civil servants, commuting to and from office buildings that must be heated, and lit, so they can warm a chair behind a desk doing who knows what? Yet they applaud the British government’s energy starvation policies that allow pensioners to freeze in the dark to subsidize wind farms and insist they need to adopt that in the U.S. But still they insist the Bureau of Standards, Paper Clip Bending Division, is absolutely
    essential, otherwise paper clips may reach stores without the proper
    number of curves or use the wrong gauge of wire.. Another demonstration of how the cause of mitigating anthropogenic earth warming has nothing to do with the environment, it has to do with statism, and the desire to micromanage and socially engineer every aspect or society.