The following article gives a very good over view of the workings of carbon trading. It also highlights the pitfalls for anyone tempted to get into this get rich quick scheme. Me thinks the smart money is already on the way out and looking for the next main chance. Snake oil anyone?
Tag Archives: Global Warming
I am astonished at the lack of airtime given to the BBC’s 28Gate debacle. Once again Auntie has been caught peddling dubious information to the public and by the usual suspects – who have now ‘stepped aside’ for reasons other than pumping out biased reporting on Climate Science. What does it take to get the press interested in a story that contains accusations of media bias, waste of public funds and the gang of four caught up – yet again.
Come on Press Land give it some coverage. Where are you Sky News when we need you?
At 09.47 GMT this morning I received a ‘Global warming warning’ from New Scientist Weekly – I kid you not! With some trepidation I opened the e-mail to discover that ‘Five years ago, we were warned that the climate change outlook was bad. In this week’s cover feature, read the seven reasons why it’s even worse that we thought’ sic
I read a blog yesterday that expressed surprise that there was so little Global Warming Alarmism coming up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP18. Well better late than never. It always amazes me that the alarmists trot out the same old line – ‘it’s even worse than we thought’ but in their hurry to sound the alarm they couldn’t even get that right. (Spot the typo?)
So let’s go through the list – for the Nth time;
Arctic warming – ‘…If current trends continue…’ but they don’t the Earth’s climate runs in cycles.
Extreme Weather –‘…it’s becoming more extreme than anyone predicted..’ no it’s not. Tornado and Hurricane activity is declining. Even the IPCC have said that extreme weather events are nothing to do with Global Warming.
Food Production – ‘…food prices are soaring as the effects of extreme weather kick in.’ Please see previous line plus of course food prices are rising ‘cause the US is turning its corn into fuel. (See previous posts)
Sea Level – ‘Greenland’s rapid loss of ice mean we’re in for a rise of at least 1 metre by 2100, and possibly much more’ That Chestnut. Last year the world’s sea levels actually fell by 5mm. (See previous posts)
Planetary Feedbacks – ‘The planet currently absorbs half our CO2 emissions. All the signs are it won’t for much longer’. And what signs would those be?
This is tedious. Clearly the article is meant for the Global Warming Faithful and those yet to be converted.
As they say ‘A week day is a long time in politics the blogosphere’. On Tuesday I predicted that the failure of a court action against the BBC brought under the freedom of information act, to reveal the names of the gang of 28 grandees of Global Warming knowledge would be a short lived victory for the publicly funded corporation. Later that same day the list was released on the web by Guido Fawkes of the blogspot www.order-order.com but full honours go to Mauritzio Morabito for his impressive sleuthing.
Should the list prove to be correct (we are awaiting the BBC’s confirmation/denial with baited breath) ‘Auntie’ is going to have to clear a space on her, albumen splattered visage for even more egg. If this is what the BBC call a seminar of experts then I’m a warmist!
I have looked through the list. Where is the balance? Where is the counter argument from the sceptic side? There is none. The outcome of the seminar was preordained. The BBC picked a group of biased global warming activists so that they could justify their future bias. Their subterfuge is astounding.
I know your Mother told you not to look at the sun but maybe it is about time the IPCC set aside this maternal advice and began considering that variations in solar radiation may have something to do with the fluctuations in earth’s temperature.
It has long been the IPCC’s contention that while there have been minor fluctuations in the energy output from the sun this is more than compensated for by magnification of the so called ‘greenhouse effect’ by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by human activity.
A paper produced by the National Academy of Science has challenged that assertion. Using Beryllium 10 and Carbon 14 isotopes (found in ice cores and tree rings) as proxies for Solar radiation, the academy has determined that Solar radiation at the end of the 20th Century is the highest it has been in the past 9,400 years.
But let us be careful. Just because we are seeing correlation with temperature rise does not mean we have causality, however this data surely merits serious consideration in the overall study of climate by the IPCC. Perhaps it’s the old cynic in me, but somehow I don’t think they will bother.
In July I bemoaned the lost credibility of the BBC in relation to its reporting on Global Warming. I concluded the blog with the question “If we can’t believe them on this, then why should we believe them on anything?” It would appear, in light of the recent resignation of their Director General over false reporting, that I am not the only one who thinks the veracity of the entire organisation should be called into question. Add to this the debacle that is the Jimmy Saville paedophile saga and serious questions need to be asked about how the BBC conduct themselves when it comes to editorial bias.
But it’s not all bad news for the BBC. They have recently won a court battle that allows them to keep secret from the public the basis on which they openly declare that they are within their rights to present a biased presentation of global warming. In Early 2006 the BBC held a seminar to which they invited 28 environmental grandees. It is their contention that the collective evidence of these experts convinced them that ‘the science is settled’ with regard to Global warming and that from then on they would mainly promote the global warming alarmist point of view.
What is curious about this court case is – what are the BBC afraid of? Why would they want to keep the names of these 28 specialist secret? Surely they would want to shout their names from the roof tops to cement the credibility of their decision of bias. We can assume that the reason for not wanting to give the names is that once again the BBC’s credibility would be found wanting. I can conclude from the BBC’s obstructive behaviour that most, if not all, of these 28 are political activists and self-proclaimed Climate Change experts. And you know what I think of Climate Change Experts – there is no such thing.
I have no doubt, in time, that the names will become known. Until then the BBC will keep digging themselves into an even bigger hole on this and others issues.
When the BBC speaks – Don’t You Believe Them!
Last week the new UK Energy Minister John Hayes slapped a moratorium on any new (that have not already been sanctioned) onshore wind turbines. I do not imagine that this decision will go unchallenged. The British Conservative parties coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, will have something to say about it as well as the myriad of vested interests that are going to suffer from this decision. Expect skin and hair to fly over the coming months as Hayes attempts to make his radical manoeuvre stick.
This is not the end of the wind energy boondoggle, No Siree, Bob! Notice the weasel word ‘onshore’ used in the announcement. The British Government are still ploughing ahead with the equally wasteful and vastly more expensive ‘offshore’ wind farms, but at least it’s a start. Perhaps we will get some more dialogue on the subject and move it more into mainstream politics so that Joe and Joanna public can see where there tax pounds are being wasted.
Michael Mann is in the news again for making more outrageous claims, this time of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Quote:
A quick call to the Nobel Prize offices will disabuse you of this spectacular falsehood. The claim is made in his legal action against Mark Styne of the National Review mentioned in a previous post. His argument goes something like this.
In 2007 the Nobel Peace prize was jointly awarded to the IPCC and AL Gore “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”. Michael Mann contributed to the IPCC report that lead to them getting the prize, ipso facto Michael Mann was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now let’s see – hmmmm? In 2012 The European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize “for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe”… I live in the Union and I have been part of that reconciliation and stuff – hells bells, I’ve been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize!! I’ll just ring the Nobel Prize Office to check. Oh, I haven’t won the Nobel Peace Prize. How disappointing.
Professor Phil Jones – keeper of the world’s temperature, darling of the environmental movement, centre of the Climategate scandal, well, he has slipped some interesting figures onto the internet in the last week, very quietly, hoping no one will notice. Yes its official, from the Hadley CRU (via the British Meteorological office) which has been stoking the fires of Global warming hysteria these past few decades – Global Warming has stopped!
For 16 years now the World’s average temperature has remained static at 14.5 deg. C. Now I am not one to be too impressed by an average world temperature as it so happens. I think that an average world temperature is about as useful as an average of the numbers in a telephone book. I am also highly sceptical of the accuracy of the current temperature record. But that aside, for the shock troops of the army of Global Warming alarmism to admit that, even by their own biased figures, the World has not warmed in the last 16 years – hells bells this is some admission.
This disclosure has huge ramifications for people who are making claims about the effect on our environment of Global Warming. If Global Warming is not taking place, what credibility does that give to the research and claims that these individuals and organisations are making?
Now Phil Jones has qualified these inconvenient results. He points out that despite the temperature ‘pause’ that he believes that this decade will end up significantly warmer than the previous two.
Now let’s analyse this particular piece of double speak:
If I was driving a car at 30 miles an hour for one mile, then 50 miles an hour for a second mile and 60 miles an hour for a further half a mile and then told you that if I continue at 60 miles an hour for another half mile that the third mile would be travelled at a significantly higher speed than the previous two miles, would you be surprised? No of course you wouldn’t, in fact you would probably think I was treating you like an idiot for stating the obvious. Well, this is exactly what Jones has done. He has stated the obvious, but he has also been economical with the truth, because he, like the rest of his cadre, have been projecting a linear increase in the average world temperature in line with the (strangely) linear increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. His computer models (call them guesses) are shown to be wrong based on these latest figures.
Why is the north polar ice melting – well clearly it has nothing to do with Global warming.
Why is the south polar sea ice increasing – well nothing to do with Global warming, and so on and so on. What will it take to put the brakes on this runaway trillion dollar global industry?
By Gordon G. Chang, Forbes
In last two years, shares of Chinese solar cell producers have fallen by about half, and more price declines are on the way. The prospects for these manufacturers are poor.
It’s not that Chinese technocrats did not accomplish their ambitious goals. They set out to create an industry that would dominate the world, and they succeeded. They aided solar cell manufacturers with easy credit from state banks—perhaps as much as $18 billion of cheap loans—and, some say, subsidies. As a result of central and local government support, Chinese manufacturers began to expand rapidly. Chinese competitors now own 70% of the world’s wafer-producing capacity.
EU ProSun, a subsidiary of SolarWorld of Germany, has filed a complaint with the European Commission alleging China’s subsidies were illegal. The Commission is already investigating charges that Chinese producers have been dumping production in Europe. In July, ProSun filed an anti-dumping complaint with the Commission. European solar panel makers say Chinese companies have been selling at 80% below their cost.
Chinese producers are clearly worried about the investigations in Brussels. Europe, the world’s largest solar market, accounted for $27 billion of their sales last year. That was about a third of their production and 7% of all Chinese exports to the European Union.
The U.S., on the other hand, takes around 7% of China solar exports, and what is left of the American industry is filing trade actions against Chinese producers as well.
Chinese producers are already bracing for the imposition of stiff penalties on both sides of the Atlantic. As a first step, they are using components manufactured elsewhere.
In any event, Chinese manufacturers know they will have to come up with more permanent solutions to avoid crippling trade penalties. Their latest tactic is to buy European competitors. Guangdong Aiko Solar Energy this summer purchased Scheuten Solar of the Netherlands, and Hanwha SolarOne Co. recently announced plans to acquire Germany’s Q-Cells, a move Hanwha said was designed to avoid European trade sanctions.
The only problem is that locating manufacturing to Europe won’t work due to the high costs—40% higher than China. There are, of course, alternatives. China Sunenergy Co. said it would move panel assembly lines to Turkey this year, and analysts expect Chinese companies will shift production to Thailand, India, and Sri Lanka as well as Taiwan. Yet costs of production will still rise for Chinese producers. In Taiwan, for instance, costs are still 15% above those across the strait in China.
The industry-wide unprofitability means that Chinese technocrats have to throw their world-dominating industry a lifeline. In the last week of September, the China Securities Journal reported that the state-run China Development Bank, which is specifically tasked with implementing Beijing’s policies, would be giving priority to 12 of China’s largest solar companies.
The only real solution is closing production lines to get capacity in line with demand. Suntech Power is shutting down about a quarter of its capacity to manufacture solar cells, and it appears that Trina Solar will also slim down its operations in coming months.
The powerful National Development and Reform Commission wants to see two-thirds of panel makers go out of business. Only the largest producers, which are presently unviable, will survive.