“Global warming is a bogus proposition…”

That headline from  Zhang Musheng, one of China’s most influential intellectuals according to this article in the Sydney Morning Herald.

From the article:

A new study by the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency shows China now emits far more greenhouse emissions than any other country, with emissions doubling between 2003 and 2010.

China’s carbon emissions rose 10 per cent last year alone, to 9 billion tonnes, compared with 5.2 billion tonnes for the United States.

The report showed India’s emissions also rose rapidly, by 9 per cent, although its total emissions are still only one-fifth of China’s.

The most startling finding, however, is that China’s per capita emissions are now higher than several rich nations including France and Italy. China’s per capita emissions could even overtake the US within six years, the study said.

”If the current trends in emissions by China and the industrialised countries including the US would continue for another seven years, China will overtake the US by 2017 as highest per capita emitter among the 25 largest emitting countries,” said the Netherlands report, which was sponsored by the European Commission and is based partly on BP energy consumption statistics.

================================

Despite the other issues about China, I would expect that Zhang Musheng will become the next victim of the Romm-DeSmog Sliming Industrial Complex.

I suggest the next place for wild eyed protestors like Bill McKibben is to “occupy” Bejing, perhaps Tienanmen Square. I’m sure they’ll get a warm welcome there. Check out the protestor with the purple hair just before McKibben.

About these ads

69 thoughts on ““Global warming is a bogus proposition…”

  1. I love McKibben’s cutesy “Rube from the backwoods” remark. Makes him seem, well, so harmless. Snort!

  2. Manics. That’s all I can say about the people in this video. Afraid of life, frightened by shadows and against anything that scares them … which is everything.

    Their entire argument is “I’m against”. There’s no rationale behind any of it except some emotional need to be a contrarion.

    Thankfully, their are so few of these extremists.

  3. Dr Spock, tolerance, self esteem, moral decline, lack of respect, education decline, welfare mentality, political incompetence, voter fraud, propaganda, unions, corruption, greed,… and the list goes on. Add AGW elitist-progressives scamming billioins of someone elses money to finance the spreading the great CO2 scare. It is the perfect example of how corruption leads the ingorant. At least the Chineese understand the value of cheap energy, while our leadership promotes sacrafice and gloom.

  4. UK Telegraph journalist James Delingpole noted a similar case about a year ago (11 Aug 2010):
    What the Chinese really think of ‘Man Made Global Warming’
    “Behind the back of the demonizing of “carbon”, we must recognize that it is the sinister intention of the Developed Countries to attempt to use “carbon” to block the living space of the Developing Countries”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100050359/what-the-chinese-really-think-of-man-made-global-warming/

    Bright people these Chinese.

  5. Never mind the lady with the purple hair, what about the bug eyed lady straight after her? Earnest or what!

  6. Meanwhile, back in the EU….

    “A new survey shows that more than two-thirds of EU citizens see climate change as a very serious problem, and a vast majority think fighting it can create jobs and help the economy.

    The poll says 68 percent of the people in the EU consider climate change a serious threat, up from 64 percent in 2009. And 78 percent said fighting climate change could help jobs and the economy, up from 63 percent two years ago….”

    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q7GUMO0.htm

  7. All well and good, but not exactly a help to the skeptical case. The Chinese, even the educated ones, often don’t believe the U.S. really put men on the moon.

  8. The problem is that the Chinese are lacking luminaries like Assemblyman Fred Thiele, i.e.:

    “Climate change refers to the issue that the Earth is getting warmer in some areas, but cooler in others.”

    “Hand-in-hand with climate change is the problem of global warming.”

    “And while the Earth’s overall temperature is increasing, climate change explains the drastic cold periods that some parts of the Earth have and will experience.”

    “Climate change and global warming are very real and advancing problems that need to be addressed. While a misinformation campaign financed by powerful special interests has tried to cast doubt on the science behind these environmental threats, it’s important to note that 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field agree that global warming is man-made, according to the National Academy of Sciences.”

    http://www.hamptons.com/News/For-The-Record/15733/Thiele-Climate-Change-And-Global-Warming-Are.html

    So now global warming and climate change are different, but both “very real and advancing problems”. No wonder that the Chinese are in ascent while the US is in decline…

  9. China’s most influential intellectual (eating from pot by windmill):

    ‘Windmills are a good source of protein – the eagles in particular are delicious’

  10. Silly, When it’s hot outside, It’s Global Warming and when it’s cold outside, It’s Climate Change.
    Why didn’t I see this all along? Thanks to that assembly man for clarifying.

  11. After watching that video I feel sick. No-one mentioned anything substantial about pollution or CO2 or effects on the environment. BUT what everyone did mention was {big or foreign or oil} corporations. Its not about the climate.

    Delingpole was correct: Watermelons: Green on the outside, red on the inside.

  12. Well there goes the consensus. The band wagon just tilted after 1.25 billion skeptics climbed on board.

  13. DJ says: October 8, 2011 at 10:13 am

    “Meanwhile, back in the EU….” The Bloomberg article did not provide a link to the report- the Guardian did- The EU “Climate change” report is located here-

    http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_372_en.pdf

    In the summary of the “Climate change” report this is stated-

    ” Overall, EU citizens consider climate change the second most serious problem facing the world today.”
    “One in five (20%) said climate change was the single most serious problem. The only issue perceived to be more serious is poverty, hunger and lack of drinking water, which was mentioned by 28%.1″

  14. It is much better to use consumption of CO2/head. France and Italy import much from China, reducing their CO2 production, increasing China’s.
    It is the total demand in all countries that is driving up CO2, and that is the true target of the ‘water melon’ AGW movement – green on the surface but red through and through. If they get their way consumption in rich countries will be controlled by carbon rationing (more likely per head than per $10k income).
    That’s why agreeing to the Copenhagen protocol would have been suicide for the West.

  15. Here in Australia, our pollies keep telling us that Australia has the world’s per capita emissions.
    Of course they add in all our coal exports, just to make the figures look worse, and to make us all feel guilty.

  16. I’ve long wondered whether Maurice Strong is in China advising them, or being advised of his rights.
    ===================

  17. According to this article and publicly available data on Australia’s total emissions (oddly not mentioned by the leftist SMH), China last year added two Australias worth of carbon emissions to its production, and next year will add another two, and so on – apparently ad infinitum.

    Yet, the Greens/Australian Labor Party coalition thinks that Australians ruining the earth is the most serious moral challenge of our time and wants a carbon tax to bankrupt Australians and drive out every last domestic industry, to maybe save 5% of 10% of China’s annual emissions, or 5% of its yearly growth, for an effect on the environment that will never be felt. Well that’s nice, let’s just hang up the closed sign and give up on our future, while China ‘emits’ what we won’t.

    Anybody in favour of this ruinous policy is either mentally ill or seriously loathes the west (or both).

  18. Ah, we saved the Chinese from the Warrior, ethno-centered Japanese (Rape of Nankin anyone?)

    They may end up saving US from our own INSANE PEOPLE.

    Do they still have ROOM in “Outer Mongolia”? I’ve got a great idea for a “Carbon Trade” (Carbon as in Carbon Base Species..)

    Max

  19. “Like, we slept out last night? To like, get heard? And like, we believe the corporatists are being heard before us?” So, their air, soil and water is more important than “corporate profit”? AND these doofuses want a job?

    And if that first witch being interviewed gets her nose up in the air any higher, we’ll be able to see the the void between her ears.

  20. Latitude says:
    October 8, 2011 at 10:26 am
    Tell me again why China is a “developing” country.

    Because it is developing rapidly unlike the “developed countries” (i.e. the West and Japan) which are stagnating in the worst economic crisis since the 1930s.

  21. Chinas stand that global warming is bogus is a no brainer. They already have total dictatorial power and don’t need an economy and human crippling excuse like global warming to become the dictator they want to be because they already are.

  22. Did the Chinese Lead Climate Change Negotiator give something away, a litle while ago (at a non western conference) ;-)
    Guardian: Climate change: Chinese adviser calls for open mind on causes

    “China’s most senior negotiator on climate change says more research needed to establish whether warming is man-made”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/24/china-climate-change-adviser

    “China’s most senior negotiator on climate change said today he was keeping an open mind on whether global warming was man-made or the result of natural cycles. Xie Zhenhua said there was no doubt that warming was taking place, but more and better scientific research was needed to establish the causes.

    Xie’s comments caused consternation at the end of the post-meeting press conference, with his host, the Indian environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, attempting to play down any suggestions of dissent over the science of climate change.

    Telegraph: China has ‘open mind’ about cause of climate change

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7067505/China-has-open-mind-about-cause-of-climate-change.html

    China’s most senior climate change official surprised a summit in India when he questioned whether global warming is caused by carbon gas emissions and said Beijing is keeping an “open mind
    Xie Zhenhua was speaking at a summit between the developing world’s most powerful countries, India, Brazil, South Africa and China, which is now the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the gas believed to be responsible for climate change.
    But Mr Xie, China’s vice-chairman of national development and reforms commission, later said although mainstream scientific opinion blames emissions from industrial development for climate change, China is not convinced.

    “There are disputes in the scientific community. We have to have an open attitude to the scientific research. There’s an alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. We have to keep an open attitude,” he said.

    Jo Nova has a similar article… (today)

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-7-other-climate-establishments-disagree/

    Some interesting links to Chinese Russian and Indian scientific thoughts on man made global warming…

  23. oops jo Nova wasn’t (today) but a while ago..

    As now, China’s per capita emission are ahead of France.. and matching the UK’s by next year (and par with EU average per capita) The EU would be mad to extend Kyoto.. and as China and India will in no way agree to cutting their emissions(per capita or gross) because it will damage their economic growth..which means that the politicians will back away from AGW as politically damaging (to themselves)

    Did the non-western world go along with western ideas, because it did not impact them, and seek to game (gain) advantage over the west.. no of course not (sarc off)

  24. Barry, it was predictable that China would attempt a shakedown of the developed West over this ‘precious conceit of a Western elite’. What wasn’t predictable was that they would be able to cover their chagrin over the failure of the shakedown by pointing to the devious neo-colonialist plotting by the premier leader, in his own mind, of that Western elite. I’m talking fast and furiously about our Solyndromic Puppet.
    ==============

  25. Furthermore, the Chinese may well see the finger of blame pointing at them about aerosols, climate sciences chameleon-like fudge factor, and in a cooling world, Katie bar the door. I suspect they’ll start scrubbing soon enough.
    ===========

  26. artwest says:
    October 8, 2011 at 11:34 am

    DJ says:
    October 8, 2011 at 10:13 am
    Meanwhile, back in the EU….
    “A new survey shows that more than two-thirds of EU citizens see climate change as a very serious problem, and a vast majority think fighting it can create jobs and help the economy.

    ——————————————————————-
    From the “Not all is what it seems” Dept.:

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/10/sacre-bleu-eees-climate-change.html

    That poll looks a lot like the Puerto Rico statehood vote that the non-voting representative of Puerto Rico put before Congress. It was loaded so that if the bill ever passed, Puerto Rico would be the 51st state. 2 questions were to be put before Puerto Ricans. The first question asked if they wanted everything to be the same or wanted a change in the province’s status. About 49% of Puerto Ricans want statehood, 49% want everything to stay the same, and 2% want independence from the US. So the first vote, the 49% who want statehood and the 2% who want independence will vote for the status to change. The second question asks if they want to be independent or be the 51st state. Most Puerto Ricans want to be part of the US, so they will now vote for statehood.

    With the right questions, you can get any result you want. That is exactly what the EU wanted with their poll.

  27. DJ says:
    October 8, 2011 at 10:13 am
    Meanwhile, back in the EU….

    “A new survey shows that more than two-thirds of EU citizens see climate change as a very serious problem, and a vast majority think fighting it can create jobs and help the economy.

    The poll says 68 percent of the people in the EU consider climate change a serious threat, up from 64 percent in 2009. And 78 percent said fighting climate change could help jobs and the economy, up from 63 percent two years ago….”

    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q7GUMO0.htm

    I wonder if they also think paying somebody to dig a hole and paying somebody else to fill it in creates jobs, too?

  28. The number of people in China equipped to understand the topology of natural climate variations FAR exceeds the number of equipped people in the West. This is due to a mathematics education system that delivers FAR superior outcomes. Looking beyond our constant focus on climate, we will see common roots of many of our Western failures (including economic modeling based on untenable assumptions). Some may find these comments harsh. They are based on years of observation as a math & stats student & educator in the post-secondary system. Hopefully leaders in our society are not afraid to gracefully face the truth.

  29. Zac at 10:57 asks why three blades. I’ll take a wildass guess that it has to do with dynamically balancing the blades. If they are not balanced you can imagine how the whole thing will start to vibrate itself to destruction.

  30. Zac says:
    October 8, 2011 at 10:57 am

    Why do wind turbines only have 3 blades?

    Oso gave this a shot up-thread a bit, but actually there are designs with only one blade. You can counterbalance with only one blade or with dozens. The actual answer is that three is what most designs need to extract a reasonable fraction of kinetic energy from the wind. By the way, a single turbine of any design can extract only 59%. This is Betz limit. Most efficient designs manage 45-50% over a range of wind-speed. So, they are about 80% efficient according to the second law of thermodynamics.

  31. pokerguy says on October 8, 2011 at 10:17 am

    All well and good, but not exactly a help to the skeptical case. The Chinese, even the educated ones, often don’t believe the U.S. really put men on the moon.

    Weren’t they monitoring space-to-earth and moon-to-earth communications (and telemetry) like the Soviets back then were?

    It took only modest equipment to do so, such that the University of Florida radio observatory folks did with their own equipment:

    http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm

    .

  32. Not surprising. China is a country of people who make things. That isn’t true of the US any more. Lawyers require less energy than manufacturers.

  33. misterjohnqpublic says on October 8, 2011 at 9:52 am

    Manics. That’s all I can say about the people in this video. Afraid of life, frightened by shadows and against anything that scares them … which is everything.

    Mania or hysteria? – Symptom Checker

    Further on hysteria: Mad men and Medusas: reclaiming hysteria

    Listed are 106 possible causes for hysteria or mania including:

    4. Alcoholism
    7. Amphetamine abuse
    16. Chemical poisoning — About 2 dozen different possibilities
    .27. Cocaine abuse
    43. Ginseng overuse
    45. Herbal Agent adverse reaction — Various
    54. Indian Tobacco poisoning
    56. Lead poisoning
    57. Lidocaine toxicity
    59. Lobelia poisoning
    64. Marijuana abuse
    70. Organic mood syndrome

    And more …

  34. Zac says:
    October 8, 2011 at 10:57 am

    Why do wind turbines only have 3 blades?

    Look closely at where the blades leave the hub. There is virtually no gap on the hub between the structure for supporting (and turning) the blades. If you had to make room for more blades on the hub, the blades could not be as long.

  35. Paul Vaughan says:
    October 8, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    The number of people in China equipped to understand the topology of natural climate variations FAR exceeds the number of equipped people in the West. This is due to a mathematics education system that delivers FAR superior outcomes….
    ______________________________________________________________
    AMEN to that Paul.

    “For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. “In fourth-grade, we start out pretty well, near the top of the distribution among countries; by eighth-grade, we’re around average, and by 12th-grade, we’re at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa.” http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0804/0804textbooks.htm

    The “Dumbing down” of the US citizen has been deliberate. A population that is semi-literate with no math or science and therefore no reasoning skills is much easier to manipulate as those of us here have seen. See: Dumbing Down America by Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld

  36. Paul Vaughan says:
    October 8, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    The number of people in China equipped to understand the topology of natural climate variations FAR exceeds the number of equipped people in the West. This is due to a mathematics education system that delivers FAR superior outcomes….

    Paul, you don’t think that the 3 times bigger (than US) population might have something to do with it?

  37. Curt says:
    October 8, 2011 at 5:28 pm
    Zac says:
    October 8, 2011 at 10:57 am

    Why do wind turbines only have 3 blades?

    Look closely at where the blades leave the hub. There is virtually no gap on the hub between the structure for supporting (and turning) the blades. If you had to make room for more blades on the hub, the blades could not be as long.

    Unless you made bigger diameter hubs?

  38. _Jim says:
    October 8, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    Listed are 106 possible causes for hysteria or mania including:

    Maybe if we can get Kathleen Sibelius to list Liberalism as “a mental disease”, as documented by Dr. Savage and otherwise obvious, then mandate “free” coverage, they’ll get checked out for all possible causes and have a chance for cure. Otherwise, they’re doomed. One liberal woman I know was complaining about Big Pharma’s advertising, so I asked her about the pages and pages of alternative medicine advertisements I’d seen for supplements. Unphased, she immediately almost boasted that once she was taking “31 supplements” at the same time, which finally landed her in the hospital with some “liver” problems. Another liberal couple I knew was giving their 3 year old massive doses of minerals, and they were taking them, too, and even showed me a book written by guy who claimed he’d developed his [un]remarkable physique simply by using minerals. But the child instead developed a condition resembling a rare form of “repetitive infantile seizures”, involving hundreds a day. Luckily, he had to get checked out.

  39. The Chinese official opposition to the AGW scare is nothing new. See the 2010 book “Low-Carbon Plot” by Gou Hongyang ISBN: 9787807672890 Published by the: Shanxi Economics Publishing House.

    “The Developed Countries [EU,USA+etc.] are attempting to use the Greenhouse Effect to lock up the development of the Developing world with Morality Manacles…..This is what Developed Countries are most afraid of, the development of the Developing Countries poses an enormous threat to their way of lives.”

  40. John F. Hultquist says:
    October 8, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    Zac, Oso, Kevin, Kohl, Curt

    “Why do wind turbines only have 3 blades?”

    Wind is a prime source of energy and 3 is a prime number!

    Okay, seriously, here are some good ideas:

    http://www.quora.com/Why-is-3-the-optimal-number-of-blades-on-a-windmill-generator-instead-say-5-or-more

    One, two, three and five are all prime. Lame joke, John.

    Ok. I’ll answer this again. Five blades would add to the expense and not gather any more energy from the wind, probably four does the same. Three might strike the optimum balance between gathering energy and cost, but there are commercial units with two, and I have seen turbines with one. I know for certain you can capture just about all that is possible with one blade. Like all engineering problems, one tries to achieve an efficient compromise of some sort. The aeromotors on the prairie windmills have 18 blades–steam and gas turbines have more.

  41. Installing and maintaining the big blades very high up in the middle of
    windfarm (a place where high natural winds are expected to occur most of
    the time!) is very, very difficult – very deadly in fact. (Wind energy kills more people than coal in the Western world.)

    An odd number of blades means that one (the “empty” hole for the blade being installed
    for example) is always vertical and so easier to work on with a 300 foot crane boom.

    Also, you need to look at what the windmill is built for: the “farm”
    windmills were almost always first built for pumping water from shallow
    wells before electricity was available. (Some – not all – were also
    powering grain mills or grinders or shop tools, but water pumping was
    their primary task.) A water pump requires slow speed starting against
    tremendous loads: You have to lift the pump rod (300 feet of steel rod,
    plus the weight of the water trapped above the pump foot valve) from a
    dead stop. So the large multi-blade “fans” work best at producing large starting torque at very low speed.
    Also, the water can be stored in a tank until needed for cattle or horses or the farm
    house. So the high efficiency of a “aerodynamically perfect blade” means nothing if you can’t lift the water up the well pipe.

    Power production (electricity production) requires a completely different
    process. High speed, very, very low (almost none at all) starting
    torque, small speed droop at higher wind speeds, but good blade
    efficiency is essential at high speeds. So the shape of the blades HAS
    to be different for electricity generation.

  42. ZT says:
    October 8, 2011 at 10:54 am
    “China’s most influential intellectual (eating from pot by windmill):
    ‘Windmills are a good source of protein – the eagles in particular are delicious’”

    Elite Ruling Class Road Kill. John Kerry can party with the good ole boys.

  43. From the article:

    “…Mr Zhang, whose father was secretary to China’s former premier Zhou Enlai, blasted Chinese policy makers for encouraging Chinese companies to buy foreign intellectual property in order to manufacture vast quantities of renewable energy equipment.

    The Chinese-made equipment helps the environment in other nations while leaving China with only financial and environmental costs, he said.

    ”Lots of solar panels are made in China and the pollution is left in China but they are used overseas,” Mr Zhang said. ”The low-carbon economy, carbon politics and carbon taxes are actually driven by the West as the foundation for a new cycle of the virtual economy.”

    They’re really beginning to see the light.

    The environmental rules, the legal hurdles, the unions requiring more and more benefits have forced countries to move overseas. As a result, the “developing countries” have absorbed all the environmental consequences the US would have had to shoulder.

  44. Chinese Sceptics see global warming as a US conspiracy.

    John Silver [October 8, 2011 at 10:26 am] says:

    “Peculiar; we see it as a communist conspiracy.”

    They’re both correct. China’s neo-Capitalists are beginning to despise the USA neo-Communists.

    Now that’s funny and ironic right there.

    And sad too.

  45. October 8, 2011 at 10:26 am

    Peculiar; we see it as a communist conspiracy.
    ———————————————————————————————————–

    No, we see it as a Global Socialist conspiracy. Not Communist….. The Chinese national identity is just as much a danger to Global Socialists as is Australia’s national identity or America’s.

    The Socialists want a Hegemon of their own…. Not American or Chinese hegemonies in competition.

    As for China, the Chinese Communists are more into a phase of National Socialism with a large emphasis on corporate cronyism….. There is no representative government in China, no free speech and no democratic processes, no free market…. the judicial system is controled by the state as is the media…. What we are told is “capitalism” is nothing but a period of political adventurism posturing as “freedom”. This new found “freedom of enterprise” is granted as easily as it is taken away… China’s constitution is still written as a Communist article and remains in place unchanged.

  46. Those would read just the Guardian can only conclude that the US is the biggest polluter on this planet. China is that poor developing country that needs additional support through zillions of carbon credits.
    I somehow hope the the normal Chinese, suffering from enormous pollution in their cities, will stand up to their Party’s politburo and demand a longer life for themselves.

    Today, the biggest rogue financial institutions may reside in the US, but those in industry reside in PR China.

  47. Just a bit of background for those not in Australia. John Garnaut writes some very good articles on China. He knows the country very well, and can cut through a lot of BS. That said, he writes for the Fairfax press, which generally has a leftist stance. There’s a family twist, too. His father is Ross Garnaut, who was Australia’s ambassador to China in the 1980s. More recently, Ross Garnaut was the author of the infamous Garnaut Report, which recommended that Australia introduce an emissions trading scheme. It was a local version of the Stern Report, full of dodgy assumptions in order to reach the conclusion that “we can’t afford to delay action”.

  48. My company does some consulting work in China and I have what I think is a funny personal story that is highly relevant to this topic.

    This past year, I attended a multi day conference in China that addressed a variety of environment and energy topics. On one of the days, I had been invited (as a foreign specialist) to do a full day training course which was done with simultaneous language translation for the 300 to 400 attendees. The agenda for the final day was much more ad hoc and as it turned out, they had a speaker arrive that morning from the Ministry in Beijing along with a contingent of high level Ministry officials. As the agenda for the day proceeded, this speaker took the podium for a couple hours and talked about what the current state of climate change policy was for different countries around the world, what China’s position was, what climate change mitigating efforts China was embarking on already, what the future held and so forth. From the translation, it seemed that the talk was fairly matter of fact without a lot of conviction of ‘we must do this’. What I did not know in advance was that there was going to be a panel discussion after this speaker and the next thing I knew was that I was being very strongly coaxed to participate in this panel discussion. Much to my host’s chagrin, I refused claiming that this was not my area of expertise and thus commenced the rounds of very high level insistence from the conference organizers that I participate which were of course rebuffed by me….I have strong opinions about this topic but to be unexpectedly asked to speak from the podium on a moment’s notice to a large audience was another story.

    Anyway, the panel discussion started without me and after an hour it was almost over… my translator was well aware of my opinion of climate change issues and thus I got the appropriate commentary. As this was concluding, the most senior official in attendance from the Ministry stood up to make some final closing statements. What he said was essentially “It’s been a wonderful conference….. blah blah… good ideas were exchanged….we still have much work to do to put these ideas into action….blah blah….the panel discussion was very helpful in defining what we need to think about as policy is set…..oh and by the way, I noticed that we did not have our visitor on the panel and I would very much like to hear his opinion to get a more western perspective on this topic”. You can imagine what I was thinking….”what a sneaky way of putting me on the spot”. However, to be fair I don’t think that the Ministry official doing these closeout remarks was aware that I had refused to participate to the organizers.

    After a long pause while thoughts were being collected, I got up and started prattling on about what I thought were relevant issues….”that while I didn’t disagree with the previous speaker, it was really policies that would provide clean air, water and ground that were needed as a focus, that there are actually many scientists who don’t hold the view that ‘manmade climate change’ due to the burning of fossil fuels is a real concern, that a closer review of climate data doesn’t appear to support the earlier views that temperature is rapidly rising and the media is simply not reporting these views…blah blah… that if energy supply is a concern then China should continue to improve their efforts of improving industrial efficiency where they have made great strides in recent years…..but it is important to remember that economic progress while keeping air, water and ground clean should be the focus and not let some other unproven and clearly erroneous drivers come in and hijack those efforts.” Partway through these impromptu comments, I could start to see a number of folks in the audience vigorously nodding in agreement (who previously during other panel members were quite silent and quiet) so it was apparent that there were at least a few people on board with my comments. There were a bunch of questions afterwards that went on for a bit and eventually the conference ended.

    That evening, I was wandering around the lobby of the conference center when an elevator opened up beside me and of all people, who should walk out but all these same Beijing Ministry officials. They recognized me and there was some bows and pleasantries exchanged…. one of the group had a very poor grasp of English but he could say a few things on behalf of the others. We were just about to part company when the ‘big boss’ from the Ministry tugged on my sleeve and motioned to the one fellow to translate something for him. With the big boss smiling broadly and nodding his head, what the fellow doing the translating said was….. “Big boss from Beijing wants me to tell our visitor that his comments were very well received. Right on target. Most refreshing damn thing he heard all day.”

  49. Not at all surprising that they have surpassed France with its big nuclear industry and underdeveloped Italy with a nuclear industry (which in their lunacy will be cut back). Their emmissions are not increasing as fast as before so in technological normalised fashion- they will be having falling emmission.

  50. It’s very interesting yet unsurprising to see the Chinese adopting such a stance. After all, the Chinese Communist Party is in control of the country, and according to Communist thought, ideology merely reflects underpinning economic interests, thus it is in China’s interests not to wish to restrict its industrial growth and the energy use that it requires to fuel this.

    The press are getting excited in the UK because one forecaster has claimed that the UK is heading for a record cold winter. What is for certain is that there are many players in the debate who use the pretext of global warming for their own political or corporate ends. Here in the UK, our Government uses it as justification for increasing taxes on gas, electricity and petrol and for increasing overseas aid whilst cutting domestic spending. Conversely, the oil industry funds the opponents of global warming for very obvious reasons. Meteorology has made great strides in recent years with respect to forecasting up to about five days ahead, but beyond that, the weather and climate system is simply too complex to be modelled fully. More here: http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2011/10/uk-winter-forecast-2011-2012-blowing.html

  51. So, one logical question would be: Would there be some similar reason why industrialists like the Koch Bros. and the Chinese would want to downplay any effects on the climate from industrial activities? Could profits and the potential growth of their industry be involved?

  52. 9 of 10 of the senior Chinese Communist leadership are russian trained engineers. Very practical people (and bloody dictators). Most of whom will be replaced at the next party congress when they reach mandatory retirement age (70), with fewer, but still a majority of engineers.

    This means they can do sums, probabilities, exponents and know the difference between placing the measurement target on barn door before or after letting loose with the shotgun.

    They are too polite to laugh in our face – so they laugh at us after we leave.

  53. Kohl (October 8, 2011 at 6:09 pm) asked: “Paul, you don’t think that the 3 times bigger (than US) population might have something to do with it?”

    Exactly. And pay attention to the more fundamental problem pointed out by Gail Combs (October 8, 2011 at 5:54 pm). Look at graduate student enrolments in university math, stats, & actuarial science MSc & PhD programs. The names on the lists will change over time, but you’ll observe a stable pattern indicating DRAMATICALLY SUPERIOR math education systems in Asia, particularly in China. I’m not open to debate on this subject. I know this situation inside out from first-hand experience and I’m asserting with unshakable confidence that our society NEEDS to address this issue without further delay. It will take decades or perhaps more than a century to correct the deeply-rooted problems with Western math education systems. With Absolute Sincerity.

  54. Zac says:
    October 8, 2011 at 10:57 am
    Why do wind turbines only have 3 blades?
    +++++++++

    The reason is the economics, materials, skill required, blade density, tip speed and the dimensions of the blade. Think about it like this:

    A single blade (with a counterweight) can have a certain twist and thus a certain tip speed (around the circumference of the swing) that is related to the wind speed. For a given tip speed, which is usually controlled by the materials available, there is a ‘best case’ for the total % of the swept area at a given rotational speed. This blade area ratio is called the blade density, for example 5%. If 5% of the swept area is occupied by blade, and there is only one, it can be quite large (wide). If you want two blades, they have to have 1/2 the area each so the tip speed can be maintained efficiently. Obviously it will be weaker because the thickness of the blade is a function of the width. So as the number of blades increases for any given tip speed, the width must be less and the matching thickness must similarly decrease. You will notice that all 5-bladed aircraft propellors are thin, narrow and ‘slower’. A DC3 with a turbofan retrofit has a large step-down gearbox and a 5-bladed prop.

    If you want to limit the gearing-up issues with power-generating windmills, you want to have the highest rotational speed you can within the limits of the blade materials. If you reduce the blade density, you can spin it faster and still efficiently get power out of the wind. The speed of the tip is often described as a multiple of the wind speed so a windmill with a tip speed of ‘6’ means the tip is travelling around at 6 times the wind speed. In an 80 kph wind that means 480 kph which is a pretty serious piece of engineering to cope with a modest wind.

    A windmill for pumping water needs high torque and low speed so the blade density is something like 80% and the tip speed is 1.0. Think of a farm windmill. High blade density, lots of wide blades, and slow. Ignore the fact they are thin sheet metal, that is for low cost. Yes it reduces the efficiency.

    Darius, who famously invented the Darius Rotor (egg-beater) made them with a tip speed of about 6 (in the centre) but he also made 2-bladed ‘fan mills’ like the common ones with a tip speed of 10. That means it had to have a very low blade density. It had tremendously narrow, thin blades. They are hopelessly weak and flexible.

    So in order to have a high shaft speed and strong, rigid blades, the number of them should be small. To be fast they have to be pretty narrow to get the tip speed up. The perfect, or at least the best overall solution these days is three blades. It is largely dictated by the materials involved. If they went for two blades and the same large diameter, they might not work well at low wind speeds. All of that is taken into consideration for the economics.

    The tapering of the blade (which adds cost) and the change in the twist as it narrows is all part of the optimisation of the whole system, its fabrication difficulty and cost. Executed perfectly, they also make a lot less noise if these details are dealt with correctly.

    Early power generating windmills (1980’s) had large, non-tapering, wide blades and they made a heck of a lot of noise because the tip was being driven by the middle at high speeds. They were the cause of many early complaints about noise. The blades were cheap, parallel and easy to make so they were ‘oversized’ to compensate for poor efficiency and damn the neighbours. Now with bigger subsidies they can afford to make them properly.

  55. R. Gates says:
    October 9, 2011 at 9:20 am

    So, one logical question would be: Would there be some similar reason why industrialists like the Koch Bros. and the Chinese would want to downplay any effects on the climate from industrial activities? Could profits and the potential growth of their industry be involved?

    So, one logical question would be: Would there be some similar reason why CAGW industrialist-academic-political complex like the (US) democratic party, the Australian liberal parties, the UK liberal and labour parties, the Euro bureaucracy, the international socialists and bankers like Soros and Buffet and Goldman-Sachs and GE and BP and Duke Energy and Illinois’ Exelon and Florida’s FP&L and Siemens, the international corrupt dictators across the world (who will get the corrupt carbon trading scheme money), and the corrupt IPCC and NOAA and NASA-GISS, and NSIRDC, and the NAS and APS (who depend on their “share of the democrats 89 billion dollar green energy funding), and the Solyndra and LightSquared (who are intimate democrat donors to Obama and Pelosi) would want to maximize any effects on the climate from industrial activities? Could profits and the potential growth of their industry and their universities and their parties be involved?

Comments are closed.