Quote of the week- the recasting of the argument begins

qotw_cropped

Every once in awhile a window opens and shows us the dark, illogical souls of the bureaucrats in the climate cabal. This is one of those times.

Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner has said.

There’s more.

Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?.

These are the views of the EU climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard.

Read it all here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html

h/t to Dennis Wingo, and many others.

About these ads

158 thoughts on “Quote of the week- the recasting of the argument begins

  1. The man contradicts himself within the same sentence, and expects people to agree with him. Why is it “good” to have been utterly and hugely wrong?

  2. Dark, yes. Illogical? I doubt it.

    You see, when Ms. Hedegaard is talking about “many good things,” she means things that are good for her and her subspecies. The fact that the same things may be deadly for me or for some other variety of human being is just the point. They are instinctively afraid of more intelligent life forms, and they want to exterminate us.

  3. This is a typical tactic of the left, ‘knowing what’s best for you’.

    I have a relative who is a very dangerous totalitarian who considers ‘inducing fear in the people’ as a legitimate tactic of government. Of course, the question as to the effect that such scaremongering has on human health is never discussed during Hippocratic oath adherence debates, since it would be rather bad Press for doctors to be seen ‘shaping the market’ to increase the need for their (highly paid) services. The argument we were having was about climate change and the arguments they put forward were exactly the ones above. The debate took place more than 5 years ago.

    Today, The Guardian has its usual totalitarian ex communist, George Monbiot, engaging in his normal ad hominems with one decidedly sinister addition: there is ruthless censorship of dissenting opinion in the moderated blog. I know full well what is within the rules and I made around 6 comments within the rules, five of which were suppressed.

    Totalitarianism has arrived when ad hominem insults allied to a removal of the right to reply is the staple fare.

    I urge all readers to email the Editor of the Guardian at Alan.rusbridger@theguardian.com, expressing your outrage, contempt and derision for his antics, particularly given his self-righteous posturing before the House of Commons during the recent Press Regulation hearings.

  4. This is nothing new. Even 10 or more years ago there were politicians, bureaucrats and even scientists openly claiming that even if it turns out they’re wrong about the science the policies are still good for reasons of “social justice” and other such socialist claptrap.

  5. rtj1211 says:
    September 17, 2013 at 12:13 am

    Ms. Hedegaard is a Danish Conservative and a former minister. In Europe and the U.K. you don’t have to be a Leftie to be an ecoloon, pace John Gummer, Frau Merkel and David Cameron.

  6. There is nothing odd about the statement.

    The EU is heavily dependent on Russian energy supplies. Russia has been known to use energy supplies as a ‘weapon’.

    So to the extent that the EU moves away from Russian Oil,Coal and Natural gas for whatever reason leads to EU energy security.

    Take away the issue of ‘Climate Change’ in Europe and all the politicians will simply switch to talking about ‘energy security’.

    Have the windmll and solar industry’s been successful in tilting the emphasis away from ‘energy security’? Sure…but that is always going to happen when you use 1/2 a reason rather then the whole reason when making political arguments.

  7. Surely what she means is that securing energy supplies, preferably from renewable sources, is a good idea independently of any consideration of climate change?

  8. at least she is frank that it is politics and science has nothing to do with it. In fact climate change is just an excuse to justify the political agenda and get the opposition into a chase to the wilderness and confusion. The science of climate change was a useful driver in the chase while it was convenient, to be superseded by data fudging when science starts to fail and ultimately hidden under the smog of consensus when science could no longer support the divergence between reality and computer models. When it is proven that climate change is more or less a natural phenomena, the political agenda will remain the same. There will just be a new issue. Anybody would try to predict forthcoming issue for the same political agenda ?

  9. Commonly I have seen CAGW movement members:

    a) Say they believe anti-CO2 laws are for the best regardless of whether or not CAGW is true, for so-and-so claimed reasons.

    … and in some different context & time but commonly by the same person:

    b) Pretend that there is no reason anybody would be inclined to exaggerate global warming.

    Actually A and B are mutually contradictory. Such is sort of like a combo of “we would never lie” and “we believe lying is harmless,” only not standing out as much as would be so if both were in the same sentence.

    Global warming was jumped on by anti-growth, anti-industry environmentalists from the start, and it has never really been primarily about imagined global warming in motivation to them, more an excuse than anything else. If one argues with one of them and shows how the effects are less than claimed, the response is not relief but annoyance that the excuse is being disrupted.

  10. This cartoon is much lauded by climate activists/pro climate change policy types:

    It’s popularity reveals all that is needed about the “big heart/small brain” well intentioned mindset

  11. Edit: In my prior post, I meant imagined CAGW, when using the “imagined global warming” phrase (though actually even basic global warming could be described as imagined too for the trend since 15 years ago or relative to much further back like the Holocene Climate Optimum).

  12. I am genuinely shocked and appalled! These people are casting themselves in the role of the ‘philosopher kings’, so convinced of the moral justification of their position that it’s ok to perpetrate their ‘noble lie’ on the people. The end justifies the means. The problem is, it doesn’t! And no-one gave them a mandate to rule by deceit!!

  13. “..would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”

    Oh, the inanity!
    Perhaps Ms “the ends justify the means” Hedegaard would care to consider these consequences of lying about CO2?
    – Trashing of the scientific method and respect for science
    – Damage to democracy
    – Blighting of the landscape with subsidy farms
    – Slaughter of wildlife by subsidy farms
    – Radioactive pollution of the Chinese landscape producing subsidy farm magnets
    – Driving manufacturing from countries with environmental protections to those without
    – Corruption and crime fuelled by carbon ponzi schemes
    – Transferring wealth from poor to rich through subsidy farming
    – and the endless list of snivelling stupidity goes on…

    Of course on the plus side there are some consequences that Ms Hedegaard has obviously not considered.
    – UN kleptocracy discredited and permanently compromised
    – All hope of a “bio-crisis” with bio-debt collected and redistributed under a frame work of UN global governance destroyed
    – EUSSR parliament discredited and permanently compromised
    – Every activist, journalist, politician or party of the left permanently compromised
    – Lame stream media no longer the gatekeepers of opinion
    – The rise of New Media and global grass-roots movements that can never be controlled or influenced by the regulating class

    The Fabian “long march through the institutions” may have succeeded in taking control of the EU and UN, but it is now ashes in their mouths. The fellow travellers, in their last push to their goal, all chose to hide behind the one stalking horse, global warming. They have effectively trashed the very artificial authorities they helped create and sought to control. Ms Hedegaard can try all she likes to establish a new “narrative”, but there is no hope. All her troops are compromised and the Internet is acid dip to “narrative”. In this aspect I would have to agree with Ms Hedegaard, the global warming hoax hasn’t been all bad ;-)

  14. The gist of what Europe’s climate commissioner is saying inspired me to replay a hotair comment of mine from a couple months ago:

    From the The Economist: The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures [15 year temperature stall] is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now.

    Now you see so many warmists saying like: “Well, what if we are wrong? Will we have done such a terrible thing by building a better world anyway?”
    A better world?
    Like the * 83% * CO2 cuts mandated by 2050 that were in the Cap & Trade bill that passed the US House in 2009. 83%, with large cuts coming immediately. This would have taken a wrecking ball to the economy, and created virtually apocalyptic havoc. “A better world,” I’m afraid not.
    Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren had said as early as 1973 that we must embark on a large scale program to “de-develop” the United States and create a “low-consumption economy.” Holdren said this way before the gwarming scare. Nevertheless, de-development was what he wanted then, and now.
    The leftist Senator Tim Wirth said in 1993: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.”
    And to achieve their idea of “the right thing” … it is amazing how deception is so openly and explicitly called for:
    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-Founder of Greenpeace
    “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first chairman of the ipcc
    “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective [dishonest] and being honest [ineffective].” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
    “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of .. how dangerous it is.” -Al Gore
    “Only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention.” -Monika Kopacz, Atmospheric Scientist
    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB
    Hence, the fear mongering Chicken Littles, the broken record prognostications of doom that are starting to sound a lot like constant crying wolf.

  15. Tis far better to tax than be taxed…what an upside down world these bureaucrats and functionaries live in. To paraphrase Marie Antoinette “Let them eat renewables”!

  16. Most of these apparatchiks are communists, which should tell you everything you need to know. Can’t quite understand why the US Govt loves the EU so much…..

  17. rtj1211

    Two points:
    1) As I suspect you know the medical profession do indeed shape the market for their services at great profit for themselves. I reckon they are responsible for the deaths of about half their customers with a great deal of help from Big Pharma.
    2) I tried to draw attention to the observation by the IPCC of the global warming slowdown over the last decade on the Guardian website but my comment was censored. In other words the Guardian will only allow comments expressing support for the Dangerous AGW meme even to the extent of disallowing the views of the “consensus settled-science” establishment.

  18. eco-geek says at September 17, 2013 at 12:59 am.

    Yes, the Guardian has lost the plot entirley on the Environment. I challenged the point of view that raising energy prices was good for the third world as the poorest will suffer moist form climate change.
    My argument was the standard point that poverty is the critical factor in surviving extreme weather – and cheap energy allows the development of infrastructure that mitigates against disaster.

    It was clear from the recomends that my points were being considered. And the replies were (in some cases) engaging with the case.

    So my posts were then deleted and I was banned.

  19. Nothing wrong with Europeans moving away from Russian oil and gas, putting global warming and climate change aside, this is a clever long term German policy to insulate their country from future oil and gas price shortages… and if global warming turns out to be true well that’s just a bonus as the Germans will have already done the heavy lifting in eliminating CO2 emissions

  20. eco-geek and rtj1211 … best way to counter their censorship is to submit comments of wildly exaggerated and disastrous claims which are then likely to be printed. This reinforces the view that their readership are a bunch of loons … which they are.

  21. M Courtney says:
    September 17, 2013 at 1:23 am

    “My argument was the standard point that poverty is the critical factor in surviving extreme weather – and cheap energy allows the development of infrastructure that mitigates against disaster.”

    We’re fast moving to a situation were renewables are cheaper than burning coal, (not even including the death and lung disease from particulate pollution) …

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/us-utility-chooses-wind-and-solar-cheaper-and-more-reliable-79876

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-big-solar-costs-fall-23-in-12-months-21407

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/utility-shocked-find-already-dead-13706

    coal is already dead in the water, just doesn’t doesn’t seem to accept it yet, oh well let their shareholder lose their pants..

  22. Connie has a way with words…and is a little ambitious!

    8 Sept: WSJ blog: Philippines Urged to Take Leadership Role on Climate Change
    Commissioner Hedegaard said frequent floods in Manila in recent years, including the flooding caused by the typhoon-intensified monsoon last month, puts the country in a “very interesting role” to help convince large producers of greenhouse gases on the need to act decisively on climate change agreements.
    “I’m extremely impatient…with a world that says it wants to address these issues but at a phase that is modest, too modest. That is why we want to inject some sense of urgency in the 2015 conference,” Ms. Hedegaard told The Wall Street Journal. “The challenge is to move a bit faster because that is what we need to do.”…
    She said that Europe believes that “intelligent way forward would be to solve our economic issues, our growth problems…the job and social aspects and the environment and climate change at once. In the end, it is about how we are creating the growth in the future,” she added…

    http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2013/09/08/philippines-urged-to-take-leadership-role-on-climate-change/

  23. If the renewables were what they claim, there might be some excuse for the “better world” delusions. As they are not, and cannot be, the sacrifices and deadly economic disruptions required to build them out are the more destructive the more they “succeed” in displacing conventional energy.

  24. As a Danish politician Connie Hedegaard should declare a commercial interest and resign. Denmark more than any other country has a massive commercial interest in renewables as it is the home of the worlds biggest wind turbine company, Vestas.

  25. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/19/steven-schneiders-1992-argument-against-balance-in-science-reporting/#comment-1082960

    Here are a few more quotations, excerpted from

    http://www.green-agenda.com

    Now seriously, do you really think this is all about global warming?

    Is it not possible that CAGW alarmism is just a smokescreen?

    It must be obvious by now, even to the most stupid of warmists, that the world is no longer warming, and has not been warming for 10-15 years.

    And the warmists are not all stupid, so what are they up to?

    In their own words:
    ______________

    “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on
    human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
    discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy,
    because of what we might do with it.”
    – Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

    “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
    worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
    – Jeremy Rifkin,
    Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

    “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
    equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
    – Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

    “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
    United States. We can’t let other countries have the same
    number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
    We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
    -Michael Oppenheimer,
    Environmental Defense Fund

    “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
    reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
    -Professor Maurice King

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
    we will be doing the right thing in terms of
    economic and environmental policy.”
    – Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
    climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
    bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    – Christine Stewart,
    former Canadian Minister of the Environment

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
    on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
    – Prof. Chris Folland,
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    “The models are convenient fictions
    that provide something very useful.”
    – Dr David Frame,
    climate modeler, Oxford University

    “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
    on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
    -Al Gore,
    Climate Change activist

    “It doesn’t matter what is true,
    it only matters what people believe is true.”
    – Paul Watson,
    co-founder of Greenpeace

    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to
    frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
    – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

    “The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
    spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
    opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
    -Al Gore,
    Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

    “We are on the verge of a global transformation.
    All we need is the right major crisis…”
    – David Rockefeller,
    Club of Rome executive member

    “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
    for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
    plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
    free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
    millions of acres of presently settled land.”
    – David Foreman,
    co-founder of Earth First!

  26. Flydbee,you are missing the point!

    Alexander Feht says:
    September 17, 2013 at 12:11 am

    You’re spot on! These are the neo-intellectual elites, the comprise no-feudalists, neo-socialists, neo-greenalists. They are frequently but not always, privately educated, wealthy, arrogant disguised as a passion for the environment & nature, but it is all a thin disguise, a veil! The last time people like them stalked the Earth, they were ordering their little helpers t heard millions into gas chambers, to control & solve the perceived threat of the day! They are all misguided lunatics! Long love the PDRofEU! The elieists have done it to us here, usurping science or policy! The EPA is your EU, unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, unsackable, passing enforcement laws based upon the flimsies of scientific evidence! Grumpy old man rant over!

  27. The irony is that EU policy is wrong even if the climate scientists are right.

    The policy would not significantly delay global warming, but by seriously harming European economies they would make it more difficult to mitigate any damage caused by climate change.

  28. ‘Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?.’

    Many of the things- such as diverting crops to fuel, thereby spreading hunger. Such as increasing fuel poverty, leading to thousands of premature deaths in the UK alone. Such as encouraging the spread of wind farms, leading to the despoiling of the countryside and the death of thousands of birds and bats. Such as clearing Indonesian rain forest to plant palm oil plantations, leading to the extinction of the orangutan. I could list many more of the things the EU has done in order to ‘combat climate change’ but I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir on this. The cartoon Aldous points to in comments would be funny if it wasn’t that the eco warriors aren’t creating a better world, they’re just taking from the poor and giving to the rich in much the same way as every power grabber before them.

  29. There is a case to do only what we would have done even if CAGW is not true. This was one of Hansen’s original arguments. So, for example, tighter air standards on black soot, sulfuric acid from coal.
    But if you go too far and you are wrong and people die in winter of cold and in summer from lack of cheap A/C – not good. People like her always want to go too far and do not think about the possibility of their mistakes killing people.

  30. In reply to:
    SideShowBob says:
    September 17, 2013 at 1:25 am
    Nothing wrong with Europeans moving away from Russian oil and gas, putting global warming and climate change aside, this is a clever long term German policy to insulate their country from future oil and gas price shortages… and if global warming turns out to be true well that’s just a bonus as the Germans will have already done the heavy lifting in eliminating CO2 emissions

    William:
    Green energy is a scam.
    Fortunately we live in a democracy. The solution to the green scam is an election. Australia is an example of the process and result.

    The long term energy solution is nuclear.
    Comment:
    Germany can spend money on green scams as the EU jobs have migrated to Germany and the common currency stops the normal rise in currency which would spread the jobs around the EU. Countries need GDP growth to create jobs and pay for entitlements.
    Higher energy costs increase manufacturing job loss to Asia. High energy costs are a type of indirect taxation.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/the-data-is-in-more-green-jobs-means-less-real-ones/#more-28909

    Each green job in Britain costs £100,000 (and 3.7 other jobs):

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7969102/The-Clean-Development-Mechanism-delivers-the-greatest-green-scam-of-all.html

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-14/biofuel-production-a-crime-against-humanity/2403402

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-greatest-scam-age.html

    Why the £250bn wind power industry could be the greatest scam of our age – and here are the three ‘lies’ that prove it:
    …The first is the pretence that turbines are anything other than ludicrously inefficient.
    The most glaring dishonesty peddled by the wind industry — and echoed by gullible politicians — is vastly to exaggerate the output of turbines by deliberately talking about them only in terms of their ‘capacity’, as if this was what they actually produce. Rather, it is the total amount of power they have the capability of producing.

    The point about wind, of course, is that it is constantly varying in speed, so that the output of turbines averages out at barely a quarter of their capacity. … …..This means that the 1,000 megawatts all those 3,500 turbines sited around the country feed on average into the grid is derisory: no more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station. … …..Furthermore, as they increase in number (the Government wants to see 10,000 more in the next few years) it will, quite farcically, become necessary to build a dozen or more gas-fired power stations, running all the time and emitting CO2, simply to provide instant back-up for when the wind drops….

  31. So we all shiver, catch influenza and other diseases from reduced immunity and cold, whilst millions around the world starve because of lack of food (if they haven’t froze to death) from land use diverted to biofuel, etc, etc.
    And some crass EU commisioner says ”it’s still good’ ?? Let, alone the massive waste of funds that could have easily saved millions around the world via better water, sanitation and food! FFS, someone needs to do something……unfortunately, the only constructive thing for the loonies that have these ‘ideas’ involves physically eradicating these muppets.

  32. From SideShowBob on September 17, 2013 at 1:34 am:

    We’re fast moving to a situation were renewables are cheaper than burning coal, (not even including the death and lung disease from particulate pollution) …

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/us-utility-chooses-wind-and-solar-cheaper-and-more-reliable-79876

    As expected, click some links, scratch through the gilt, find the truth.

    http://www.snl.com/Interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-24988078-9516


    Xcel Energy’s RES plan offers a proposed strategy for meeting the state’s renewable energy goals, which include further diversifying Colorado’s energy mix with solar, wind and other renewables, such as biogas, small hydro and recycled energy. Xcel Energy said it is ahead of schedule in meeting the state’s RES goal of 30% renewable energy by 2020.

    Xcel Energy also is recommending permanent closure of the 109-MW, coal-fired unit 4 at the Arapahoe Generating Station in Denver at the end of 2013 and continued operation of Cherokee Generating Station’s unit 4 in Denver as a natural gas facility after 2017. The fuel switch by the end of 2017 is part of a plan to comply with the state’s Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act.

    This is a fake competitiveness to comply with legislation, and localized to Colorado. It is not reality.

    Xcel Energy also asked the PUC to approve 317 MW of gas-fired generation in its latest filing. The gas-fired capacity would provide operational flexibility to integrate renewable resources into its electric supply mix, Xcel Energy said in a press release.

    Once again, the “hidden cost” of renewables. The first link supplied by the frequently-lying criminal who escaped from The Simpsons boldly proclaims:

    US utility chooses wind and solar – “cheaper and more reliable”

    Cheaper when adding in subsidies while leaving out the cost of the backup generation, so reliable it needs the fast-acting backup generation to even be allowed into their grid.

    Standard Green lies and deception, pushed by a wannabe carnival barker. Feel free to ignore.

  33. SideShowBob:

    I see only kadaka (KD Knoebel) has replied to your ridiculous post at September 17, 2013 at 1:34 am. The paucity of replies to your post is possibly because many think your post is too silly to be worth the bother of disputing. However, there may be onlookers who could be duped by your tripe so I write to refute it.

    Your post makes the daft assertion

    We’re fast moving to a situation were (sic) renewables are cheaper than burning coal, (not even including the death and lung disease from particulate pollution)

    and attempts to justify that with links to propagandist web sites which support rent seekers.

    The truth is We’re fast moving to a situation where (sic) renewables are so highly subsidised that they can compete on price with burning coal, and the resulting high energy costs are killing people.

    Costs are the sum of price and subsidies. And being “cheaper” is having lowest costs.

    Renewables such as wind and solar cannot be cheaper than coal or other fossil fuel energy: it is physically impossible. I explain this as follows.

    All energy is free. It was all created at the Big Bang. But it is costly to collect energy and to concentrate it for conduct of useful work.

    Fortunately, nature has collected and concentrated energy for us.

    For example, the little energy available in sunlight has been collected by photosynthesis over geological ages, and the collected energy exists in dry, compressed stores known as fossil fuels, notably coal.

    The energy available in sunlight as it falls, or the solar energy collected as biomass is in such small amounts that collecting it costs much more than collecting the energy concentrated in fossil fuels.

    Wind is also energy supplied by the sun but it is also too feeble in normal winds to make its collection affordable when the solar energy collected by fossil fuels is so much and is so concentrated.

    However, hydropower is solar energy collected by evapouration over large areas which is concentrated when it falls as rain and is routed to rivers by geography. This large collection area makes hydropower affordable in competition with fossil fuels and nuclear power. (Nuclear power is energy concentrated by now long-dead stars).

    The high concentration of energy in fossil fuels is why windpower and muscle power (from animals and slaves) were abandoned when the high energy intensity in fossil fuels became available for use as power by using of the steam engine.

    But hydropower was not abandoned and is still used because the energy intensity in falling water is comparable to the energy intensity in fossil fuels.

    In summation, collecting energy for use is cheap by using hydropower, fossil fuels and nuclear power because nature has done most of the collecting. But collecting energy is expensive from wind and solar because we have to do all the collection ourselves.

    Richard

  34. @harrywr2

    The good ole’ “they will hold us hostage with their oil/gas/coal” argument. Always as baseless no matter how many times it trotted out by the naive and the manipulating.

    As Saudi Arabia found out in the 1970s, using your commodity output as an economic weapon damages the supplier more than the consumer. Let them cut off the gas completely. Yes, there is a short term disruption, but the economics will prevail and within a decade, Russia would bbe sitting on a usless and unsellable stock of gas that isn’t even worth extracting.

    Left alone, without the central planners like Hedegaard the rest of Europe will have moved on. Granted, without the best first choice enrgy techonology, but the next best one. Until of course Russia came back gto the market with its tail between its legs, having learnt a lesson in markets. Again, just like the Saudis.

  35. Well at least Europe has come some way from hunting witches and fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend.

  36. @richardscourtenay

    ‘In summation, collecting energy for use is cheap by using hydropower, fossil fuels and nuclear power because nature has done most of the collecting. But collecting energy is expensive from wind and solar because we have to do all the collection ourselves.

    Brilliantly put! Definitely the best way I have ever heard it described. My quote of the year (so far).

    Thanks.

  37. SideShowBob says:
    September 17, 2013 at 1:34 am
    We’re fast moving to a situation were renewables are cheaper than burning coal, (not even including the death and lung disease from particulate pollution) …
    ________________________________________________________________________
    The only way the utility can say that renewables are more economical is they are getting RECS. The average FOSSIL generating costs for the US in 2011 was $35.09/MWh, which is half to a third of ExCel estimated costs. What about capacity factors for solar and wind? It is 6:43 AM in Richmond, there is no wind and no sun. Just how much electricity do you suppose is being generated by renewables? PS: this is a peak demand time in the PJM.
    What death and lung disease from particulate pollution? Show me the autopsy reports and assignments of “pollution” for lung diseases and deaths. Try the CDC mortality and morbidity tables to find it. Show me the data behind the EPA estimates. You know, the secret data the EPA won’t even share with Congress.

    Quite a side show, Bob.

  38. Making odd statements to justify right vs wrong is not unusual. Read the book The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. When one believes something to be right and is confronted about that belief, that person will find a reason to justify that ‘right’ belief. Morality leads reason, not the other way around. By the alarmists pushing their cause as ‘right’ the believers are in that awkward position as the latest science shows their belief to be unjustified.

  39. OT: This has probably been asked and answered already, but can someone explain the bright streaks in the upper left quadrant of recent solar images on this page? Thanks.

  40. It could not be any more clear tht this is NOT about the science, it is about the policies that are designed to separate the people from their money.

  41. Leftists ALWAYS fail to understand the concept of opportunity costs and unintended consequences.

    After $trillions have been flushed down the toilet on this ludicrous and totally disconfirmed CAGW hypothesis, Leftists will point to their expensive, inefficient, intermittent, diffuse and wasteful wind/solar farms and proudly say, “look at the good we have done.”

    What these naive and moronic political hacks fail to see are the: higher standards of living, the thriving factories, the manufacturing jobs, scientific research, lower fuel costs, higher disposable incomes, economic growth and prosperity that DIDN’T occur because all those limited funds were squandered on stupid “alternative energy” subsidies, carbon taxes, carbon emission compliance costs, etc.,

    All politicians should learn and practice the lessons from Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy… But, alas, some leftist professor will show the political hacks some peer reviewed paper proving Bastiat got it all wrong and that the more money politicians flush down the toilet, the stronger economies become.

    And so it goes…. Until sanity and freedom are restored…

  42. eo September 17, 2013 at 12:33 am

    There will just be a new issue. Anybody would try to predict forthcoming issue for the same political agenda ?

    The same old Club or Rome claptrap – we must conserve resources, therefore ration everything for the plebs, as we need it all.

  43. Dr Lindzen has this great piece at [ http://www.icecap.us/ ].
    Sep 16, 2013
    The Climate Issue: Widespread agreement and the choice of a moral policy.
    Dr. Richard Lindzen

    The issue of global warming (or climate change or weather disruption or whatever the current label is) is often put forward as a moral issue, but this does not change the need to pay attention to the science. Indeed, the latter is a crucial prelude to the former. The situation here may not be as complex as is sometimes suggested. Frequently the questions posed in public discussions are so reductionist as to be silly. Is it warming or not? Is CO2 increasing. Is climate changing? Is summer sea ice decreasing? Such questions actually disguise what are the real policy-relevant questions. These are inevitably quantitative rather than yes-no in character.

    Though it would be difficult to speak of universal agreement over any aspect of the issue, it is nonetheless the case that there are many areas of agreement among most of the scientists on both sides of this issue. Such agreement hardly insures that these views are correct, but, for the moment, they are a reasonable starting point.

    There is general agreement that there has been a relatively small and irregular increase in global mean temperature anomaly over the past couple of hundred years; by ‘relatively small’ I mean relative to the actual variability of this quantity at any given location or even region. There is also agreement that this quantity has not risen for the past 17 years or so. Over the past two centuries the warming has been less than 1C.

    There is general agreement that climate is always changing. To be sure, climate is more than simply the global mean temperature anomaly.

    There is agreement that there is a greenhouse effect, and that doubling CO2, in the absence of any feedbacks, will lead to warming on the order of 1C; this is generally felt to be unalarming and perhaps even beneficial. The issue of feedbacks is crucial. Alarm requires, at the least, that these feedbacks actually greatly amplify the impact of man’s contribution to greenhouse gases.

    There is agreement that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, and that current levels are about 35% greater than pre-industrial levels; there is agreement that much of this increase is likely due to industrial emissions.

    There is agreement that when combined with other increasing greenhouse gases (like methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), the total greenhouse forcing is about 80% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2. That is to say, we are effectively pretty close to a doubling of CO2 in terms of greenhouse impact.

    While there is significant disagreement as to whether feedbacks will diminish or amplify the effect of CO2, there is virtually no disagreement that the impact of each added amount of CO2 diminishes relative to earlier amounts. This is referred to as the logarithmic regime.

    There are two more points which I find substantial agreement over within the climate research community, but which might be contested by environmental activists:

    Namely, that increases in CO2 will not jeopardize the planet, itself, and that any relation of increases in global mean temperature anomaly to such more relevant issues such as regional climate, storminess, extreme weather, etc. are not evident in the data nor are they robust features of models.

    It is worth noting that none of the above point to alarm. Nevertheless, there has been a huge effort to implement mitigation policies. The presumed basis is essentially the precautionary principle. Despite the fact that there is no evidence for alarm, neither can it be rigorously rejected. The arguments for alarm are, moreover, frequently based on the misuse of scientific statements. For example, the IPCC iconic statement that there is 90% certainty that most of the warming of the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions. While one may legitimately question the subjective assignment of a probability to such a statement, the statement, itself, is again completely consistent with there being no problem. To say that most of a small change is due to man is hardly an argument for the likelihood of large changes.

    Such misuse of language and logic bring to mind Orwell’s comment on the political implications of language: “It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” As to political language, itself, Orwell notes that it “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

    Turning to policy, there is widespread agreement that mitigation measures, such as the Kyoto Protocol, will have no discernible impact on climate regardless of one’s position on feedbacks.

    Much more extreme measures will have no discernible impact on climate unless the most pessimistic and least supportable estimates of climate amplification are correct, and the proposed measures are universally adopted. All such measures, moreover, will have negative impacts on income, development, the environment, and food availability and cost especially for the poor. We know these impacts are real because we are already seeing them and have been doing so for some time. That these measures are endorsed by the environmental movement is hardly reassuring. The movement has racked up an impressive record of endorsing measures that have led to the death and debilitation of millions of the world’s most vulnerable. The complete banning of DDT and its impact on malaria is a notable but not unique example.

    Under the circumstances, it would appear that the reasonable and moral policy would be to foster economic growth and well being in order that societies be better able to deal with climate change regardless of its origin. Mitigation policies appear to have the opposite effect without significantly reducing the hypothetical risk of any changes in climate. While reducing vulnerability to climate change is a worthy goal, blind support for mitigation measures regardless of the invalidity of the claims constitutes what might be called bankrupt morality. It is worse than bankruptcy when the proposed measures are counterproductive. It is not sufficient for actions to artificially fulfill people’s need for transcendent aspirations in order for the actions to be considered moral. PDF

    Sep 15, 2013

  44. They’ve been saying this for years – every time they are backed into a corner on the science, they recast the argument as ensuring future energy security, for that distant day when Fossil Fuels run out.

  45. Sounds like they know the end is near and they’re developing their ‘spin’ to justify the idiotic policies they wanted to enact.

  46. It’s why many of us in England want to be out of the EU. People (who are UNELECTED) within the EU are just plain stark raving mad. There are many Brits here who could give you Americans a taste of what being in the EUSSR is like, with tales of rulings being handed down from UNELECTED people that you just wouldn’t believe.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/eu-directives-law-2011-12?op=1

    In a few years Britain will be OUT of the EU – despite want Barmy Obama wants!

  47. Alexander Feht says:
    September 17, 2013 at 12:11 am

    They are instinctively afraid of more intelligent life forms, and they want to exterminate us.”

    “Alluha Akbar…Forward!”

  48. Clueless Connie could probably learn a thing or two from Bjorn Lomborg about the “correctness” and “goodness” of raising energy costs, and dragging economies down. Ultimately, what you get is far more actual pollution (from burning whatever is available), environmental destruction, and misery, sickness, and death among the poor. But, perhaps that is her ultimate goal.

  49. There is nothing new in the rationalizations highlighted here. AGW true believers do not care if they are wrong. They do not need, or really want, facts. Just as AGW catastrophic climate predictions cannot be falsified, the AGW fanatic cannot, in their own mind, be incorrect.

  50. steveta_uk said September 17, 2013 at 3:57 am:

    OT: This has probably been asked and answered already, but can someone explain the bright streaks in the upper left quadrant of recent solar images on this page? Thanks.

    I noticed them before, as they were just then new to me they were freaking me out. Saw a recent comment by Leif at one thread, asked him there. The instrument developed a flaw, a crack or something. It’s been growing for months, up close you can see the propagation of the crazing. It’s just the one imager, no rush to replace the instrument platform. Perhaps they’ll figure out how to “fix” it digitally.

    Oh, and space is a harsh environment.

  51. People must remember that the German windmills were introduced by Gerhard Schroeder to get Germany hooked on Russian gas.

    Whilst still Chancellor, Schroeder negotiated with Putin and Gazprom to be made Chairman of NordStream, the Baltic gas pipeline.

    Basically the windmills are a communist tactic but behind them are the fascist eugenicists, the new Nazis.

  52. As for Hedegaard, she was put in place to propagate the lie [which she probably did not know of] that the Danish windmills were a success when in reality, they have to dump wind energy >10% of demand to hydro then buy it back at spot prices.

    In short, she was a dupe and must be hopping mad that she has been shown to be a dupe for fake IPCC Climate Alchemy.

  53. I am reminded of the Clancy novel “Rainbow” where some green eco-nazis had attempted to remove humanity from the face of the earth……except for the chosen few of course.
    The novel concludes with this elitist group being left in splendid eco-isolation in a particularly virulent, violent and venomous tract of tropical rainforest, their luxurious self sustaining accommodation having been trashed by the special forces heroes of the day.
    Hmmm! If only….

  54. Errr – the novel is actually “Rainbow Six”.
    Apologiesfor my apppalllng profruding.

  55. Ironic that Connie Hedegaard’s home country Denmark has the highest installed Wind capacity of any country, yet has seen an increase in co2 output, and no decrease. Looks like her right things are in fact the wrong things.

  56. Just for the record, Connie Hedegaard is not a left-wing politician.

    She is a member of the Conservative People’s Party (Denmark) which is a centre-right party.
    Much like the UK Conservative Party (as described by Wikipedia).

    It pays to know your enemy.

  57. SideShowBob says:

    September 17, 2013 at 1:34 am

    I was happy to see the responses to his assertion.

    Coal is being replaced due to government regulations that are making it more expensive because of the fear of carbon – not particulate, or other issues. But natgas has shown up to become even cheaper due to evil fracking, so the environmental zealots have been foiled again. As renewable subsidies are drying up, and as even the biofuels cartel is coming under attack, renewables are getting more expensive, not less.

    Standard renewables – such as wind and especially solar may find uses in targeted end user capacity. Wind for operating widely dispersed power generating needs – such as water pumps in isolated ranch operations where there isn’t enough sun for solar. Homes in sunny areas, like for instance California where utility costs are so high the capital investment in solar panels on individual residences makes great sense (I believe our fearless moderator has done just that). Eventually, I could see solar technology built into windows of new construction to handle individual site energy needs during the day – AC in summer, as well as regular appliance and lighting expenses.

    But on a massive scale, they are too non-dense to collect efficiently. Renewables are actually going to begin disappearing on a grand scale, because the money to support them has run out in Europe, and is starting to run out in the US – and China and India don’t care. They have too many poor people they are trying to lift out of poverty to listen to the climate science priesthood.

  58. Eric Simpson says:
    September 17, 2013 at 12:49 am

    … Now you see so many warmists saying like: “Well, what if we are wrong? Will we have done such a terrible thing by building a better world anyway?”
    A better world?…

    Don’t you just love it when they reduce the argument down to something like this? Who doesn’t want to live in a better world! Don’t you want your children to live in a better world? How can you argue with that? It’s like trying to discuss a complex topic with a young child.

    Of course the purpose of this tactic is to shut you up by ridiculing dissent.

  59. The ends always justify the means for these people, because (1) they are always right regardless of the degree of scientific rigor; (2) they always know what’s best for us, the ignorant masses. Their arrogance is so prevalent I can only assume much of it is subconscious.

  60. Eliza says:
    September 17, 2013 at 5:00 am

    The ABC (Australia) is still pushing BS

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-17/scientists-say-humans-key-factor-in-global-warming-of-climate/4962796

    WE need WUWT, SM or others here to debunk this which has probably being all made up if anything.

    Wigley says:

    “We see warming at the surface and cooling in the upper atmosphere, so that immediately discounts the sun as a causal factor….
    “But in fact the real answer is that the heat that normally would accumulate in the atmosphere, and we know this from observational data, has gone into the deeper ocean.
    “It’s an unusual event [the Pause], but it’s just part of the natural variability of the climate system, so we do understand why there has been this slow down in warming and it’s certainly nothing to do with the credibility of climate models.”

    Goggle Translator says:
    “The elusive Hot Spot moves to the surface but then immediately slithers into the deeper Ocean, due to natural variability, taking more than its fair share of heat with it. It only feels like there is a Sun up there. Although he ways of the Warming Models and their own Son CO2 whom they have sent to us are mysterious, I have talked with them. Resist, we must.”

  61. It never ceases to amaze me, the arrogance of those who think they know what’s best for society to the point of actually trying to control it by force.

  62. The motto of the World’s Leftists in a nutshell, “Even if the FACTS prove we wrong about the issue, we were still morally correct in pursuing it.”

  63. Allan MacRae on September 17, 2013 at 2:25 am

    Here are a few more quotations . . .

    – – – – – – – –

    Allan MacRae,

    Thank you for compiling those quotes.

    John

  64. Somehow these people have got the idea that fossil fuels per se are bad and evil–the modern original sin. If the “other” reason to not use coal was pollution, they should be thrilled about natural gas: no particulates (soot), half the CO2, 1/7 the N and S pollution, and cheaper also. What could be better?

  65. @ kadaka (KD Knoebel) & richardscourtney

    Delusional twits – tweedle dee and tweedle dumb, why don’t you take an objective look at the historic cost chart of solar and wind (with or without subsidies) and extrapolate to the future – what do you see?

  66. @ kadaka (KD Knoebel) & richardscourtney

    Then while you’re at it take a look at the historic chart of oil, and compare to solar and wind, picture getting any clearer for you now?

  67. SideShowBob says:
    September 17, 2013 at 1:25 am
    Nothing wrong with Europeans moving away from Russian oil and gas
    ===============
    Why not mandate limits to Russian oil and gas imports rather than mandates to CO2? If energy security is your goal, then why the need to dress it up as saving the world?

    After all, it was the Europeans that made the decision to buy Russian oil and gas. If they were worried about security of supply, why not simply say no? Why risk having a Russian knife at your throat every winter? Surely that is much more dangerous than a slowly warming climate.

  68. Anyone compute how much solar energy is removed from the atmosphere by solar devices? Would that be considered a negative forcing? It must remove some.

  69. I got about 20 comments into the comments section of the Telegraph article. My god these people are religious zelots. Dear lord. This is not over …… not by a long, long long shot.

    Tom

  70. Who is Connie Hedegaard? Let us see. According to Wikipedia she is:
    ‘Connie Hedegaard holds an MA in Literature and History. She has been a member of the Conservative Party and active in government on and off since 1984, when she was elected as the hitherto youngest member of the Folketing, the Danish national parliament, where she sat for six years.[6] In 1990, she left politics to pursue a career in journalism. Over the next 14 years, she worked as a journalist at the newspaper Berlingske Tidende, took the post of Director of DR Radio News, and was the anchor for Deadline, a Danish TV news program.’

    Ah, so our dear bureaucrat was … a journalist. Well, what a noble profession that has shown itself to be. I particularly like the way those hard charging, truth gathering, fact finding, holding-governments-and-government officials’-feet-to-the-fire, professional journalists have diligently avoided developing cozy, revolving door relationships with those very same governments they seek to hold accountable. Except when they haven’t diligently avoided it. And, lo and behold, our former journalist, and now government official, Connie Hedegaard, has done the proper thing to do, as the above describes, and dispensed any ethical concerns, and charged right on in to that revolving door. It’s nice to know that the free West has maintained a free press.

    Might I suggest that the TV news station that Connie Hedegaard anchored for, ‘Deadline,’ may more accurately describe itself with a name such as, ‘Bottom Line.’ Or, if it wishes to predict the future of societies that listen to its climate and energy nonsense, it might describe itself with a name such as, ‘Flatline.’

  71. SideShowBob says:
    September 17, 2013 at 6:52 am
    @ kadaka (KD Knoebel) & richardscourtney

    Then while you’re at it take a look at the historic chart of oil, and compare to solar and wind, picture getting any clearer for you now?

    So no need for subsidies soon?

    PS: Don’t forget to look at the chart for natural gas.

  72. I am a life long / contining part-time student of the premises of the most fundamental concepts and of arguments associated with them, my real love . . .

    I think the premise at the root of Hedegaard’s statement and of all the other people’s statements in the compilation provided by Allan MacRae (on September 17, 2013 at 2:25 am) is well known.

    The premise has been identified often at skeptical venues.

    I think the premise is a dislike for mankind’s capacity to know nature and dislike of using it for promoting well being. For those people who dislike it, controlling mankind’s capacity is the solution.

    You might reasonably ask me why do they have that premise; isn’t there some deeper premise? That is what I am a student of . . . . seeing how far down the turtles premises go.

    My thought on a deeper premise is that it is envy. Those people who productively use mankind’s knowing capacity to successfully produce wealthy achievement are envied by those who don’t use man’s knowing capacity in that way.

    There even might be a deeper premise below envy. It might be fear of others who know by those who don’t.

    And so on and so forth . . .

    John

  73. Global warming activism (now called climate change activism… until a more politically convenient name is needed) is little more that a philosophical and political movement based on Malthusian thinking; activists object to human wealth on a moral basis, because they believe that wealth is a product of the availability of raw materials, or if you prefer, “exploitation of Nature by man”. The idea that restricting wealth is “a good thing” has been around for a very long time, and it is not going to go away any time soon; it has nothing to do with the probability or size of consequences from global warming, and everything to do with a desire to restrict economic growth, and even drastically reduce existing material wealth. The simultaneous opposition by green (Mathusian) activists to both nuclear power and fossil fuel based power is the logical consequence; sincere concern about emissions of CO2 would logically lead to strong support for nuclear power… that it almost always associated with strong opposition to nuclear power is telling. The more extreme believers in the Malthusian POV take it one step further and call for both vast reductions in wealth and vast reductions in human population (to preserve ‘Nature’ in a condition similar to what it would be absent a large human population).

    Those who are most strongly opposed to global warming/green/Malthusian activism believe that wealth is primarily the product of human knowledge, investment, and most of all, the availability of inexpensive energy. This group can be called cornucopian optimists, and believe humanity is morally obliged to help poor people to become more wealthy to reduce disease and suffering, and to improve their quality of life. Cheap energy, combined with human knowledge, is the ultimate solution to the Malthusian argument: unless we start rocketing vast quantities of Earth’s surface off into space, there is no real limit on available raw materials, since nothing is physically leaving the Earth’s surface, no matter the level of human economic activity or human population. There really are no plausible raw material based physical ‘limits to growth'; the only real limit is the energy needed to convert existing materials, whatever their form or concentration, into useful products.

    If political efforts by Mathusians to restrict energy use and increase its cost are successful, then exactly the kinds of ‘limits to growth’ that Malthusians have always argued are inevitable will in fact, and for the first time, become inevitable… a perfect self-fulfilling prophecy… and that inevitability will extend to large reductions in global wealth and continued poverty for many. This is and has always been the desired outcome for Malthusians.

    Malthusians have considerable influence in the governments of most developed economies (Mr Obama’s science adviser Dr. Holdren is an outspoken Malthusian, and has been for 40+ years!), and they consistently try to and use the levers of government power to advance their philosophy. Malthusians dominate academia (consider where most climate research is being done), while conucopians are rare… and mostly shouted down if they dare voice their opinion. Conucopians currently have much less influence in government, if only because their inclination to promote growth and wealth requires a more-or-less free market economy…. and that is inconsistent with the extensive government control over private activities, and large scale redistribution of wealth, desired by the political left. It is the nexus of leftist politics and Malthusian/environmental philosophy which magnifies the potential economic damage which could take place due to global warming hysteria. The political reality is that people (aka voters), if given a choice, will almost always choose to be wealthy instead of poor; there is a natural political support for the conucopian POV. Malthusains understand this, and so use “environmental catastrophes” to demand that people not vote in their own best economic interest.

    The outcome of the political struggle between Malthusians and cornucopians will ultimately be decided at the ballot box. The global warming debate, is, and always has been, more a political and philosophical disagreement than a disagreement about science. The specific issue of projections of ‘catastrophic warming’ may be (and I strongly suspect will be) shown by reality to be a gross overstatement within the next decade or so, and ultimately projections of warming will become more realistic and not catastrophic. But that will not in any way end the debate, because there is no limit to the number of potential environmental catastrophes which are (constantly!) postulated. Malthusians have been around for a long time, and they are not going to disappear any time soon; all I can hope for is that they become much less influential in government, so that future economic growth is not reduced too much.

    And that depends on how we vote.

  74. SideShowBob, if renewables can reliably produce cheap energy without more subsidy than other forms of energy generation then I would wholeheartedly support them. Who wouldn’t?

    If.

    But, so far the combined wisdom of the world – expressed through the market – states that they cannot reliably produce cheap energy without more subsidy than other forms of energy generation.

  75. SideShowBob:

    Your post at September 17, 2013 at 6:52 am says in total

    @ kadaka (KD Knoebel) & richardscourtney

    Then while you’re at it take a look at the historic chart of oil, and compare to solar and wind, picture getting any clearer for you now?

    I am familiar with the data you want me to “take a look at”.

    Importantly, the issue is very clear to me; i.e. you are a shill for Big Wind.

    Please read my above post addressed to you at September 17, 2013 at 3:32 am. It may help you to get a clue. This link jumps to it

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/quote-of-the-week-the-recasting-of-the-argument-begins/#comment-1419170

    Richard

  76. I believe that in a world with still more people, wanting still more growth for good reasons, the demand for energy, raw materials and resources will increase and so, over time so, over time, will the prices, I think we have to realise that in the world of the 21st century for us to have the cheapest possible energy is not the answer.

    In a world with nine billion people, even 10 billion at the middle of this century, where literally billions of global citizens will still have to get out of poverty and enter the consuming middle classes, don’t you think that anyway it makes a lot of sense to get more energy and resource efficient.

    I know I personally am not surprised by this, but it is still infuriating to hear pompous AGW zealots such as Commie Headagourd nakedly expose their real anti-human agenda of control and punishment. They wrap it up in harmless sounding terms like Sustainable Development, but as I say in my post, they only offer Sustainable Misery. They aim to make the wealthy poor and keep the poor impoverished. It will be a death sentence for tens of millions and they just don’t give a bleep. So no, it would “not have been good in any case” Ms. Headagourd and you know it as proven by your own totalitarian words you human-shaped pile of excrement. I hate to quote myself, but I think I capture it fairly well in my recent letter to National Geographic:

    Under the guise of the innocuous-sounding Sustainable Development banner, this edict to de-develop developed nations and cripple the growth of developing nations will do nothing to affect climate but much to promote poverty, wealth destruction, loss of national sovereignty, energy and resource rationing, restriction of property rights, further environmental degradation, and a general continued withering of Liberty.

    …Finally, to lend weight to my previous statements of fact, not conspiracy, regarding the impact of Sustainable Development, I offer figures derived by the UN, its chief promoter. If we continue upon this deviant course instead of the natural course we were following (the UN termed it the Golden Economic Age), by the year 2100 the global GDP will have contracted by $200 trillion ($350 trillion vs. $550 trillion). That equates to a 40% decrease in per capita income for developed countries and a 50% decrease in per capita income for developing countries. Read that again. Eighty percent of humanity lives in developing countries and this agenda aims to cut their projected wealth in half. Please keep that in mind whenever you hear it parroted that these efforts are primarily meant to help the poor. They do the exact opposite and instead will ensure that poverty is unforgivably sustained for the world’s poorest. I conclude with my earlier premise that those propagating this agenda wish only to control and punish humanity. When enough people awaken to that reality, this backward opposition to humanity’s natural course of development, this Golden Economic Age, will be swept aside. My advice to you is to join us to that end, or step aside.

  77. would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?

    No.

  78. Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner has said.

    There are some German companies that are relocating. If one gets higher unemployment and yet you were wrong, how can that be right?

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/merkel-s-switch-to-renewables-rising-energy-prices-endanger-german-industry-a-816669.html

  79. Patrick Hadley says:
    September 17, 2013 at 2:45 am

    The irony is that EU policy is wrong even if the climate scientists are right.
    ______________________________________________________________
    Brilliant. I love it when irony is highlighted.

    However, on a more sombre note, this all means that her definition of “good” is radically different than ours.

  80. SideShowBob says:
    September 17, 2013 at 6:52 am
    @ kadaka (KD Knoebel) & richardscourtney

    Then while you’re at it take a look at the historic chart of oil, and compare to solar and wind, picture getting any clearer for you now?

    Apples vs. oranges. Solar and wind provide electric power and thus must be compared to natural gas, nuclear, or coal, not to oil, of which only 1% produces electric power.

  81. As a quick follow-up to my previous post, I was reminded of that old quote from the Vietnam War. With a slight edit, it captures Ms. Headagourd’s anti-human philosophy fairly well:

    We had to destroy the economy in order to save it.

    Or:

    We had to destroy humanity in order to save it.

  82. We must act now even if we’re wrong. There are many more of them harboring doubts but prefer to remain silent lest they be called the “D” word.

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
    Timothy Wirth – President of the UN Foundation

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
    Paul Watson – co-founder of Greenpeace

    http://www.green-agenda.com/

    “It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be.
    Tony Blair – Former UK Prime Minister
    Daily Telegraph

  83. “Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner has said.”

    I am so grateful to Ms. Hedegaard for informing me that “the correct energy policies” have nothing to do with climate science and always have had nothing to do with it. I am sure that she will now stop backing or promoting climate science because she knows that it is irrelevant to her job as energy commissioner.

    Now, Ms. Hedegaard, what are “the correct energy policies” and what are your reasons for them? In addition, why are higher prices for energy not a reason against some energy policies? Are you planning to compensate energy users for higher prices?

  84. @Swiss Bob says:
    “Most of these apparatchiks are communists, which should tell you everything you need to know. Can’t quite understand why the US Govt loves the EU so much…..”

    That’s because the head of our government is a closet communist, although no one in his party will admit it, and no one wants to impeach the guy for fear of being called “raaaascist.” Communism has always been about totalitarian control and collectivism – the subordination of the individual’s wants, needs and creative energies to the wants and needs of the collective. The “collective good,” however, has always just been a clever lie designed to persuade the masses and bring them under the control of a few political and financial elite. When you also control the media, you can define everything for everyone for whatever your purpose. Protection of the masses from their own folly by feeding them a lie about the climate has always been a perfect vehicle for collective control.

    Putin was right. There is no longer anything exceptional about the US. We are no longer a country defined by individual responsibility, self-determination and the freedom of choice. We are rapidly becoming a country of people with their hands held out, expecting cradle-to-grave care-taking by government, another failed, socialist republic that will soon be the envy of no one.

  85. Hal44 says:
    September 17, 2013 at 6:34 am

    The motto of the World’s Leftists in a nutshell, “Even if the FACTS prove we wrong about the issue, we were still morally correct in pursuing it.”

    “Because we’re good people and we care!” I just heard this proclamation made by one of the elected representatives successfully recalled in Colorado, to her supporters. It’s an insult to baby talk!

  86. This is another example that justifies the relavance of my favourite quote; rare wisdom and insight as to the manner in which we should all live our lives and a virtue universally lacking in all politicians.

    Some 200 years ago the poet and philosopher, William Blake said: ” He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars: general Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and flatterer, for Art and Science cannot exist but in minutely organized Particulars.”

  87. The Left made this argument starting in the 1960’s, to stop using our current energy forms, and lost. Rather than develop better arguments, they turned a piece of scientific speculation into a Big Lie, and are intent on using that Big Lie to jam their agenda down our throats.

  88. With motor fuel taxes as high as they are in the EU, is it so surprising to see the same attitude applied to non-market electric power pricing?

  89. Here is one question you will never hear at a presidential campaign debate. “If one or more key parts of human-caused global warming science are found not to be not true, how will you sir/madam respond to that news for policy purposes?” Such openness and plain talk is much too dangerous for public consumption. It takes their eyes off the programmed beauty pageant and debate styles in such events.

  90. Working together, Hedegaard and Waterfield draw logically improper conclusions from equivocations through use of the polysemic terms “scientific,” “predictions,” and “science.”

  91. SideShowBob:

    Wind & solar are still heavily subsidized. When & if they ever become competitively economical & reliable with other power sources, they will be adopted without subsidies. But today wind is just as dependent upon subsidies as when the improved models of Chinese mills started blighting the shores of the US. Solar has improved a bit, but is still not competitive in industrial applications, & is still subsidized for domestic use.

    While overstating the environmental hazards of coal, which are easily remedied at minimal cost, you neglect the horrific environmental consequences of wind & solar. Mills & panels are made in China at terrible cost to the environment there, & installed in the US & elsewhere at further degradation. I live surrounded by windmills, so have experienced directly the devastation they wreak among birds & bats, leading to an increase in insects, requiring greater use of insecticides. Locally, they also harm burrowing creatures & the roads & concrete bases disrupt other wild animals’ lives.

    In the Pacific NW, we have some coal power to back up the forests of windmills, but mainly rely on truly renewable hydro. The needs of wind power cause us to misuse our hydro, with negative effects on salmon, steelhead trout & sturgeon. But enviro-whackos here don’t regard hydro as green, & want to take out the dams that generate so much power so cheaply & have attracted industry here for decades, to include less polluting business like Google.

    If you want energy independence in Germany, return to your own coal & gas reserves & those of your EU neighbors. Or buy clean coal or LNG from America. It’s still much cheaper than wind & solar in your country. Support a gas pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia and Turkey to free yourselves from reliance on Russian gas (there are already oil pipelines).

    http://www.euractiv.com/energy/putin-fails-undermine-azerbaijan-news-529806

  92. “Every once in awhile a window opens and shows us the dark, illogical souls of the bureaucrats in the climate cabal.”

    Calling their souls dark and illogical is like calling Stalin “naughty.”

  93. jorgekafkazar says:
    September 17, 2013 at 10:38 am

    Maybe they’re not illogical if CACA is & always has been a stalking horse for Communism. Connie may belong to a Center-Right party, but in her heart she must be a committed statist.

    I have heard apologists high & low make the same argument for at least two decades now with regard to CACA. They’re the same people & their ideological descendants who blamed the US for the Cold War & everything else they found unspeakably evil in the post-War world. After the fall of the Berlin Wall & the USSR, former Reds turned Watermelon in droves, less honest versions of their previous avatars.

  94. SideShowBob is a character from the animated series “The Simpsons” who pursues his goals through lies, trickery, deceit and misinformation. His appearance in this forum seems to be in character.

  95. @ rogerknights says:
    September 17, 2013 at 7:57 am “Solar and wind provide electric power and thus must be compared to natural gas, nuclear, or coal”

    Actually, it is even worse than that. Yes, solar and wind produce electricity, but the power they produce is qualitatively different from the power produced by gas, nuclear, coal or hydro. Solar and wind are not only intermittent, but are intermittent in an unpredictable way. Suppose I have two pieces of property, one with a strong artesian well on it, and the other with an intermittent seeping spring. Which property is more desirable, more valuable?

    Same thing with solar and wind energy.

  96. SAMURAI says:
    September 17, 2013 at 4:42 am
    Leftists ALWAYS fail to understand the concept of opportunity costs and unintended consequences.

    Wa? Eco-nomics? Watt’s to understand? Take from the rich (that is, people who don’t contribute to your political party) and give to the more deserving (those whose votes you can buy). What more is there to understand?

  97. SideShowBob says: @ September 17, 2013 at 1:34 am
    …..We’re fast moving to a situation were renewables are cheaper than burning coal, (not even including the death and lung disease from particulate pollution) …..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You may be able to sell that idiotic statement to the non-scientists/engineers but it is not going to get you any where at a website full of people who think instead of emote.

    I suggest you read all the comments on the article, Claim: Let’s put batteries on wind and solar farms, from a week ago so we do not waste everyone’s time repeating ourselves. Than you can come back here with some thing sensible to say.

  98. Latimer Alder says: @ September 17, 2013 at 3:43 am

    @richardscourtenay

    ‘In summation, collecting energy for use is cheap by using hydropower, fossil fuels and nuclear power because nature has done most of the collecting. But collecting energy is expensive from wind and solar because we have to do all the collection ourselves.

    Brilliantly put! Definitely the best way I have ever heard it described. My quote of the year (so far).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Agreed. His summation is definitely a keeper.

  99. @ milodonharlani & kadaka (KD Knoebel) & richardscourtney

    “you neglect the horrific environmental consequences of wind & solar.”

    Honesty! What planet are you living on… you’re all a bunch of shrill hypocrisy for the coal industry,
    you say remove the subsidies for renewables (which I’m all for BTW as they affect the competitiveness of my business) but fossil fuels have and are still heavily subsidized all around the world!

    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Subsidies-For-Oil-Gas-Nuclear-vs.-Renewables

  100. This woman is even stupider than she looks!! Is that even possible? Europe is doomed to another dark age I fear.

  101. SideShowBob:

    At September 17, 2013 at 3:42 pm you ask me and others

    What planet are you living on

    We are on planet Earth. You seem to be on some planet in an alternative universe.

    The fossil fuel industries have lowered tax burdens. If you want to call that a “subsidy” then feel free, but wind and solar cost at least 5 times as much and get actual subsidies.

    The use of fossil fuels has done more to benefit human kind than anything else since the invention of agriculture. This is because it has released us from the energy poverty of wind, solar and muscle (animal and slave) power. Human health, life expectancy and leisure have all increased with resulting increase to art, philosophy and knowledge. And the environment has benefited enormously.

    That improvement was provided by use of fossil fuels and is sustained by use of fossil fuels. The developing world wants those benefits, too.

    If you don’t want those benefits then fine: you swap places with somebody living in a mud hut and doing their cooking on a fire in the middle of the hut with the fire fueled by the wood and dung collected each morning.

    We don’t want to lose those benefits: we want to enable those now living in mud huts to get those benefits, too.

    Richard

  102. milodonharlani says: September 17, 2013 at 10:47 am

    “They’re the same people & their ideological descendants who blamed the US for the Cold War & everything else they found unspeakably evil in the post-War world. After the fall of the Berlin Wall & the USSR, former Reds turned Watermelon in droves, less honest versions of their previous avatars.:

    Hello Milodon,,

    Here is some authoritative support for you “watermelon” hypo, from Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.

    Excerpt – a history of the rise of eco-extremism, written in 1994 by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.

    http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3

    The Rise of Eco-Extremism

    Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.

    Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.

    These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:

    • It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.

    • It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tradgedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.

    • It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are critisized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?

    • It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is adsurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.

    • It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are sucessful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.

    • It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.

    • It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.

    Regards, Allan

  103. From SideShowBob on September 17, 2013 at 6:50 am:

    Delusional twits – tweedle dee and tweedle dumb, why don’t you take an objective look at the historic cost chart of solar and wind (with or without subsidies) and extrapolate to the future – what do you see?

    Projections of future costs have already been done by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), as can be found here: Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2013. Full AEO report (Early Release) here.

    Sources are divided into “Dispatchable” and “Non-Dispatchable”:

    A related factor is the capacity value, which depends on both the existing capacity mix and load characteristics in a region. Since load must be balanced on a continuous basis, units whose output can be varied to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units (non-dispatchable technologies) or those whose operation is tied to the availability of an intermittent resource. The levelized costs for dispatchable and nondispatchable technologies are listed separately in the tables, because caution should be used when comparing them to one another.

    Since solar and wind are there when they’re there and not necessarily there when you need them, they are non-dispatchable, and really shouldn’t be compared to dependable sources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas.

    The costs are expressed as 2011 dollars per megawatt, for facilities going online in 2018 as that figures in the lead time for construction. Less than 2018 would have to include facilities currently under construction.

    Solar thermal is the clear winner. Costs and sources, see document for notes and caveats:

    $261.5 Solar Thermal ND
    $221.5 Wind-Offshore ND
    $144.3 Solar PV ND
    $135.5 Advanced Coal with CCS D
    $130.3 Natural Gas-Conventional Combustion Turbine D
    $123.0 Advanced Coal D
    $111.0 Biomass D
    $108.4 Advanced Nuclear D
    $104.6 Natural Gas-Advanced Combustion Turbine D
    $100.1 Conventional Coal D
    $093.4 Natural Gas-Advanced Combined Cycle with CCS D
    $090.3 Hydro ND
    $089.6 Geothermal D
    $086.6 Wind ND
    $067.1 Natural Gas-Conventional Combined Cycle D
    $065.6 Natural Gas-Advanced Combined Cycle D

    Ordinary wind beats coal, if you don’t mind the trade-offs. But all solar is lousy.

    And those are national averages, as shown in Table 2 there is considerable regional variation. Solar is only good enough in sunny southern regions, usable wind is limited.

    Plus something in the math conflicts with reality.

    The levelized cost shown for each utility-scale generation technology in the tables in this discussion are calculated based on a 30-year cost recovery period, using a real after tax weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 6.6 percent. In reality, the cost recovery period and cost of capital can vary by technology and project type.

    Namely, where are the wind farms that last 30 years without turbine replacement? It hasn’t been happening. Thus turbine replacement also needs to be figured in, you’ll have to practically rebuild the installation at least once.

    Don’t forget the cost of backup generation.

    It also turns out there are additional costs added into coal, as in a carbon tax:

    In the AEO2013 reference case a 3-percentage point increase in the cost of capital is added when evaluating investments in greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive technologies like coal-fired power and coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants without carbon control and sequestration (CCS). While the 3-percentage point adjustment is somewhat arbitrary, in levelized cost terms its impact is similar to that of an emissions fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) when investing in a new coal plant without CCS, similar to the costs used by utilities and regulators in their resource planning. The adjustment should not be seen as an increase in the actual cost of financing, but rather as representing the implicit hurdle being added to GHG-intensive projects to account for the possibility they may eventually have to purchase allowances or invest in other GHG emission-reducing projects that offset their emissions. As a result, the levelized capital costs of coal-fired plants without CCS are higher than would otherwise be expected.

    $15 a metric ton is pretty high. At the most recent Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) auction on Sept 4, allowances went for a paltry $2.67 a ton (American short ton, metric tonne, doesn’t say), way down from the $3.21 of the June auction. The RGGI is a cap-and-trade system affecting nine Northeastern member states, since New Jersey left in 2011.

    But it was higher in California’s auction, again signaling their desire to tax themselves out of financial existence:

    California raised $275.5 million selling greenhouse gas emissions permits last month in its fourth auction, with the state’s largest emitters paying a lower than expected $12.22 per metric ton for the right to release carbon this year.

    All 13.8 million available carbon allowances for use this year sold, the California Air Resources Board said. The carbon price in the Aug. 16 auction was about 12.7 percent lower than the previous sale in May.

    So the EIA figures include a cost for coal that is likely to never materialize, at least outside of a certain bankrupt failed socialized state, while leaving out expected costs for wind that coal won’t have.

    And utility-scale solar is still lousy.

  104. Patrick Moore’s essay (sub-heading “the Rise of Eco-Extremism”) is apparently no longer available at the above address.

    It appears Moore has retired and his company and website have evolved.

    Here is a more recent interview with Moore on the same topic as the above.

    http://www.brucegoldfarb.com/moore.htm

    Moore: My education is in science. There isn’t enough science in Greenpeace.

    First they drifted into extremism because all their reasonable positions were adopted. They decided that rather than joining the sustainable development consensus, the multi-stakeholder process to find solutions, that they were going to remain more or less on the other side, be a watchdog, be in a confrontational and adversarial position. Much of the rest of the environmental movement has followed suit.

    Secondly, following the falling of the Berlin wall, and the end of the peace movement, and the end of radical socialist politics in the labor and women’s movement, an awful lot of those people drifted into environmentalism. It’s been highjacked by political and social activists who are using environmental rhetoric to cloak agendas that have more to do with anti-corporate and class warfare than they do with ecology or saving the environment.

    The World Trade Organization riot in Seattle was the culmination of that phenomenon, where environmentalism is seen as one and the same with anti-globalization. I grew up with an environmental movement where Barbara Ward, who wrote Spaceship Earth, was our hero. And she believed that there is one world and there should be one human family. To me, free trade and globalization is part of the expression of one world family. I don’t see how anti-globalization fits in with ecology.

    BG: Does it pain you to be portrayed as a traitor?

    Moore: Oh fine, if that’s the best they can do. I’m interested in a discussion of the issues, and I place myself in fora all the time at universities and conferences where I can be challenged and discuss those issues, and I really enjoy that.

    Character assassination, discrediting people, that’s an old trick that doesn’t work with me very well. It’s just water off a duck’s back. I haven’t betrayed anybody.

    [Golden rice inventor Ingo] Potrykus has said you guys will be guilty of crimes against humanity if you continue along these lines. And I have to agree with that. What pains me is seeing the organization I helped create go off on such a wrong track. Rather than discrediting golden rice, they should be raising millions of dollars to address the problem it is intended to solve.

  105. Side show bob says….you are dead wrong. Wind power does not work without conventional power also . 2 how much money does wind make? None. It costs more than any other energy source
    How much land is being destroyed by these do nothing blowhardlies ? Take your foolish show elsewhere. The people here are too smart for your b.s.

  106. More Moore:

    The title of his above 1994 essay is “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement”, of which “The Rise of Eco-Extremism” was a sub-heading.

    I bellieve this is the Introduction:

    More than twenty years ago I was one of a dozen or so activists who founded Greenpeace in the basement of the Unitarian Church in Vancouver. The Vietnam war was raging and nuclear holocaust seemed closer every day. We linked peace, ecology, and a talent for media communications and went on to build the world’s largest environmental activist organization. By 1986 Greenpeace was established in 26 countries and had an income of over $100 million per year.

    Since its founding in the late 60’s the modern environmental movement had created a vision that was international in scope and had room for people of all political persuasions. We prided ourselves in subscribing to a philosophy that was “trans-political, trans-ideological, and trans-national” in character. For Greenpeace, the Cree legend “Warriors of the Rainbow” referred to people of all colors and creeds, working together for a greener planet. The traditional sharp division between left and right was rendered meaningless by the common desire to protect our life support systems. Violence against people and property were the only taboos. Non-violent direct action and peaceful civil disobedience were the hallmarks of the movement. Truth mattered and science was respected for the knowledge it brought to the debate.

    Now this broad-based vision is challenged by a new philosophy of radical environmentalism. In the name of “deep ecology” many environmentalists have taken a sharp turn to the ultra-left, ushering in a mood of extremism and intolerance. As a clear signal of this new agenda, in 1990 Greenpeace called for a “grassroots revolution against pragmatism and compromise”.

    Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.

    Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.

    These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society.

  107. Allan MacRae says:
    September 17, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    I’ve seen him decry the hijacking of real environmental concern by unrepentant Reds looking for a new horse upon which to ride roughshod over humanity.

    I didn’t agree with him about how to forestall nuclear war (“Nuclear Winter” was an out of town try-out for CACA, with many of the same players), but he has always been honest.

  108. Allan MacRae says:
    September 17, 2013 at 4:56 pm
    It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.
    ============
    Naked, Adam and Eve would have quickly died of exposure unless the Garden of Eden was quite a bit warmer than the 58F/15C average temperature of the earth today.

    A naked human cannot survive if the average temperature is less than 82F/28C. Below that, we radiate more energy than we can generate from food (about 150 watts).

    Almost nowhere outside of tropical jungles is the average temperature this high. And in the tropical jungle the mosquito and the biting fly make quick work of the naked human. If starvation doesn’t finish you off first.

    So, the lesson is that without global warming, the Garden of Eden is a death trap.

  109. Here are some posts from the past (on WUWT) wrt subsidies:
    ================

    HaroldW says:
    June 22, 2010 at 10:33 am

    there are some subsidies, but they are actually really small.

    1: royalties paid to foreign countries and states are credited for tax purposes…. as it should be.

    if you paid for raw material, it has be considered as expense.

    2: research credit that is available to ALL INDUSTRIES is available to oil&gas. there is nothing special here.

    3: govt pays poor people for heat. that is welfare. not a subsidy to oil&gas. That money can be used for electric heat, even if it is hydro electric or other “renewable” source.

    4: investment credits available to everyone is available to oil&gas. where is the subsidy there?
    ——————

    Jeremy says:
    September 26, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is proposing to end what he says are $4 billion a year in tax subsidies to the biggest oil companies.”

    Firstly, all Oil Companies pay taxes on earnings just like any corporation. According to data found in the Standard & Poor’s Compustat North American Database, the industry’s 2009 net income tax expenses — essentially their effective marginal income tax rate — averaged 41 percent, compared to 26 percent for the S&P Industrial companies. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) concludes that, as an additional part of their tax obligation, the major energy-producing companies paid or incurred over $280 billion of income tax expenses between 2006 and 2008.

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/25/the-truth-about-americas-oil-gas-companies-part-i/ .

    Secondly, according to the ONRR, annual revenues from federal onshore and offshore (OCS) mineral leases are one of the federal government’s largest sources of non-tax revenue. In 2010, Royalty Revenue amounted to around $8 Billion

    http://www.onrr.gov/

    ————–

    Luke says:
    September 26, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Most of those $4.0 billion in “subsidies” are not specific to the oil & gas industry. They break down as follows:

    $1.7 billion in Domestic Manufacturing Credits: Applies to all production companies equally. A reward for creating/leaving the jobs in the US economy. You can argue whether or not they can move this production from the US, since the oil is located here, but it is clear that they can move the exploration equipment to anywhere in the world and ship the oil in. There is no requirement that oil used domestically must be produced in the US. So given that, what other industries should we strip this credit from?

    $1.0 billion in % depletion allowance: Applies specifically to the oil and gas industry as a mechanism for capital recovery. It takes the place of depreciating the assets in the ground. Of course we don’t like to talk about the dark side of this one, which is when oil prices are lower for a sustained period of time, it acts like an anti-subsidy, so this one can cut both ways and at time has. Easy solution is to use capital base instead of income. Over the long haul though, I doubt this equals $1.0 billion a year. Just $1.0 billion a year in the current price environment.

    $0.9 billion in foreign tax credit: This one again, applies equally to all. The dodgy part with this is classification of royalty payments as income taxes. Some foreign governments have converted royalty payments to income taxes, allowing for greater deductibility under US tax law. This, however, is not unique to the oil industry. So again, who else would you like to strip this one from?

    $0.8 billion in intangible drilling costs: This one is specific to the oil and gas industry. This however is not a subsidy. Period. Exclamation Point! At best, this is a shifting of tax payments to later years. It allows the oil company to deduct their exploration expenses immediately. When this rule was enacted, it actually made sense because 90% of those expenses were written off in the first year anyway because of the abysmal hit rate for new wells, as opposed to the alternative which is adding it to the depreciation base for a new well. Now that the hit rate is much better, maybe it’s time to rethink the break, but it will not provide an $0.8 billion dollar annual windfall. It might provided a short term difference, but after 4-5 years under the new rules, you’d be pretty much back to the same annual number for “tax breaks” resulting from intangible drilling costs.
    —————–

    chris y says:
    September 26, 2011 at 9:31 am

    “U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is proposing to end what he says are $4 billion a year in tax subsidies to the biggest oil companies.”

    That $4B amounts to 1.6 cents per gallon of gasoline.

    Did Schumer also propose an end to Federal, state and local gasoline taxes to ‘even the playing field’?

    Did Schumer also propose an equivalent tax on solar and wind energy to ‘even the playing field?’
    —————

    Catcracking says:
    December 3, 2011 at 7:20 am

    One favorites of Pelosi is the reduction in royalities that was set up during the Clinton Administration to give companies an incentive to drill in deep water offshore in the Gulf when oil prices were low. Royalities are still paid but circa 20 % less. It was a good business deal for both sides at the time and improved for the drillers as oil prices rose. So now many of the tax and spend crowd want to change the contract and threaten those who refuse to comply with blackballing them from biding on new leases. How else can they make renewable energy sources look competitive?

    Another item frequently referenced is the accelerated write off of capital expenses to encourage investment and boost the economy that is offered to every other business.

    A third item is the foreign tax credits offered to all companies that bring foreign earnings back to the US.
    —————

    Janice says:
    December 3, 2011 at 7:36 am

    There is a hidden subsidy for both solar and wind power, one that could easily be avoided, but never will be because it is not politically expedient. The subsidy is the amount of money it takes to remove solar and wind farms once the parent company abandons them. It usually winds up being public money that is used, since the parent companies usually go bankrupt and are dissolved. It could easily be avoided if the parent companies were forced to post a bond equal to the amount it would take to remove the equipment, and restore the area. And that is a subsidy which coal and oil do not enjoy, because they are forced to remediate their mining and drilling sites.

    Roy UK says:
    December 5, 2012 at 8:33 am

    @Alexandre 7.47am

    Statement before the Senate Finance Committee

    Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure March 27, 2012
    FY2010 Electricity Production Subsidies and Support per megawatt-hour
    (year 2010 dollars)

    Natural Gas, Petroleum Liquids 0.63
    Coal (pulverized) 0.64
    Hydroelectric 0.84
    Biomass 2.00
    Nuclear 3.10
    Geothermal 12.50
    Wind 52.48
    Solar 968.00

    So subsidies per MWh to Wind and Solar are 100 – 1500 times the cost of subsidies to the Big oil. You didn’t really think your question through did you?

    Steve Keohane says:
    December 5, 2012 at 8:38 am

    Alexandre says:December 5, 2012 at 7:47 am

    I’d like to know where the Heartland Institute stands in the issue of fossil fuel subsidies. You know, being non-Big Oil and all…


    According to the link you provided $58B was paid globally in so called oil subsidies. In 2004, according to energy.gov, we in the USA used 140 billion gallons of gasoline, for which $70B in taxes at the pump was collected. And don’t for get the corporate tax on the wholesale sales, and the taxes paid by the oil employees to make the gasoline, etc. So where is the subsidy? Your so-called oil subsidies are smoke and mirrors, nothing more.

    John M says:
    December 5, 2012 at 9:11 am

    Steve Keohane says:
    December 5, 2012 at 8:38 am

    Regarding the whining about fossil fuel “subsidies”, it would be interesting to see Alexendre’s opinion on these “subsidies” listed in his source:

    Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (Petroleum) : 336 Million
    Fuel-Tax Exemptions for Farmers: 1 Billion (that’s a B)
    Strategic Petroleum Reserves: 1 Billion (Hell, the way that one’s been used, it should be charged back to the DNC as a campaign contribution)
    Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (Nat Gas): 1.7 Billion (that’s a B too)
    Credit for Investment in Clean-Coal Facilities: 370 Million
    Amortisation of Certain Pollution-Control Facilities: 200 Million

    Jeez, maybe they ought to count food stamps as a fossil fuel subsidy too, since they are used to buy food produced by those farmers who get those huge Fossil Fuel tax exemptions, or allow poor people to spend more to fill their tanks.

    Mario Lento says:
    December 6, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    I found this goldmine of information on total subsidies. Does anyone have any comments on the validity of it? I could not connect to some of the links to the source references.


    http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/hardfacts-uploads/NJI_IER_HardFacts_ALLpages_20120423_v8.pdf

    [hard-headed, anti-green, 73 pages, not much on subsidies per se

  110. Roger: Adding to your previous (and very thorough) comments about the “subsidies” so bitterly complained by those who favor $100 billion in direct payoff’s to such demnocrat party bribers (er, campaign donors) as Solendra, GM (for the Volt and its electric cars tax writeoff’s and subsidized chargers and parking and …), BP (solar panels), etc, etc, etc…..

    Statement before the Senate Finance Committee

    Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure March 27, 2012
    FY2010 Electricity Production Subsidies and Support per megawatt-hour
    (year 2010 dollars)

    Natural Gas, Petroleum Liquids 0.63
    Coal (pulverized) 0.64
    Hydroelectric 0.84
    Biomass 2.00
    Nuclear 3.10
    Geothermal 12.50
    Wind 52.48
    Solar 968.00

    So: for those subsided prices to democratic party donors, how much power do they generate?

    Well, wind, in general worldwide, only creates 23% of its rated power. On average. So less than 1/4 of the SUBSIDIZED (rated or nameplate) power capacity is available at unpredictable times and for uncertain durations, but ALL of the subsided extra transmission lines, switchyards, transformers, controller, roads, foundations, and infrastructure must be paid for by the taxpayers and ratepayers. ALL of those resources are wasted monies – good only for donations for democrat party officials How’s that working for for anyone except democratic party officials getting their campaign donations from the wind and solar industries?

    Physically, wind cannot generate power over more than 1/3 of the country due to routine weather features like the southeast United States’ “Bermuda high” – where for weeks on end, breezes average less than 5 knots. There simply is no power available to turn the windmills over too many regions. Do you want to build the grid and transmission lines to carry current wastefully too far? More wasted resources and wasted monies.

    Oh – The last short power line to cross state lines required over 10 years of permitting delays by the environmental-ecological industry for less than 300 miles of new lines. 300 miles won’t even get ONE set of power lines from a region with no wind to a region with no-wind-today-but-maybe-some-tomorrow-but-the-power-is-not-needed-there-either. Build the windmills? Are you going to let us build the towers to carry their product too?

    Solar? The most expense of all, and capable of generating power only 6 hours a day – ON those days of the year when the sun actually IS shining! The rest of the time? The sun is too low in the sky to create power needed, and – when the sun IS shining at those peak solar hours – the power generated is not at peak power demand hours. But the fossil turbines must keep turning, ready to be instantly brought up the speed and on load, because the solar plants turn on an doff erratically and catastrophically at irregular hours – as when the sun goes behind a cloud each minute. Each hour.. . each half-hour. Or it does not.

  111. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    September 17, 2013 at 5:05 pm

    Projections of future costs have already been done by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), as can be found here: Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2013. Full AEO report (Early Release) here.

    So by your stats in the US wind is cheaper than coal and much cheaper than advanced coal, solar PV is cheaper than advanced coal (just), and what exactly are you trying to say with those figures? That renewable are now cheaper than advanced coal? Gas is cheaper still and should rightly be part of the mix, but is subject to fuel price fluctuations…

    But the bigger point I’m not sure how you guys keep missing/ignoring is that the historic price for coal is going up and price for renewable is going down, I’m not sure when that study was done but the price for solar PV fell 23% over the last 12Months

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-big-solar-costs-fall-23-in-12-months-21407

    so that study might already be out of date ! That’s the point you’re missing, renewables are getting cheaper and cheaper while fossil fuels are getting more expensive, the writing is on the wall you just have to have the courage to read it.

    As for intermittency these issue will be solved, through a combination of more gas plants, and smarter load matching, the Germans as a lot more intermittent renewables in the mix and have plans for a lot more.

  112. SideShowBob:

    In reply to the data provided by kadaka (KD Knoebel) at September 17, 2013 at 5:05 pm, your post at September 17, 2013 at 7:18 pm asks/says

    So by your stats in the US wind is cheaper than coal and much cheaper than advanced coal, solar PV is cheaper than advanced coal (just), and what exactly are you trying to say with those figures? That renewable are now cheaper than advanced coal? Gas is cheaper still and should rightly be part of the mix, but is subject to fuel price fluctuations…

    No! Like all fronts for subsidy farms, you deliberately miss the point and select only the data which fits your carnival barking.

    In his post kadaka (KD Knoebel) explained

    Since solar and wind are there when they’re there and not necessarily there when you need them, they are non-dispatchable, and really shouldn’t be compared to dependable sources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas.

    And, importantly, he said

    Plus something in the math conflicts with reality.

    The levelized cost shown for each utility-scale generation technology in the tables in this discussion are calculated based on a 30-year cost recovery period, using a real after tax weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 6.6 percent. In reality, the cost recovery period and cost of capital can vary by technology and project type.

    Namely, where are the wind farms that last 30 years without turbine replacement? It hasn’t been happening. Thus turbine replacement also needs to be figured in, you’ll have to practically rebuild the installation at least once.

    Don’t forget the cost of backup generation.

    It also turns out there are additional costs added into coal, as in a carbon tax{
    {snip}

    And in his post kadaka (KD Knoebel) repeatedly – i.e. again and again – said

    all solar is lousy

    Plus he reported much more.

    In other words, you have deliberately misrepresented the post of kadaka (KD Knoebel) which provided a detailed explanation of how and why figures you have been asserting are untrue and misleading

    Furthermore, you have completely ignored the post of rogerknights at September 17, 2013 at 5:31 pm which details subsidies to ‘renewables’ and fossil fuelled power.

    You are trying to present a ridiculous sales pitch for expensive, polluting environmentally damaging, bird swatting subsidy farms. That probably works on AGW-scare sites which are only frequented by the ignorant and gullible. It does not wash here on WUWT where there people willing and able to check your ludicrous assertions.

    Richard

  113. From SideShowBob on September 17, 2013 at 7:18 pm:

    But the bigger point I’m not sure how you guys keep missing/ignoring is that the historic price for coal is going up and price for renewable is going down, I’m not sure when that study was done but the price for solar PV fell 23% over the last 12Months

    The solar price fell from the influx of cheaper Chinese-made solar panels, coupled with lower demand as the subsidies started drying up, which lead to the collapse of many US panel makers and a glut of panels on the market. The decrease is not sustainable.

    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/03/solar-pv-profits-last-stand

    Solar PV Profit’s Last Stand

    Paula Mints, SPV Market Research/Strategies Unlimited
    March 20, 2013 | 39 Comments
    (links)
    Globally, average module prices (ASPs) decreased by 42 percent in 2012 from a global ASP of $1.37/Wp in 2011 to $0.79/Wp in 2012. In early 2013, ASPs have already decreased by 18 percent to $0.65/Wp with inventory averages ~$-.58/Wp. Many will proclaim this as progress. Some will say that the ends justify the means. A few will devote a brief paragraph to the losses and failures of manufacturers before going on to write of the hugely successful 2013 to come. Some manufacturers may join the chorus lest they be drowned out by drumbeats broadcasting success.

    Simply put, a 42 percent decrease in price in one year is not progress by any logical assessment of it, nor is it representative of true learning. The PV industry leapt off of the learning curve several years ago caught up in pricing for share that has turned into a nightmare. Should prices decrease by 42 percent in 2013 the ASP will decrease to $0.46/Wp. Logically it would be difficult to make an argument that prices this low relate in any meaningful way to cost — yet, some will make this argument. (…)

    Market theories of pricing are useful to provide a framework for the behavior exhibited by participants in a market. Unfortunately, these theories are often used to justify opinion at the same time ignoring details such as the availability of substitutes, the macro and micro economic environment in which the behavior exists as well as the constraints in which the market operates. In the case of PV, electricity is viewed as a basic need and so utilities and others take seriously the need to provide it at as low a cost to the consumer as possible.

    Every entity along the energy value chain will try and maximize self-interest, including the need for positive margins and profits. Pitting self-interest against self-interest typically reveals passionate explanations as to why each side has merit over the other. Arguments for continued low cell/module pricing are shored up by saying that the point is to get more PV installed — basically, the ends justify the means. Though the evidence is now quite clear that current PV module prices do not support continued R&D or positive margins the facts become blurry in the face of high deployment figures. An industry wherein only one side or another makes a profit at any given time cannot be described as healthy. Figure 2 offers data on PV manufacturer revenues and losses in 2012.

    Figure 2 summary, all eight manufacturers have net losses.

    The solar PV industry is busy failing by success.

    A few PV cell/module manufacturers have stalled price reductions and in several cases are trying to increase prices by $0.02/Wp to $0.05/Wp. Given current high levels of inventories (in some cases including modules that were bought for failed projects) manufacturers are competing with their own modules. Some installers/system integrators agree that current price levels are not healthy for manufacturers. Nonetheless most buyers will hold the line against price increases in what has historically been a market where buyers control the price function.

    The panel makers are not making money, the panel buyers don’t want to pay more, inventories are high. There will be bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions, and otherwise a shrinkage of manufacturing capacity until it meets demand. At which point prices might go up into profitability, but with subsidies going away, most likely the makers will have to trim costs to get to net gains, if that’s even possible.

    You are praising the ongoing fire sale prices without mentioning the ongoing fires.

  114. SideShowBob:

    In your ridiculous sales pitch at September 17, 2013 at 7:18 pm you also say

    But the bigger point I’m not sure how you guys keep missing/ignoring is that the historic price for coal is going up and price for renewable is going down, I’m not sure when that study was done but the price for solar PV fell 23% over the last 12Months

    NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! HOW DARE YOU!?
    You are “ignoring” that your fallacious and misleading point has been repeatedly refuted in this thread by several people. Indeed, my refutation of it was my first answer to your twaddle. And the conclusion of that refutation was quoted by two others later in the thread. It is at September 17, 2013 at 3:32 am and this link jumps to it

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/quote-of-the-week-the-recasting-of-the-argument-begins/#comment-1419170

    Also, in addition to your pretence that your untrue assertion has been “ignored”, you have “ignored” (i.e. have failed to mention) my rebuttal of wicked and amoral assertions you made by implication. That rebuttal is at September 17, 2013 at 4:14 pm and this link jumps to it

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/quote-of-the-week-the-recasting-of-the-argument-begins/#comment-1419776

    It is nearing the point where you need to apologise for your behaviour.

    Richard

  115. richardscourtney says:
    September 18, 2013 at 1:29 am

    NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! HOW DARE YOU!?
    You are “ignoring” that your fallacious and misleading point has been repeatedly refuted in this thread by several people. Indeed, my refutation of it was my first answer to your twaddle. And the conclusion of that refutation was quoted by two others later in the thread. It is at September 17, 2013 at 3:32 am and this link jumps to it

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/quote-of-the-week-the-recasting-of-the-argument-begins/#comment-1419170

    What the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about your airy fairy drivel about how all energy is free and how nature has collected it for us! You call this “proof” ? I give you statistics from reputable organizations that have done the costings and you this give this fluff and call it “proof” – And then chastise me for not responding to it ???

  116. richardscourtney says:
    September 17, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    “The fossil fuel industries have lowered tax burdens. If you want to call that a “subsidy” then feel free, but wind and solar cost at least 5 times as much and get actual subsidies.”

    Yes I call it a subsidy, it come from tax payers doe it not, and yes fossil fuel have historically been granted more subsidies than renewable, as I pointed out in a link, but feel free to ignore that point…

    “The use of fossil fuels has done more to benefit human kind than anything else since the invention of agriculture. This is because it has released us from the energy poverty of wind, solar and muscle (animal and slave) power. Human health, life expectancy and leisure have all increased with resulting increase to art, philosophy and knowledge. And the environment has benefited enormously. ”

    Who’s denying that, I’m not, I’m just point out that renewable’s are fast becoming much cheaper than coal ..

    • @Sideshow – No. It does not come from tax payers. All TAXES do. But NOT paying taxes is not a charge to anyone else. Period. It is not a subsidy. period. Here is the dictionary Definition:

      money given by government: a grant or gift of money from a government to a private company, organization, or charity to help it to function

      The only way it is a cost to taxpayer is if ALL MONEY belongs to the government, of which they allow you to keep some. That is true in communistic countries. But not in the rest of the world.

  117. richardscourtney says:
    September 18, 2013 at 1:14 am

    “In other words, you have deliberately misrepresented the post of kadaka (KD Knoebel) which provided a detailed explanation of how and why figures you have been asserting are untrue and misleading”

    Well if you think that then anyone can look at the study that Kadaka linked to and draw their own conclusions

  118. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    September 18, 2013 at 1:16 am

    “The solar PV industry is busy failing … ”

    Boy that’s a courageous call, I think solar PV is here to stay and is only going to get bigger globally… we’ll see who’s right in 10-20 years, my prediction is that coal and petrol cars will be all but phased out, while wind, hydro, solar, gas peaking plants and electric cars will dominate.

  119. I have published the following information since about 2005.

    The “Capacity Factor” of wind power is about 20%, depending upon location, but wind power is actually much LESS EFFICIENT than this.

    The “Substitution Factor” of grid-connected wind power is often less than 10% – for example is projected to be less than 4% in Germany by 2020.

    That means Germany will need 25 units of wind power to replace one unit of conventional electrical generation by 2020.

    Bob, maybe you can understand this:

    “Wind Power – It doesn’t just blow; it sucks!”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/12/newsbytes-germany-faces-green-energy-crisis/#comment-983628

    E.On Netz, the largest wind power generator in the world, in their report “Wind Power 2005″ describes the problems.

    http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf

    One of the greatest disadvantages of wind power is the need for almost 100% conventional backup. E.On Netz says the “substitution capacity” in Germany was 8% in 2003, and will drop to 4% by 2020. See Figure 7 in the E.On report.

    In concrete terms, this means that in 2020,
    with a forecast wind power capacity of over
    48,000MW (Source: dena grid study), 2,000MW of
    traditional power production can be replaced by
    these wind farms.

    Another big problem with wind power is that power varies as the cube of the wind speed – this causes sharp peaks and valleys in the power output from wind farms, so extreme that it can cause the entire grid to crash – try that in winter – remember the 1998 Ontario-Quebec ice storm? Many people died as a direct result of this huge power failure.

    A near-miss occurred in German during Christmas week of 2004 – see Fig. 6 in the E.on report.

    The feed-in capacity can change frequently
    within a few hours. This is shown in FIGURE 6,
    which reproduces the course of wind power feedin
    during the Christmas week from 20 to 26
    December 2004.

    Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on
    Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year
    at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within only
    10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds
    to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired
    power station blocks. On Boxing Day, wind power
    feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW.
    Handling such significant differences in feed-in
    levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.

  120. Allan MacRae:

    At September 18, 2013 at 2:19 am you say to the egregious timewaster posting as SideShowBob

    Bob, maybe you can understand this:
    “Wind Power – It doesn’t just blow; it sucks!”

    Of course he/she/they understands it. He/she/they is trying to excuse it.

    Please note that SideShowBob said at September 17, 2013 at 3:42 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/quote-of-the-week-the-recasting-of-the-argument-begins/#comment-1419748

    you say remove the subsidies for renewables (which I’m all for BTW as they affect the competitiveness of my business)

    So, he/she/they says he/she/they is making a living on the basis of the subsidies. Well, if he/she/they had not admitted it, then we could have inferred it from the egregious misrepresentations he/she/they is posting here.

    SideShowBob is merely another – in this case, self confessed – rent seeker trying to sustain his/her/their ripping off the public for as long as possible.

    Richard

  121. SideShowBob:

    I am replying to a series of your egregious posts in this single post.

    At September 18, 2013 at 1:53 am you reply to my reasoned explanation for you at at September 17, 2013 at 3:32 am by saying

    What the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about your airy fairy drivel about how all energy is free and how nature has collected it for us! You call this “proof” ? I give you statistics from reputable organizations that have done the costings and you this give this fluff and call it “proof” – And then chastise me for not responding to it ???

    No, I was “talking about” my irrefutable explanation which you could not refute so you ignored.

    It began by telling you

    Costs are the sum of price and subsidies. And being “cheaper” is having lowest costs.

    Renewables such as wind and solar cannot be cheaper than coal or other fossil fuel energy: it is physically impossible. I explain this as follows.

    You ignored both the statement and the explanation of it then continued your fallacious assertions about prices. Indeed, the “statistics” you trumpet are about prices.

    At September 18, 2013 at 1:57 am you quote my having stated at September 17, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    The fossil fuel industries have lowered tax burdens. If you want to call that a “subsidy” then feel free, but wind and solar cost at least 5 times as much and get actual subsidies. .

    And you reply

    Yes I call it a subsidy, it come from tax payers doe it not, and yes fossil fuel have historically been granted more subsidies than renewable, as I pointed out in a link, but feel free to ignore that point…

    I ignore none of your nonsensical and misleading points. Please do NOT attribute your egregious behaviour to others.

    Of course, “fossil fuel have historically been granted more subsidies than renewable” because fossil fuels have provided the basic requirement of industrial civilisation whereas renewables have produced almost nothing and nothing cannot be taxed. Your “point” is ridiculous.

    Then you revert to repeating your falsehood that I had already explained to you is a physical impossibility when you say

    I’m just point out that renewable’s are fast becoming much cheaper than coal ..

    Bollocks! Renewables are becoming PRICED lower than coal because their high cost is being subsidised to reduce their price.

    As I had already said, the reality which you are trying to conceal is
    Costs are the sum of price and subsidies. And being “cheaper” is having lowest costs.

    After that nonsense, at September 18, 2013 at 1:59 am you quote my having said at September 18, 2013 at 1:14 am

    In other words, you have deliberately misrepresented the post of kadaka (KD Knoebel) which provided a detailed explanation of how and why figures you have been asserting are untrue and misleading

    And reply

    In Well if you think that then anyone can look at the study that Kadaka linked to and draw their own conclusions

    Freely translated, your reply says you know the critique of of kadaka (KD Knoebel) is irrefutable so you will pretend it does not exist.

    And your reply to kadaka (KD Knoebel) having pointed out – with evidence – at September 18, 2013 at 1:16 amt

    The solar PV industry is busy failing …

    Is at September 18, 2013 at 2:08 am and in effect consists of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “La, La, La, …”.

    SideShowBob, your posts would be funny if they were not so sad.

    Richard

  122. From SideShowBob on September 17, 2013 at 7:18 pm:

    But the bigger point I’m not sure how you guys keep missing/ignoring is that the historic price for coal is going up and price for renewable is going down, I’m not sure when that study was done but the price for solar PV fell 23% over the last 12Months

    Except the current price for coal in general is actually low by historic standards.

    http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0709

    Coal prices 1949 to 2011, price per short ton. There’s a handy graphing tool, select Real Dollars (adjusted for inflation/purchasing power) and look at each coal type and total (average) price at the same time.
    The high-quality anthracite is in high demand for steel making but also for power generation. The next-best bituminous benefits from substitution and briefly surpassed anthracite, which the market corrected. Neither have exceeded their historic highs, and extraction technology has improved which lowers production costs. The new abundant natural gas reserves shall displace some of that coal use, lowering those coal prices.

    Meanwhile the low-grade lignite has been relatively cheap for over sixty years, and “subbituminous” is even cheaper. They also haven’t reached their historic highs.

    Coal in general is just a bit more than half of its 1975 all-time high.

    So by the proper metric, coal is still cheap, and will likely get cheaper as demand shifts to natural gas. Heck, bituminous has actually dropped lately.

    Meanwhile subsidies for wind and solar are going away, thus the real costs are going up, not down. Wind and solar technologies have gotten about as mature as possible, their production costs aren’t getting any lower.

    Thus it looks about as likely that coal will be getting cheaper, while renewables will get more expensive.

  123. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1700112-dark-clouds-ahead-for-solarcity

    So given all this great news for SolarCity, what’s not to like? Well unfortunately there are many headwinds ahead for SolarCity. Below I highlight some of the major risks of investing in this company.

    Less subsidies

    The current tax credit of 30% is set to decrease to 10% at the beginning of 2017 in the United States. I would not expect any type of extension if not possibly decreasing it even further. The U.S. is already $16 trillion in debt on top of a continually rising Fed balance sheet due to the spending of billions of dollars through quantitative easing programs to boost the economy. These tax credits are crucial not only to SolarCity but the entire solar industry. If you completely wipe out all subsidies, solar power is simply not competitive with traditional power like coal, nuclear, and natural gas at the present time. A decrease this significant will essentially raise the cost of capital and translates to higher prices charged to SolarCity’s customers which will decrease demand and possibly squeeze margins.

  124. richardscourtney says:
    September 18, 2013 at 2:51 am

    ” (which I’m all for BTW as they affect the competitiveness of my business)”

    “So, he/she/they says he/she/they is making a living on the basis of the subsidies. Well, if he/she/they had not admitted it, then we could have inferred it from the egregious misrepresentations he/she/they is posting here.”

    Let me rephrase it for you so there is no misunderstanding, solar PV subsidies make my business less competitive as, i.e. they harm my business. I’ve never taken subsidies nor do I believe in them nor would I get involved in a business that takes subsidies. Clear now?

  125. Allan MacRae says:
    September 18, 2013 at 2:19 am

    “Handling such significant differences in feed-in
    levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.”

    Yes I see the challenges, do I think that Germany should insulate itself from Russian energy (and as a side benefit set the country up if climate change turns out to be real) – even though there are these challenges. yes.!

  126. SideShowBob:

    Thankyou for clarifying the matter as you do in your post at September 18, 2013 at 5:56 am.

    You make this statement in your subsequent post addressed to Allan MacRae at September 18, 2013 at 6:00 am

    if climate change turns out to be real

    I assure you that climate change is very real.
    Climate always has changed and always will change everywhere.

    It would be news if climate were to stop changing.

    These facts are only disputed by believers in the disproved hypothesis of anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).

    Richard

  127. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    September 18, 2013 at 3:47 am

    “Thus it looks about as likely that coal will be getting cheaper, while renewables will get more expensive.”

    Yes well we’ll see, frankly I think you’re going to lose your pants if you throw in your lot in with coal

  128. When you believe virtue prevents all bad things from happening, then “eliminating fossil fuel use” sounds just fine since you don’t have to count either the direct costs, the opportunity costs, or the unintended consequences. This is the common problem with activists of all stripes–they want what they want, and the emotion overrules any ability to be objective and look at costs and benefits. Thus “if it saves one life” leads to policies that indeed save one life….and sacrifice 5.

  129. The climate change conversion is changing as the media, public, and politicians start to become aware of the facts/issues. The conversion changes when reality is not ignored.

    Green scams will quadruple the cost of electric power (type of indirect taxation on consumers), resulting in job losses and a significant reduction in standard of life. The activists and the industrial leaches that profit from the green scams have hidden the facts that show green energy is a scam that does not significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. If there was a CO2 AGW problem, nuclear power is the solution, not green scams. Using fourth generation nuclear power and extracting uranium from the ocean provides roughly a billion years of power (William: As per James Hansen’s high level analysis, multiple papers.) Western countries have massive accumulated debit, are running yearly deficits, and have high unemployment. Western countries do not have surplus funds to waste on green scams.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/08/16/no-end-in-sight-for-spains-escalating-solar-crisis/

    ….The associated economics (William: green scam) are something akin to the (William: economic) apocalypse…. ….Spain calls it the “tariff deficit,” a massive debt that accumulated over the past decade as the cost of running the country’s electrical system exceeded the revenues generated by sales of power. … … In May, the tariff deficit reached a whopping $34 billion. …. ….In 2007, Spain paid a premium of $556 per megawatt-hour for electricity that rooftop solar panels supplied to the electric grid, compared with an average $52 paid to competing coal- or gas-fired power plants. (William: Solar subsidy is 10 times the cost of competing sources.) By 2012, a whopping $10.6 billion in subsidies were paid out to the renewable energy industry, rising by about 20% from the previous year, and covering more than one third of all electricity generated in Spain.

    http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/169521/wind-turbine-energy-capacity-less-estimated

    As a result of the existing RE build-outs, German household rates increased from 13.94 to 28.50 eurocent/kWh, from 2010 to 2012, a 104.4% increase, and industrial rates increased from 6.05 to 16.10 eurocent/kWh, from 2010 to 2012, a 166% increase. According to a recent study for the federal government, electricity will cost up to 40 eurocents/kWh by 2020, a 40% increase over 2012 prices.

    Among european nations, German households have the second highest electric rates; 28.5 eurocent/kWh (energy, plus fees, plus taxes), after Denmark (32 eurocent/kWh), courtesy of RE. US low electric rates are the envy of heavy industry elsewhere, including Germany. France’s are among has the lowest.

    William: The average cost of power to US consumers is US $0.1057/kw-hr, a third of the cost of electric power in Germany. ($1 US = 0.75 Euro) http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/end_use.cfm Note the phony solar economics and wind farm calculation which is quoted in other comments in this thread is based on peak noon solar energy generated on a cloudless day and optimum wind speed, not realistic 24/7 solar and wind farm.

    Germany’s Solar Energy: About 22,000 MW of Germany’s 32,800 MW of PV solar systems (end 2012) are in South Germany. (William: Note quoted solar capacity is noon, cloudless day, not 24/7 realistic calculation) On a sunny summer day, from an output of about 0 MW at 6 AM, the PV solar output increases to about 16,000 MW at about noon, and back down to about 0 MW at 6 PM. As this would create major disturbances on the grid and, as PV solar panels cannot be turned off, Germany has to export part of the PV solar energy from about 10 AM to about 2 PM. …. …..As a result of the existing RE build-outs, German household rates increased from 13.94 to 28.50 eurocent/kWh, from 2010 to 2012, a 104.4% increase, and industrial rates increased from 6.05 to 16.10 eurocent/kWh, from 2010 to 2012, a 166% increase. According to a recent study for the federal government, electricity will cost up to 40 eurocents/kWh by 2020, a 40% increase over 2012 prices. Among european nations, German households have the second highest electric rates; 28.5 eurocent/kWh (energy, plus fees, plus taxes), after Denmark (32 eurocent/kWh), courtesy of RE. US low electric rates are the envy of heavy industry elsewhere, including Germany. France’s are among has the lowest.

    William: Note Germany is exporting solar energy at a loss to France and Czech. France and Czech cannot therefore rely on solar energy. The green scams do not work if the objective is to reduce CO2 emissions for whatever reason by 50% for all countries. Nuclear is the only solution. Note Germany has 2300 km of high voltage power lines that need to be constructed due to green scams. The cost of the 2300 km of high voltage power lines and new back up fossil fuel plants that are required has not been included in the green scam economics.

  130. SideShowBob on September 18, 2013 at 7:06 am

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    September 18, 2013 at 3:47 am

    “Thus it looks about as likely that coal will be getting cheaper, while renewables will get more expensive.”

    Yes well we’ll see, frankly I think you’re going to lose your pants if you throw in your lot in with coal

    – – – – – – – –

    SideShowBob,

    “Yes well we’ll see” from various aspects.

    Just one of the aspects is that what we see develop in the energy market is not economically calculated and therefore an illusion. That could be the case when there is broad based coerced government intervention in the energy industry that pre-empts the market which makes economic calculation invalid. In that case the energy industry is cloaked from our view economically. For background on that concept please see: von Mises; von Hayek; Mencken.

    John

  131. philjourdan:

    At September 17, 2013 at 4:14 pm I replied to SideShowBob saying

    The fossil fuel industries have lowered tax burdens. If you want to call that a “subsidy” then feel free, but wind and solar cost at least 5 times as much and get actual subsidies.

    In your post to SideShowBob at September 18, 2013 at 9:59 am you say

    The only way it is a cost to taxpayer is if ALL MONEY belongs to the government, of which they allow you to keep some. That is true in communistic countries. But not in the rest of the world.

    For clarity, I write to say I agree with your statements in your post I have quoted here.

    Richard

  132. Craig Loehle on September 18, 2013 at 7:24 am

    When you believe virtue prevents all bad things from happening, then “eliminating fossil fuel use” sounds just fine since you don’t have to count either the direct costs, the opportunity costs, or the unintended consequences. This is the common problem with activists of all stripes–they want what they want, and the emotion overrules any ability to be objective and look at costs and benefits. Thus “if it saves one life” leads to policies that indeed save one life….and sacrifice 5.

    – – – – – – –

    Craig,

    I agree with your observation of net sacrifice being the result of the bad economic consequences of some ideological ’causes’ (eg CAGW & Hedegaard’s statement).

    The more interesting question to me is whether, in the case of IPCC CAGWism & Hedegaard’s statement, the sacrifice is an expected / desired outcome or is it unintended. The deeper you dig into the world views of many involved
    then it looks to me that such sacrifice is considered a primary, if not the primary, virtue they hold.

    John

  133. For Craig, John, William, Richard and several billion others:

    More quotations from http://www.green-agenda.com/

    It is truly amazing that these people actually believe they are ethical, and of above-average intelligence.

    Regards, Allan

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
    industrialized civilizations collapse?
    Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    – Maurice Strong,
    founder of the UN Environment Programme

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
    United States. De-development means bringing our
    economic system into line with the realities of
    ecology and the world resource situation.”
    – Paul Ehrlich,
    Professor of Population Studies

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “One America burdens the earth much more than
    twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
    In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
    350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
    but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
    – Jacques Cousteau,
    UNESCO Courier

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
    as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
    – Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
    patron of the World Wildlife Fund

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
    It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
    – John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “The extinction of the human species may not
    only be inevitable but a good thing.”
    – Christopher Manes, Earth First!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival
    for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species.
    Phasing out the human race will solve every
    problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
    – Ingrid Newkirk,
    former President of PETA

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
    society, unless the parents hold a government license.
    All potential parents should be required to use
    contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
    antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
    – David Brower,
    first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

  134. philjourdan says:
    September 18, 2013 at 9:59 am

    ” No. It does not come from tax payers. All TAXES do. But NOT paying taxes is not a charge to anyone else. Period. It is not a subsidy. period.”

    Same result and you know it philjourdan, it take money out of the tax pool.

    This will be my last post on the matter .

    Governments should not favour any industry or company (except for special interest purposes) with tax [breaks], exploration concessions or subsidies or anything other monetary or non monetary means full stop ! Companies should pay tax and stand on their own, and if they can’t do that then in the capitalist tradition they should die and make room for the true innovators. That’s the capitalist way, that’s what makes surviving companies lean and strong globally, not fat and inefficient asking for tax brakes/concessions/subsidies. What happenings in the solar PV industry while painful is good in the long run as it weeds out the weak and inefficient companies.

    All tax [breaks]/concessions/subsidies should now be removed from wind, solar and fossil fuels to level the playing field. (the German case is different as they have a national interest to get off Russian energy supplies). Tough love but that the way it should be.

    • @Sideshowbob – NO. As an economist the difference is both critical and vast. You missed it completely. To call tax DEDUCTIONS (like the one you take on your 1040 – it is called the standard deduction) is NOT a subsidy. PERIOD. It REDUCES your tax liability. A liability that goes against YOUR EARNINGS. Same way with oil companies. The deductions they get are all in accordance with GAAP. In other words, they get to deduct COSTS before reporting (and paying taxes on) NET PROFITS.

      And this:

      <blockquoteGovernments should not favour any industry or company (except for special interest purposes) with tax brakes, exploration concessions or subsidies or anything other monetary or non monetary means full stop !

      Is pure stupidity on your part. “should not favor” but then you write “(except for special interest purposes)”????? What do you think a “favor” is? It is the government picking winners! DUH! So you are basically saying they should do it whenever they want! Good luck with that contradiction. The old USSR was great at “picking” winners. And we saw how well that worked. As well as with the current regime and Solyndra, and 63 other “green” companies. Unfortunately, they are not “gambling” with their money. When they GIVE (the real subsidies) money to losers (pick the winners), they are giving YOUR money. Money you worked (or maybe not if you do not work) hard to EARN. The government did not earn it. Indeed, they “did not build that”.

      Your economic knowledge is non existent. Stick to climate science. At least there you have some supporters, if no facts either.

  135. SideShowBob says: September 18, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    “All tax [breaks]/concessions/subsidies should now be removed from wind, solar and fossil fuels to level the playing field. (the German case is different as they have a national interest to get off Russian energy supplies). Tough love but that the way it should be.”

    Perhaps surprisingly Bob, I agree with you, but here is the outcome:

    All grid-connected wind and solar power schemes would be shut down, because they are hugely uneconomic. They generate NO tax revenue, and require huge consumer-funded subsidies.

    In North America, all new grid-connected power generation would come from natural-gas fired power stations at current natural gas prices, which are about 20% of the price of oil on an energy-equivalent basis. Repeating, that is about 20% of, or one-fifth the price of oil. That is the huge energy-cost advantage that North America has now compared to Europe and Asia, and it is due entirely to the shale gas fracking technological revolution.

    Elsewhere in the world, other forms of electrical energy-generation (typically oil, natural gas, coal, hydro and nuclear) will continue to dominate the energy mix, with tiny amounts of geo-thermal. This does not preclude future technological improvements that could improve the cost-competitiveness of alternative energy schemes, but unfortunately they are uneconomic at this time and forcing them into the power grid has wasted a trillion dollars of scarce global resources, and left us with an ugly mess to clean up.

    I suggest that I understand the fiscal structure of the fossil fuel industry reasonably well. I personally co-initiated the new tax terms and initiated the new royalty terms that revitalized the Canadian oilsands industry, now the economic mainstay of the Canadian economy, the strongest in the G8. See http://www.OilsandsExpert.com

    There are two main fiscal terms systems for oil and gas in the world: tax-royalty is one, typically favoured in the Western world, and Production Sharing is the other, typically favoured in the Muslim World. In both cases, there is a tendency to initially enable the investor to recover his costs while the government takes a lower share of profits, and then the government share increases substantially, sometimes to as much as 80% of profits.

    That right – the governments, who have invested nothing, take as much as 80% of profits after cost recovery, and the investor, who has risked everything, takes only 20%.
    That is why energy-rich governments are so wealthy.

    In some countries like Canada, this wealth is transferred across the country, such that the province of Alberta, for the past sixty years or so, has supported the entire country economically – which has had both good and bad consequences.

    In other countries, energy wealth is used to provide lavish lifestyles for a ruling elite, and this leads to huge economic disparity and, not surprisingly, the degradation of rich and poor alike – the endemic conflict and corruption of some energy-rich countries is a direct result of internal competition to become this ruling elite.

    Regards to all, Allan

  136. Allan MacRae:

    Thankyou for your excellent brief summary at September 19, 2013 at 4:02 am.

    Sadly, people of the ilk of SideShowBob are incapable of understanding your summary because it states inescapable realities and not their ‘world view’.

    Richard

Comments are closed.