Donna needs some help:
Donna LaFramboise has been invited to give a presentation to the Environment and Climate Change Committee in London and has today written a column asking for some help in covering the costs (they won’t even cover her return flight!) She has been a good contributor to this debate for 5 years now, and I think there may be a tipping point approaching in England on the political aspects of this fight, so I suspect that her testimony will be very helpful. I am sure the many WUWT readers would like to help if they were made aware of her upcoming testimony in the WUWT main blog in some way.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/01/10/five-years-later/
She’s paying her own way. Hit her tip jar please. – Anthony h/t Lance Wallace
=============================================================
Spain cutting its “guaranteed for 25 years” subsidy to solar electric producers, leaving them in financial distress.
They’re even taxing producers for the electricity they produce and consume themselves (the “sun tax”)
h/t Quinn
============================================================
‘Storms’ link to climate change uncertain – Met Office’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25675937
h/t shadrach
============================================================
Good, lengthy article about Lindzen at the Weekly Standard:
What Catastrophe?
MIT’s Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist
JAN 13, 2014, VOL. 19, NO. 17 • BY ETHAN EPSTEIN
…”When you first meet Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, leading climate “skeptic,” and all-around scourge of James Hansen, Bill McKibben, Al Gore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and sundry other climate “alarmists,” as Lindzen calls them, you may find yourself a bit surprised. If you know Lindzen only from the way his opponents characterize him—variously, a liar, a lunatic, a charlatan, a denier, a shyster, a crazy person, corrupt—you might expect a spittle-flecked, wild-eyed loon. But in person, Lindzen cuts a rather different figure. With his gray beard, thick glasses, gentle laugh, and disarmingly soft voice, he comes across as nothing short of grandfatherly.
…Lindzen is no shrinking violet. A pioneering climate scientist with decades at Harvard and MIT, Lindzen sees his discipline as being deeply compromised by political pressure, data fudging, out-and-out guesswork, and wholly unwarranted alarmism. In a shot across the bow of what many insist is indisputable scientific truth, Lindzen characterizes global warming as “small and . . . nothing to be alarmed about.” In the climate debate—on which hinge far-reaching questions of public policy—them’s fightin’ words.”….
Read more
Full Article here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html#
h/t donpenim
=============================================================
The goal posts for the falsification of the climate models are being moved considerably by David Kennedy during a UK Parliament Committee hearing, Wednesday 8 January 2014:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/1/8/deben-and-kennedy-sinking-fast.html
Starting at 10:20:20 in the video recording, Kennedy claims that the models do not involve short times scales under 50 years. Up til now the time window for falsification of the models was after all supposed to be 17 years (per Santer):
h/t Pethefin
=============================================================
Questions about the link between flooding in the UK and climate change could be answered within two years, according to a leading scientist.
Prof Myles Allen from Oxford University said the only thing holding back the work was the lack of investment.
Around £10m a year would provide a real time attribution system on the role of humans in extreme weather.
He said it was a “scandal” that the public should be denied clarity on this issue.
Scientists are notoriously cautious about linking single weather events, such as the recent storms and flooding in the UK, to rising global temperatures.
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
The public is paying that money in the name of doing something about climate change, they deserve to know what climate change is doing to them”
Prof Myles Allen
Oxford University
Researchers can discern a human fingerprint in extreme weather, but it has required huge amounts of computing power to calculate all the possible outcomes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25684933
h/t WillR
==============================================================
It’s Really, Really Cold. It Must Be Global Warming
- Date: 11/01/14 Kevin Leininger, The News-Sentinel
Between the record low temperatures and the need to rescue researchers whose ship was trapped in a thicker-than-expected Antarctic ice field, the past few weeks have tested the faith of even the most devout global-warming disciples. Their orthodoxy seems to have survived. The same cannot be said for their credibility.
“A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold experienced by much of the United States . . . is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues,” predicted President Obama’s science and technical advisor, Dr. John Holgren.
“Winters still get cold, often unbearably cold . . . but no matter how low the temperature dropped in your area, that doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening,” the Weather Channel warned.
“It’s bitterly cold. Horrifically cold! So what does this tell us about global warming?
Not much,” agreed the Washington Post.
h/t The GWPF
=================================================================
Infographic: Scientists Who Doubt Human-Caused Climate Change
Review of 2,258 peer-reviewed scientific articles about climate change.
Perfect example of Jones – “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
h/t Jason
Dumped at Donna’s. Not much but hope it helps.
Spain is a good example of what can happen if a govt jumps on an energy bandwagon
without doing due diligence. Any publically traded company that made such a blunder would have faced years of class action lawsuits by its investors. The wonder is why they failed to notice the
fairly strong price reductions of solar panels and not jumped in when the prices were so high.
One can get thin film solar panels now for well under $1 per watt, which is way below what they went for back when these Spanish subsidies laws went into effect. The Spanish govt promised prices that were out of touch with reality, just as here, in the States, where even today, excess
solar rooftop systems output is bought at almost retail prices, or about 3 to 4 times what the utilities pay power plant operators for their far more valuable reliable power. For the most part (depending upon peak demand ersus non-peak demand) a homeowner who puts an excess kilowatthour onto the [grid] is able to extract that same kilowatthour when he needs power, thus
has been, in essence, paid retail for the unreliable, uncalled-for excess kilowatthour he put onto the grid earlier. Even more ilogical is the fact that utiities pay nuclear plants around 1/4th
what they pay rooftop owners, despite the fact that nuclea power is responsible for less than half the lifetime emissions of solar panels. Stupidity all over the place in an essentially stupid
governing generation.
Do we know what Donna will be talking About? Some topics are likely to have more impact than others.
Tonyb
The time frame to falsify a climate model should be 500 years, not 50.
I’m well in favor of Prof. Allen’s request for 10 million in funding. If it is cut from CRU’s budget and allows for popcorn for the ensuing thunderdome deathmatch among trough dwellers.
Flung a contribution Donna’s way.
Donna is one of our ‘warriors’ .
This is one way I can help press the spear point she carries forward.
Not entirely o/t:
The environmentalist crowd are producing a new film. It’s fascinating to see what happens when a math-savvy Christian pastor is invited to be “educated” and “converted” by climate change celebrities (eg James Cameron), on film. The pastor is Rick Joyner. His response is impressive.
http://www.morningstartv.com/prophetic-perspective-current-events/environmental-crisis
The film is to be an 8-segment series, scheduled to be shown in April on ShowTime. He shows the trailer starting at about the 5:30 mark.
arthur4563 says:
“One can get thin film solar panels now for well under $1 per watt, which is way below what they went for back when these Spanish subsidies laws went into effect. ”
That’s pretty irrelevant. What matters is the cost of the actual solar panels at the prices that _were_ when they were installed.
The large feed-in tarifs in some countries mean you can have a “revenue” , if you have a revenue you can apply for credit. Then you give most of the “revenue” from your “free” solar energy to the banking system for the next 10-12 years.
The trouble is this was never designed to “save the planet” it was designed to feed the banks.
I can get “Sharp” monocrystaline panels for about 1 euro/ watt now. If I had a root I’d fill it, like our host has. That is thanks to the massive subsidies which were aimed at launching the PV industry. It worked, they should be phased out now.
Since the UK has just committed the next two generations to paying twice the going rate for nuclear generated electricity, I guess the dream of cheap nuclear is dead and renewables just became competitive.
Thanks for the link to that nice article on Lindzen.
He has been a long term mainstay of calm rational science dialog.
John
Planning a pub-meet with Donna Laframboise in London on 28 Jan – all welcome – details here http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2270559
Say Donna’s interview for 50:1 project a couple of days ago. She’s very well informed and as a journalist , has the relevant facts and names at her finger tips. She will make a very good witness.
Moving the goal posts.. it’s what con artists do.
Donna’s written evidence to the parliamentary select committee on Energy and Climate Change is here, along with other interesting submissions.
Also discussed on Paul Matthews’ blog. https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/review-of-submissions-to-ipcc-inquiry/
Payed a visit to Donna five minutes ago. I wish her a good trip and lots of success.
It’s backwards. Models have to be proven, not falsified. The burden is on the modeler to prove the model, not on the critic to falsify.
If the climate models can’t be shown to be false until 50 years have passed, then they can’t be said to be valid for 50 years. So let’s take out the green garbage and get on with developing our civilisation.
donated to Donna.
150USD to Ms. Laframboise. Knock ’em DEAD, Donna!
Clever guy that Prof Myles Allen.
He can calculate all possible outcomes, with complete understanding of how all the weather works… if he just has his palm crossed with silver.
Surely he can be convicted under Consumer Protection Regulations?
Let’s all pony up a few dollars for Donna. Sorry, I can’t afford more then a few dollars either. Fifty people at $20 = $1K. Done.
No matter what her main topic will be, it will be written and presented well.
This is an acknowledgement of Donna’s knowledge on the subject of climate!! Good stuff Donna!
Good luck Donna and thanks for doing this. ☺
CAS
Alberta
I donated 100 USD to Donna.
I wish her succes.
Chris4692 says:
January 11, 2014 at 10:58 am
“Kennedy claims that the models do not involve short times scales under 50 years. Up til now the time window for falsification of the models was after all supposed to be 17 years (per Santer):…”
“It’s backwards. Models have to be proven, not falsified. The burden is on the modeler to prove the model, not on the critic to falsify.”
Thank you for that. Climate alarmists always seem to get the Scientific Method backward. The onus is not on those skeptical of the models. The onus is entirely on the claims of modelers.
Flung small funds Donna’s way.
Hopefully Donna can communicate to the committee, things they do not want to hear.
Got, Into the Dustbin, in the mail this week yet to read, have bought several copies of The Delinquent Teenager and passed them out to friends.
If anyone can get through the committee speak, Donna can.
dbstealey says at January 11, 2014 at 11:43 am
That reminds me of a comment I made on the Guardian back in the good old days, before I was always censored.
Littlepump said
Which sounds reasonable. But actually it means that everyone should believe anything from pixies to pro-slavery. So I responded as follows on Obama campaign launches plan to shame climate sceptics in Congress, 26 Apr 2013 10:21am
‘littlepump – This dangerous fallacy must be confronted.
If you propose something you should be ignored unless you have proof you are right.
If you say Aliens put a probe in your rectum you are not right unless I stick my head up there to find evidence you are wrong. You need to provide proof of the probe and the aliens.
If you say MMR jabs cause autism you are not right because no-one has done the research to disprove your crazy theory. You are just scare-mongering.
If you say that natural changes are over-whelmed by changes in trace gas concentrations you are not right because the laws of spectroscopy show that CO2 absorbs and re-emits light. You have to show that the change is significant. You have to show that the natural feedbacks that have governed the world since man evolved no longer can cope. You have to show that the evidence you provide is reliable.
Do you see the problem here? If you say that any theory should be accepted and the whole world’s economy should be changed then anyone can make up anything and no-one can question it. Just so long as the counter-evidence is far enough in the future. And even then you can just make something else up. (Kids won’t know what snow is until a cold winter comes when it’s caused by AGW anyway, we just forgot to tell you that was coming).
The scientific principle is called the Null Hypothesis – the general default position. This is that “that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena”. And to suggest otherwise needs proof.’
Hah;
Donna, prepare to sip from a firehose.
My pensioner’s pittance of $20 needs only to be multiplied by 50 to cover her fare. Many here sent 2-10X as much. I bet she was covered in an hour or two! The power of a WUWT appeal is considerable. I bet and hope her cup overfloweth, and she can afford to hang around for a week and give ’em hell.