A bad news week for AGW proponents

Yeah, and if they could compete China could simply raise the export price of the rare earths. Stymied!
============

“They believe that a wetter, warmer future may actually boost plants and animals living the tropics.”————….huh, seems I’ve heard that before. I wonder where that was that I read that?
“we didn’t find any extinction event [in plants] associated with the increase in temperature, we didn’t find that the precipitation decreased.”————————–Wonders of wonders!
“The spectre of imminent thirst and/or starvation for billions by 2035 from melting glaciers would appear to have been confirmed as the worst kind of alarmist scaremongering. “<————————–Ya think? I'm still staggered by the amount of people that believed melting glaciers would cause droughts. No, really! That happened!
"…..has the potential to spawn a lot more nonsense, given its potential for increasing the size and direction of government ….."————-Its very difficult to comprehend more nonsense in this area, but I’m betting we’ll see more anyway.
“MORE than $1 billion of taxpayers’ money was wasted on subsidies for household solar roof panels that favoured the rich…….”—————– Did they think the poor would run out and buy solar panels? No, I’m not exclusively poking fun at our friends from Oz, we do the same thing in the states with windmills.
“Solyndra, a maker of solar panels in the southeast San Francisco Bay Area city of Fremont, will close one of its manufacturing plants, lay off 40 permanent and 150 contract workers,……..”——————————— I just really can’t see how this could be true! Didn’t Cali just reject a law in order to create “green” jobs? Could it be they got something wrong?

Researchers have shown that the world’s tropical forests thrived in the far distant past when temperatures were 3 to 5C warmer than today. They believe that a wetter, warmer future may actually boost plants and animals living the tropics.
Amazing. I think that is exactly what I have been saying.
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

“MORE than $1 billion of taxpayers’ money was wasted on subsidies for household solar roof panels that favoured the rich and did little to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, a scathing review has found. –Tom Arup, The Age, 11 November 2010”
At least they noticed. The same happens in Germany, only a few times larger.
I’ve just heard that current production processes for silicon PV consume as much energy as is created by 10,000 hours of peak production by the PV. In Germany, i estimate the hours of peak production you achieve in a year with 10% or 780 hours. So, after about 12 or 13 years, it’s energy payback time 😉

In the past, trees were not REPLANTED at the unbelievable rate that they are today.

Alarmists worry to much I think that’s why they go all out with their paranoia.
Put into rational numbers they worry that the average global temp will go from some 14.5° C to 15.5° C in the coming 80 years. I don’t know about everyone else but to me that spells maybe a month longer viable crop season in Siberia and Wouldn’t that be a good thing since them climatecommunizts fuzz so much of over population.
However, it’s kind of ironic that the average global temperature still is either 14° C or 15° C (hence why I put 14.5) after three decades. For how many decades can an average temperature remain to be the same when supposedly that very same average temperature is supposed to have gone up by 0.7° C or F or 1.4° F or C, all depending on which hobnob hippie does the speaking.
So I here announce my intention to bet 5 whole cents (€ cents not the crappy less worth $ cents) that in the year 2525 the average global temperature will still be some 14.5° C. This based on the regression analysis that the current trend of the global average temperature has kept up its apparent flat lining for several decades. And if I’m alive still, by WWF forgotten conservation techniques, I’ll probably still gonna have that god damn hippie song in my head.

“Despite the hype and tax money, Solyndra seems unable to compete with Chinese manufacturers, whose prices are lower. ”
And given the fact that their product was a rather complicated tube, this goes to show that even in the warped economics surrounding the solar industry, you can still be dumb enough to go broke.

What The Green Movement Got Wrong
A better title might be: “What have the so-called “Greens” ever got right?”
Nuclear Power – “Greens” Wrong –
DDT – “Greens” Wrong –
Man-Made Climate Change – “Greens” Wrong –
GM Foods – “Greens” Wrong –
Biofuels – “Greens” Wrong –
Wind Turbines – “Greens” Wrong –
Solar Power – “Greens” Wrong –
Genocidal maniacs …
Two notable green campaigners – Mark Lynas and Stewart Brand (creator of the Whole Earth Catalog) have (finally) come round to appreciating that some of the key tenets of their Green religion are flawed and have done more harm than good.
GM crops such as “golden rice” and vitamin-enhanced millet, they’ve cheerily conceded, were not evil “Frankenfoods” after all but a vital way of averting malnutrition in the Third World. Nuclear power, they’ve agreed, was way more efficient at producing clean energy than the coal alternative. Furthermore, the fuss about Chernobyl had been horribly overdone. And the near-global ban on DDT – inspired by Rachel Carson’s junk science best-seller “Silent Spring” – has caused millions of poor people to die of malaria.
And so on…
But why do they deserve any credit for reaching conclusions that those of us who aren’t blinkered eco-fascists reached years ago?
What about the hundreds – perhaps thousands – of starving Zambians who died in the 2002 famine when, thanks to the misinformed campaigning of so-called “green” activists like Lynas, the Zambian government refused to distribute US foreign aid packages of GM food?
What about all the honest, decent scientists and agricultural engineers and nuclear workers whose career paths were ruined as a result of “green” hysteria and lying propaganda?
What about the brown-outs, rolling black-outs, power shortages and energy insecurity this Britain is going to suffer as a direct result of the so-called “Green” anti-nuclear hysteria which prevented us replacing our old nuclear power stations?
And what about the millions massacred by Rachel Carson with her entirely unfounded claims about the effects of DDT on birdlife?
“Green” campaigners like Brand and Lynas have not only caused massive damage to the global economy – the bio-tech and nuclear industry, especially – but they have also almost certainly contributed to a massive hidden wave of deaths in the Third World.
But the fact is, neither Brand nor Lynas actually has actually seen the light. Both men remain wedded to the equally wrong-headed theory of Man-Made Climate Change, and both fantasise at the kind of Geo Engineering that might be necessary – a recreation of the dust clouds of the Mt Pinatubo volcanic eruption which caused world temperatures to drop by around 3ºC, say – in order to avert “Global Warming.” Come back Dr Strangelove, all is forgiven.
Had they been capable of a scrap of insight or self-analysis, they would have understood that the hysteria about AGW comes from exactly the same school of junk science and muddled thinking that gave us the “Nuclear – No Thanks!” slogan, and know-nothing idiots in masks and white jumpsuits (Lynas among them) destroying fields of GM crops. Pointing such things out wouldn’t be in Lynas’s interest because that might jeopardise the rather cushy number he’s landed these last few years from the Maldives Government, advising it on how best to squeeze yet more guilt-money out of the global taxpayer. It was Lynas who dreamed up that stunt of the Maldives government holding a cabinet meeting underwater just before the Copenhagen debacle.
This from Monbiot: “Environmentalism is not just about replacing one set of technologies with another. Technological change is important, but it will protect the biosphere only if we also tackle issues such as economic growth, consumerism and corporate power. These are the challenges the green movement asks us to address. These are the issues the film ignores.”
And there you have it: the true voice of the “Green” movement – which really should be renamed the “Watermelon” movement. It’s not about easy fixes. It’s not about making things better. It’s about advancing the Marxist war on capitalism by other means. Thanks, George, for reminding us where you stand.
The truth is that there never has been an “environmental” movement.
“Environmentalism” has been a loud and bizarre spectacle of UK politics, but it has never moved more than a handful of people out onto the streets at any one time. It has never achieved sufficient numbers to count as a political force, and there has been no cohesive environmental philosophy. Instead, “environmentalists” were united, not by science, but by their emotional rejection of contemporary society. They all agreed that the “green” movement came about as protesting was FUN, something to pass the time, camaraderie that evolved into cruel megalomaniac organizations like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace.
They all need to be shut down.
As with most criticism of environmentalism, it is often the reaction to it that reveals more than the criticism itself. What environmentalists lack in terms of a sense of proportion, they make up for with a sense of persecution. Monbiot, for example, claims that the movement was unsuccessful, not because it failed to capture the minds of the public, but because “we are massively out-spent by corporate-funded movements which have had hundreds of millions poured into them telling government and the media there isn’t a problem”, a claim which surely ignores the UK and EU governments’ environmental policies. He complains that Channel 4 has “broadcast a series of polemics about the environment … over the last 20 years”. He’s talking about three programs – “Against Nature,” “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and “What the Green Movement Got Wrong” – which occupied no more than six hours out of the two decades of near-continuous pro-environmental broadcasting – or brainwashing lying propaganda as some would see it.
What Lynas has realised, and Monbiot has not, is that sceptics didn’t undermine the environmentalists’ cause. Environmentalists were their own worst enemy. They have alienated the rest of society by their own uncompromising and human-hating outlook. Without “the precautionary principle,” alarm-ism, doom and catastrophe, and fraudulent claims to scientific certainty, what is environmentalism? The challenge for “environmentalists” is to emerge from this crisis of their own making into an era of growing scepticism, while keeping an eye on the consequences of their arguments.

#
#
RR Kampen says:
November 12, 2010 at 8:57 am
The issue is climate change and a large change happening quickly _can_ kill of a vast number of species before new equilibrium is reached.
#
So what, who cares?

RR Kampen says:
November 12, 2010 at 8:57 am
“Two points to be made here.
First, a warm climate, even one 5 degrees warmer than we have now, is not in itself bad; indeed tropical forests might thrive. But this is not the issue. The issue is climate change and a large change happening quickly _can_ kill of a vast number of species before new equilibrium is reached.”
When the average temperature increases – and you happen to be a species that is sensitive enough to small changes of the average temperature; which most species are not, as they only care for the temperature extremes – you can nearly always migrate a few kilometers northwards.

There are many climactic models today suggesting that …
Gotta watch those climaxing models!