Guest opinion by Fred F. Mueller
In large-scale wars, there are sometimes prolonged periods of fierce clashes with neither side being able to place the decisive blow that will ultimately tilt the balance in its favor. Then all of a sudden, certain events occur that mark the decisive turning point where one side definitely loses the strength to continue posing a threat to its opponents. From that decisive moment on, it will lose the initiative, being largely confined to defensive actions and hoping to be able to force its opponents to accept a peace agreement instead of having to face the enormous costs of a prolonged war. One of the most famous turning points in World War II was the battle for Stalingrad, where the seemingly unstoppable German onslaught could finally be brought to a standstill. The outcome is well known: Hitlers annihilation a few years later.
Switching to our times, one might well get the impression that in the decades-long war of Greenpeace, WWF and their countless NGO brethren for control of the public opinion about the so-called global warming threat allegedly caused by human CO2 emissions, such a turning point has been reached. The UN meeting in Warsaw (Poland), where further measures to curb these emissions should have been laid on keel, has seen a number of leading countries bluntly refusing to continue supporting the scam while many others stayed on the sidelines, paying lip-service to the noble cause of saving the climate and the planet while abstaining from any sizeable commitments. Maybe historians wanting to highlight the real dimensions of the blow dealt to the CO2 alarmists might coin the word Warsawgrad later on. Having failed to reach any substantial accord on the main question, the focus of the event has instead shifted to financial aspects, with third world countries trying to extort as many billions as possible from developed nations under the pretense that they should be held liable for each and any natural disaster happening on their territory. Upon seeing the related list, one wonders why they haven’t come up with claims to include asteroid impacts, earthquakes, tsunamis and volcano eruptions as well. But there might still be room for improvement…
The CO2 alarm finally seems to run out of steam
The clear impression one can draw from the course of events and the echo it finds in the media is that the CO2 scam advanced by Greenpeace and their numerous allies in state agencies, scientific institutions and the media is finally losing traction. The greed of too many profiteers has generated costs and technical consequences in key industry sectors to such an extent that the tide in public opinion seems to be finally turning, at least in some more lucid countries such as Autralia. Of course, just as in many other historic examples, the final shot has not yet been fired, but from now on, it seems likely that the faithful of the Anthropogenous Global Warming (AGW) belief will have to fight an uphill battle. While some country leaders such as Germany’s Merkel still seem staunchly committed to continue their course, it is becoming increasingly obvious that a number of decisive nations such as Canada, Australia and Japan are already manning the lifeboats. And as in the case of a dam break, once the first cracks have appeared, the subsequent sequence of events will probably follow the usual scheme. We might eventually see a stampede of highly qualified story-tellers and academic charlatans flooding out of all sorts of state agencies und NGO-related consulting services in a frantic search for new fields of activity.
In quest for new business models
One signal hinting that this threat has already been clearly perceived in the leading ranks of Greenpeace are new or newly revived ideas for alternative business models being floated by prominent members of the organization. If the public gets tired of sinking money into the CO2 black hole, fresh ideas have to be brought forward in order to save the planet from humanity while keeping the flow of donations at current high levels. Among the ideas currently thrown into the discussion are plastic garbage in the oceans, with subtle modifications such as micro-plastic particles coming back into the human food chain or causing fish liver damages. Other topics that might well be rediscovered after having been left dormant for some years are fine dust particles in the air, pharmaceutical active substances in the water or the noise levels inextricably linked to business and traffic activities. The bets are open which ideas will replace the CO2 hypothesis once the wheels are definitely coming off the current model.
Chinese cleverness
Upon reviewing the evolution of the CO2-related blame game that has been going on at such UN events over the past two decades, one cannot but pay respect to the clever strategy of one country that had been put on the pillory for excessive emission of CO2 not too long ago: China. In pace with its remarkable economic rise, the country has in the meantime overtaken all other countries to become the biggest CO2 emitter in the world. Nevertheless, this time it has been successfully avoiding to be blamed, forging an alliance of poor and developing nations instead that is aggressively claiming billions of money in compensation from developed Western nations while shielding the CO2 gorilla in their ranks. According to some reports, even renewed political efforts by the US administration have ultimately failed to drive a wedge into this coalition.
Is the smart money shifting focus?
Another development that can be observed in parallel to the Warsaw events is a shift in financial streams that seems to take place in the wake of the debacle the AGW proponents have suffered in Warsaw. While we might still be years away from a decisive collapse of the “climate-saving” energy policies still upheld by a number of politicians such as EU Commissioner Conny Hedegaard or President Obama, who have gone way too far in their ignorance of the laws of physics, markets and common sense to be able to back down without losing face, the smart money seems to have immediately gotten the message. Uranium shares, which had been on a constant decline since the Fukushima events, are currently experiencing a sudden rise that might well signal the sector has bottomed out. With news from Spain indicating that people operating solar cells for their private consumption while maintaining their connection to the power grid will now become liable to pay a special levy, chances are that more and more banks and trusts will start to rate investments into such projects as “higher risk”. On the other hand, investments in uranium and coal mines as well as in conventional power equipment producers and operators might become attractive again after a prolonged period on the dark and cold side of the markets.
And thusly, a beautiful weekend begins.
I was reading the updates throughout the debacle through various sources and the tone in the media has even taken a marked change to one of almost apathy. Not only that, but it seems from what I can gather, the EU actually did the US a huge favor, refusing the budge on the reparation issue, while our delegation seemed to waffle a bit, no doubt at the discretion of Chairman O.
Please, correct me if I was off in my assessment, but a big thank you to the EU regardless!
I thought this was going to be about the Russians telling the UN to get stuffed when Greenpeace demanded their boat back.
Gentlehommes, there is always Methane.
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2013
High Methane Levels all over Arctic Ocean
High levels of methane were recorded all over the Arctic Ocean on November 19, 2013, as illustrated by the image below. The image also shows that most methane was present over the fault line that crosses the Arctic Ocean (as also indicated on the inset).
A recent post described that more methane may actually be present closer to the North Pole than IASA images may indicate. This because measurements can be obscured by clouds. If no data are recorded over a certain area, no methane levels will show up on images for the respective area. This was the case on November 17, 2013, when the Arctic Ocean was quite cloudy, and little or no data were recorded for the center of the Arctic Ocean.
On November 19, 2013, the sky was much clearer, resulting in a lot of data from the center of the Arctic Ocean, as also illustrated by the image below.
In conclusion, high methane levels can actually be present all over the Arctic Ocean, even when images only show high levels in some areas.
An earlier post described how the sea ice can act as a shield, especially when the ice is more than one meter thick.
How does this rhyme with the above image? The November 19, 2013, Naval Research Laboratory image on the right shows that the sea ice was meters thick in some locations where methane shows up on the top image.
So, is methane actually rising from the seafloor of the entire Arctic Ocean, perforating even the thickest ice and entering the atmosphere all across the Arctic Ocean? Or, if thick sea ice does act as a shield, how did methane appear all over the Artic Ocean in such huge quantities?
The images on the right indicate that the methane may actually only rise from the seafloor in a few locations.
As the top image on the right says, the Coriolis Effect can make methane over the Laptev Sea end up over Canada a few days later. So, methane may not be perforating the sea ice in the north of Canada, but may instead originate from elsewhere in the Arctic.
The animation underneath shows methane readings from November 9 to 19, 2013, with each of the 20 frames covering a period of 24 hours and with frames following each other up 12 hours after each other. As the animation shows, it looks like methane is predominantly entering the atmosphere at specific locations, most notably along the fault line that crosses the Arctic Ocean.
It may well be that this methane ends up all the way in Baffin Bay, to the left of Greenland. Since the Greenland ice sheet is 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) thick, this may form a natural barrier that keeps the methane there, also helped by winds rising vertically from Baffin Bay to well above Greenland’s mountains.
On the other hand, it could also be that hydrates in Baffin Bay have become destabilized and that, since the ice over Baffin Bay is rather thin, methane has no problem perforating the ice and is entering the atmosphere there in huge quantities.
Either way, the end-conclusion is that the methane that is now showing up all over the Arctic Ocean, is rising from the seafloor, due to destabilization of sediments that hold huge amounts of methane in the form of free gas and hydrates. As warming in the Arctic continues to accelerate, the danger is that this will cause more methane to rise from the seafloor and that the methane itself will contribute to warming in the Arctic, in a deadly spiral set to cause abrupt climate change at a devastating scale.
With Nigel Farage and UKIP breathing fire down on the UK political parties I suspect there will be a sudden urge to dump the green crap among other common sense policies in Britain. The Brit folks seem to be finally fed up with their legacy political parties. Moreover, with Obamacare being such a mess in the US I cannot imagine Obama’s climate change policies are going anywhere soon. And I think Merkel is playing a great game like China – she is mouthing all the politically correct things while building a whole bunch of coal fired plants. By now Greenpeace has learned a very important lesson – don’t mess with Russia’s Putin. But they’ll be back doing their usual garbage in the west simply because the west lacks the will to deal with those criminals like Russia’s Putin. I see very little change happening in North America while Obama holds power. Only another harsh winter can strike the decisive blow – and we are more than due for a really hash winter.
I don’t think Warsaw is the battleground, perhaps blogspheregrad would be a better name.
Hopefully that warming will restore the balmy highly productive climate of previous years and help prevent us from descending into the otherwise inexorable next glaciation.
How can warming in Arctic, that North of 70 deg North, is about 3 % of Earth “cause abrupt climate change at a devestating scale”?
John West says:
November 23, 2013 at 12:16 pm
“I don’t think Warsaw is the battleground, perhaps blogspheregrad would be a better name.”
You’re talking about Skepticalscience’s attempts at self-immolation?
There ‘s an exceedingly simple reason for the firming up of uranium prices – the world has begun building nucler power plants after a decades’ long hiatus. For the first time since 1985, a nuclear plant is under construction in the U.S. and not just one, ,but 5 of them, with more to follow. Worldwide there are 70 nuclear plants under construction (and 500 more in the pipeline) and the fixed price cost per plant is almost aways the same – $5 billion, which if one does the math, knowing the current price utilities are paying for uranium fuel ( 3/4 of a cent per kilowatthour) , will pay for ultimate storage of wastes (less than 1/10th of a cent per kiowatthour) , have to pay for operations and maintenance ( 1 /1/4th to 1 1/2 cent per kWhr) and finally, for the cost of the guaranteed 60 year plant itself ( 7/10ths to 9/10ths of a cent per kWhr), you’ll find that nuclear power costs less than gas or coal. And Gen 3 designs WILL NOT have core meltdowns, so there is little financial risk from accidents.
HGW xx/7 says:
November 23, 2013 at 12:04 pm
“Please, correct me if I was off in my assessment, but a big thank you to the EU regardless!”
Thank Putin. The EU put up such a weak show because Putin held their Greenpeace commandos hostage. Notice how fast they got out on bail the moment COP19 was over.
David L. Hagen says:
“Hopefully that warming will restore the balmy highly productive climate of previous years and help prevent us from descending into the otherwise inexorable next glaciation.”
CO2 doesn’t cause warming, it causes cooling apparently, and it’s all a hoax anyway, so how exactly will the non existent warming from the CO2 hoax stop the next glaciation from happening?
Green was never about saving the climate, the planet or the environment the purpose and intent of the IPCC was to fuel intense speculation that Co2 was the anti Christ to achieve exactly the situation that revealed the clear intent of the UN in Warsaw. It was to find a way of moving money from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries unfortunately for Maurice Strong and his mates the developed world has no more cash than the poor world just more debt sustained by profitable manufacturing and service sectors and you can only extort so much cash from countries so heavily indebted as is the case with America and the UK $17 trillion and £1.3 trillion respectively. The cash that Strong believed was available is the sum total of the debt sustaining the supposedly rich nations and private cash remains in the stock market on or company balance sheets but Strong wanted to wreck the financial capacity of the developed world to allow assets to be more evenly distributed exact – again – had his demented dream come to fruition he would have immediately realised that once wrecked the cash and assets that he thought could be liberated for global distribution actually in cash terms did not exist and in asset terms would be worthless once the developed nations financial structure had been wrecked and exactly how the raw material wealth of the undeveloped countries could be leveraged without demand from the developed world? Ban ki moon continues to moan and grumble that the developed world are not coming up with the $100 billion he wants the developing countries and his mates to get their greedy mitts on again forgetting that the countries he thinks this money should come from could only give if they either raised taxes or borrowed more either way inflicting more economic damage on the only sector of the planet that can keep the global economy at least surviving. All of these parasitic twits suffer from the same chronic ailment and that is convenient amnesia, they either cannot or do not want to prolong their thought process to the point where they begin to recognise their own damnable stupidity. As one very wise individual said not so many years ago once the available volume of oil reaches that tipping point where lower availability raises prices beyond economies ability to pay you get the twin evil and that is not enough oil to promote or sustain economic growth combined with retail prices too high for individuals to pay, the share markets across the planet begin to recognise their long held beliefs and investors will rush to turn their investments into something more solid like gold but how do you mine gold or any raw material with oil. This will happen our lives are 95% oil, Boeing 787 built substantially from complex composite materials derived from petrochemical products. F1 moving to battery electric hybrid power promoting the notion that this is our future again in the belief that lithium will always be available and there will always be an ability to generate sufficient electricity to charge the battery. Hydrogen cars might be available from 2014 but the only economic method of generating hydrogen is by way of steam reformation of natural gas so whilst hydrogen maybe emission free at the point of use like battery electric cars its only because the nasty stuff is emitted at the point of manufacture not at the point of use. Hydrogen is already used in huge quantities to clean petroleum spirit to the right standard and the manufacturing process necessitates that the Co2 is split off and released to atmosphere as is the case of natural gas being used as feedstock to refine crude oil. Here is another classic example of environmental activists like Connie Hedegaard like Maurice Strong conveniently disregarding the fact that in her want to say petrol has less emissions at the point of use she has ignored the extra volume of Co2 emitted to achieve that end. Give everyone on the planet a moped and the oil disappears over night I am now too old to care overmuch but I don have a Son and they might want children so we just have to hope that at some future point in time we get politicians bright enough to recognise that we do indeed live in a finite world and once we lack the finite resources or the ability to extract and refine those finite resources the game is up you can have growth without a continuing access to resources to believe technology at some time can make something out of nothing is foolhardy and stupid its time to wake up and smell the roses.
Col Mosby says:
November 23, 2013 at 12:22 pm
“Worldwide there are 70 nuclear plants under construction (and 500 more in the pipeline) ”
It would be nice indeed if humanity finally got over itself and accepted this simple form of energy production. As with all technologies, we see irrational fear during its introduction.
I was looking for similar irrational fears during the initial rollout of electricity and found this.
http://www.seacoastnh.com/Places-%26-Events/NH-History/Electricity-Sparks-Fears–in-1900?/
“But to see the future, a local pundit informs me, one need only walk down Water Street at night where the incandescent glow of electrical lights beckon hapless sailors from across the Piscataqua to visit houses of adult entertainment. Vice and corruption, it seems, have deep pockets. Electricity is the new Jezebel, seducing our young men into the arms of immorality.”
Also, during that time, Rudolf Steiner, founder of the antroposophic movement, an esoteric movement, posited that candles harbor good spirits, light bulbs are so-so, and neon lamps harbor evil demons.
The USA gave up its title as the worlds biggest emitter of a harmless plant food and its cost millions of jobs and countless billions of dollars, the politicians still got paid and ordinary people got paid off, the legions of parasites riding on the back of the biggest organised swindle in human history made a great deal of money and the ordinary people paid the price. Its always the average Joe that has to foot the bill isnt it? We pay for a utopianist fantasy made up in the corridors of power without any thought to how ordinary people would be affected and hurt.
Europe has been savagely hurt by a self inflicted economic wound that could well turn out to be a mortal one, it didnt have to be this way at all, if we had practical realists as leaders who looked to their own primary concerns first instead of trying to build some castles in the air new world order we would be a million miles further down the economic development road instead of bogged down mired in debt and in deep trouble. What we need are practical realists in charge, maybe this tragedy will be the catalyst we need to make the move we need.
Fred F. Mueller makes some very good points, but one aspect is omitted from his excellent presentation . During wars, there are decisive leaders on the winning side, who relentlessly pursue the enemy until defeat is accomplished. In this case, the climate skeptics are leaderless. All the learned scientific societies, led by the Royal Society and the American Physical Society are lined up behind the proponents of CAGW. As is just about all of academia.
So I ask the same question I have been asking for weeks. When CAGW is finally in full retreat, who will lead the charge that assures final victory? Which outstanding scientist has the gonads to stand up now, and say, in public, what Fred has said in private, where no-one who matters sees it?
The most sensible comment that I have seen reported from the shindig in Warsaw was that made by the lead Indian negotiator, who said that there is too much emphasis on carbon reduction and not enough on assisting countries adapt to climate change. This could of course be rephrased as ‘send us a blank cheque’, but at least it changes the emphasis until it becomes clear that Armageddon is not just round the corner.
And there always was, and always shall be, methane.
You are offering us nothing new, just reciting one of the Greenpeace mantras. Even people like Gavin Schmidt lay the smack down on people playing up the methane scare.
If the world isn’t warming catastrophically, then CO2 isn’t causing catastrophic warming.
And, by the same simple logic, neither is methane.
It’s always in the future, but allegedly starting now, isn’t it?
Perhaps a better metaphor would been The Battle of Warsaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warsaw_%281920%29). That was a decisive battle between the two ideologies: Individualism & independence vs collectivism & domination. Many historians believe that had Pilsudski not stopped the Red Army at the Vistula, there would have been nothing to slow it down before the shoreline at Calais.
DirkH says, “I was looking for similar irrational fears during the initial rollout of electricity and found this.”
Not to mention the war of DC vs AC, in which Thomas Edison held public executions of horses to show people the dangers of AC power, which was being developed by Nikola Tesla. Edison even imported elephants for the purpose of electrocuting them.
“Among the ideas currently thrown into the discussion are plastic garbage in the oceans, with subtle modifications such as micro-plastic particles coming back into the human food chain or causing fish liver damages” You should read more about this … what you will find is very disturbing particularly for seabirds!
inre: Jon at 12:42
See how easy it is to string some sciency words together and “disturb” young people, so that they attack energy, transportation, mass production, and even child bearing, water, cattle, and fire? It is that easy.
I bet someone has been promising free tuition, free healthcare, free contraceptives, and free electricity to him as well.
“Jim Cripwell says:
November 23, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Fred F. Mueller makes some very good points, but one aspect is omitted from his excellent presentation . During wars, there are decisive leaders on the winning side, who relentlessly pursue the enemy until defeat is accomplished. In this case, the climate skeptics are leaderless. All the learned scientific societies, led by the Royal Society and the American Physical Society are lined up behind the proponents of CAGW. As is just about all of academia.”
Do we need a leader, let alone want one? Isn’t our independent, non-talking-point-based, logic-over-dogma method (read: science) of attack our greatest strength? Furthermore, if we suddenly become beholden to following a leader, don’t we leave ourselves open to the same foibles that they do, tripping over the words of Al Goron and Michael Halfmann?
I argue that there are not decisive, game-changing leaders in all great battles. Take the American Revolution. Sure, we had generals and many were amazing, i.e. Washington. However, it was the resourcefulness and ability of everyday colonists to adapt and use the landscape to their advantage that won the war. Many of the greatest names associated with the war didn’t lead, but fought side by side with their betheren, either by sword or by pen.
We are winning because of the fact that we are nimble and easy to underestimate. We can adapt (much like to shifts in the climate…wink wink) and coalesce when needed, but are also a hard target to lock on. The best they can do is refer to us by a collective dereogatory term. Conversely, we know them name for name, falsehood by falsehood.
Plus, I don’t see our goal as to win a ‘final victory’ over them. My desire isn’t to wipe out any ideology. In my eyes, that’s their game and a dangerous line of thinking that has led to so many needless deaths over the years. I wish to educate and compete, not decemate. They have dug themselves into their own hole with their false idols and prophecies; why help by making a martyr out of them?
I think we are playing the game as keenly as possible. As my dad says, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”
I agree with Albertalad, Putin is showing himself to be a world leader standing up to people and organisations like Greenpeace – as far as I am concerned they should scuttle the boat.
The original post mentions NGOs trying to control public opinion, that too is correct. If a politician were to say that ‘you are not allowed to have that opinion’ or ‘this opinion’, they would not remain a politician for long. So why do we put up with Greenpeace and other NGOs forcing their #### down our throats. There are so many hands in our pockets after the few pence we have left after taxation its time to stand up to them like Putin does.
Man Bearpig says:
November 23, 2013 at 1:11 pm
I agree with Albertalad, Putin is showing himself to be a world leader standing up to people and organisations like Greenpeace – as far as I am concerned they should scuttle the boat.
Absolutely right, I hope the Russians scuttle the Greenpeace ship very publicly in shallow water so it can be used as an artificial reef.
Who said they can’t make a claim on those things too? 🙂
We should all make a claim before it’s too late. We must claim now!!
For more fun and hilarity for all the family go see the WARMLIST
The observation in regards to methane is only that it can also be used to rally the troops around human caused climate catastrophe. I post it to present the next front you will be fighting on after carbon. This war using climate is not going to end. Too much money to be made, too many reputations to be built, tremendous ego gratification to be had saving the world. We will have a world state and a world church of green, and though the struggle will be long and fought by science, the long march through the institutions almost guarantees the triumph of the Neo-Feudal Corporate order. Bad ideas and criminal elites perpetuated militarism to save the West so I see no reason for the Better Green Than Dead strategy to fail in capturong hearts and minds.
About 90% of Europe’s carbon trading scam is based in London and it’s on its knees…
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cbb749ba-506b-11e3-9f0d-00144feabdc0.html
Most of the major energy supply companies in the UK are now openly (partially) blaming green taxes and levies for the insane prices charged to domestic customers – in other words the energy companies have broken their long conspiracy of silence on the cost of the EU + UK governments’ so-called green subsidies and started to tell it like it is…
When the rats start jumping off the ship we can be pretty sure it’s about to sink!
However, there are still thousands of red-green snouts in the trough around the world who will fight a rearguard action to preserve their carbon fraud based life-styles. As long as they are able to talk absolute drivel with the ‘authority’ of the UN then we can’t expect them to go down quietly…
Charles Stegiel says:
November 23, 2013 at 12:07 pm
The end conclusion Charles, is that methane has bubbled up in large quantities from sea floor disturbances in the long past without a runaway greenhouse, which should be obvious considering you’re alive to copy and paste alarmist drivel.
And “warming in the arctic continues to accelerate” is a lie. The charts show the opposite.
Copenhagen was the high watermark for the Green insurgents.
The failure there was the turning point for Greenpeace and co.
And the failure was more analogous to the Battle of Borodino than Stalingrad: An overly long struggle that won the field at the expense of momentum and the aura of invincibility that drew the waverers to Bonaparte’s side.
All that was left was the looting and the retreat to where they started.
Warsaw is just a step back to the beginning – now burdened with the trophies.
Charles Stegiel says:
November 23, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Either way, the end-conclusion is that the methane that is now showing up all over the Arctic Ocean, is rising from the seafloor
=========
nope, its coming from the fault line. which is to be expected because methane (natural gas) is not the product of decomposed dinosaurs after all. It is created by the reduction of limestone (CO2) and super heated steam in presence of iron within the earth.
limestone + water + iron + heat ===> natural gas + other hydrocarbons + iron rich rock
Being lighter than water, the methane percolates upwards. some gets trapped in the ground, the rest is released to the atmosphere and consumed by bacteria to produce CO2, water, and more bacteria. eventually the CO2 gets bound up in the oceans as limestone, subducted into the earth by plate tectonics, and recycled back into methane and other hydrocarbons so we can fill our cars and drive around.
thus, when you drive your car, you are recycling. recycling CO2 from eons ago, that the earth converted into limestone then hydrocarbons, and were eventually used to fill your tank.
or more correctly:
limestone + water + iron + heat + pressure ==> natural gas + other hydrocarbons + iron rich rock
I would argue that rather than the war analogy that the closer analogy is that the world is coming out of its second dark age.
“I don’t see our goal as to win a ‘final victory’ over them. My desire isn’t to wipe out any ideology.”
And that is why they keep coming back. If you refuse to win, you lose.
After the Cold War, we could have collected all the available Soviet records in the chaos that followed, and held treason trials for everyone on the Soviet payroll. We were too nice for that, so they continue to fester in the heart of Western nations, and will find something else to push once ‘Global Warming’ loses its power.
One of the headlines was “Warsaw climate talks limp to a conclusion”. Someone commented “If they’re limping, I suggest breaking the other leg”.
Charles, the issue is what other time period can they compare this too as re IASA images.? Is what they are seeing out of the ordinary? Did it occur at any time in the last 100 years? 300 years? They don’t know. Gavin Schmitdt thinks the methane hydrate Arctic scare is bullsh!t. I call it bullsh!t in light of the ice free Arctic periods during the Holocene which lasted for hundreds of years.
Is Greenpeace facing its Warsawgrad?
I don’t think so. More like climategate was the Battle of Britain, Copenhagen was Pearl Harbor and the Battle of The Atlantic is in progress.
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.” – Winston Churchill
I highly recommend “Battlefield” for those interested in the intricacies of WW2.
Zeke says:
November 23, 2013 at 12:51 pm
inre: Jon at 12:42
See how easy it is to string some sciency words together and “disturb” young people, so that they attack energy, transportation, mass production, and even child bearing, water, cattle, and fire? It is that easy.
I’m not sure what you mean by the above.
Err…not sure what happened but wanted to start from the beginning.
One more try
This has been going on for thousands of years. Creating ideas that the public can believe in and that grants the promoters some control over the masses and their resources?
The breaking issue I suspect is “loss and damage”, both historical and current, to be paid for by the developed world to the developing, China included. It is one thing to talk of a 100bn global charge, another to cite individual countries for a determinable and fixed penalty.
Would Al Gore be supportive of an American yearly tithe on his income? Would he, as a Vice President, be standing on the steps of the White House calling for the American taxpayer to cough up for the emissions sins of their fathers? I don’t think so.
Current policies which result in increased tax revenues that are designated for climate remediation in the host country can be perceived as either tax neutral or actually economic boosters. Policies that send those taxes out-of-country are neither neutral nor economic boosters. International agencies like even the UN have a tough time getting consistent funding (including from the US). Spending money on others for theoretical dangers has no personal attractiveness.
If Greenpeace and the other green groups wanted to reduce emissions (as the primary goal) they would have avoided this historical responsibility issue. But since global redistribution of wealth is part of the ideology, knocking down the strong as well as bringing up the weak, this “loss and damage” hammer was a natural. Trouble is, few are willing to altruistically hurt their own kind in principle, and hardly any to avoid a problem that is – if present – decades away.
I couldn’t agree more with this article. Warsaw has been a tremendous victory for common sense against IPCC non-science. These talks are going no where for years and years – long enough for the IPCC to finally see sense and allow this dead corpse scam to be taken off life support and allowed to die a natural death.
But what I found most incredible was that the green NGOs still thought they were getting anything. They have got nothing since Climategate – but that is where being a sceptic counts. They believe in their “consensus” belief that they have been doing something important and getting for years – because that is their consensus belief.
We know they have not because nothing of substance has happened.
So it’s been win – win.
We won the war …. they (still) think they did.
They are happy, we are happy.
Jon says:
November 23, 2013 at 2:44 pm
This has been going on for thousands of years. Creating ideas that the public can believe in and that grants the promoters some control over the masses and their resources?
Yes … like DDT, Mercury and PCB 🙂
Col Mosby on November 23, 2013 at 12:22 pm
I admire your optimism, especially as I own shares in Uranium producing companies. However, there are two further points:
1. Uranium is not the only nuclear fuel cycle.
2. The French (bless their hearts) do not consider there is such a thing as nuclear waste, rather other fissile material that can be processed/reused.
Meanwhile in an alternate reality – no, strike that – in a fantasy realm … It’s all going well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25067180
The BBC journalist – Matt McGrath – is worth reading. He’s fairly new to the warmist nomenklatura and seems to operate as if no issues ever arose with the basis of the AGW scare. Quite fun and eerily reminiscent of Roger Harrabin and gone.
“Jim Cripwell says:November 23, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Fred F. Mueller makes some very good points, but one aspect is omitted from his excellent presentation . During wars, there are decisive leaders on the winning side, who relentlessly pursue the enemy until defeat is accomplished. ”
Yes it’s war Jim but not as we know it. There will be no decisive end, many of the taxes/charges laid on emissions will be touted as broad based consumption taxes and left in place.
The UN and other rent seekers (Greenpeace, WWF et al) may not be successful with this scam, but its costs will linger for generations even long after all talk of CAGW has ceased.
Just read this, guess not over yet,
Negotiators from about 195 countries have reached consensus on some of the cornerstones of an ambitious climate pact to combat global warming.
Governments agreed at talks in Poland that a new deal would consist of a patchwork of national contributions to curb emissions that could blur a 20-year-old distinction between the obligations of rich and poor nations.
They are aiming for a new global deal to be signed in Paris in 2015 to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which set targets for developed countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/23/is-greenpeace-facing-its-warsawgrad/
In reply to:
Is Greenpeace facing its Warsawgrad?
William: Yes, there are two paradigm shifts underway. The developed countries are very close to the absolute limit of deficit financing and hence will be forced to cut entitlements. The developed countries will be forced to balance budgets which will change the nature of politics. Rah, rah, speeches and medals for Oprah will be passé.
Entire purposeless government departments and programs will disappear as was the fate of the Australian, ‘Climate commission’.
The Warsaw climate conference Waterloo is that the developed countries do not have surplus funds to pay to the developed countries for ‘climate change’. Developed countries and developing countries do not have surplus funds to fight ‘climate change’. Wasting money on green scams does not stimulate the economy. The green scam jobs disappear when the tax payer money stops. Green scams do not make economic or environmental sense.
A twist in the climate wars, is the planet is about to abruptly cool. The public will not support sending billions of dollars to corrupt developing countries to be wasted on idiotic green scams during a period of cuts to entitlements (health, education, defense, roads, bridges, government jobs, government pay, and so on.) when the planet is cooling.
William Astley says:
November 23, 2013 at 3:33 pm
You hit the nail on the head William … but we must not lose focus re: chemical contaminants in our environment.
Gentlemen, let me start out by saying that I believe that AGW is a con game. I would like you to think of the earth as a chef would a lemon. We have zested the rind to make all kinds of sweet and tasty things but we are running out of rind! We are now squeezing the core by fracking so there is a time when it will again be prohibitively expensive to use hydrocarbons as we do now. Going forward, we need to develop Thorium and Nuclear alternatives. I recommend that the “skeptics” acknowledge this just as Hansen Dr. has.
Zeke says:
November 23, 2013 at 12:41 pm
“Not to mention the war of DC vs AC, in which Thomas Edison held public executions of horses to show people the dangers of AC power, which was being developed by Nikola Tesla. Edison even imported elephants for the purpose of electrocuting them.”
Ah, you’re right. Forgot about that one.
It ain’t over till it’s over.
Australia is now a target for smearing now that we have adopted a pro science attitude to this nonsense. But the only thing the left press could find fault with at Warsaw was our eating habits and our dress sense !
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/t-shirt-delegates-defended/story-e6frg6xf-1226765632550#
But even this pathetic example was a beat up, see the bottom of the article.
Methinks that their protests are now submerging into the background noise.
I think the biggest result of the Warsaw conference was the obvious fighting over money. This demonstrated what the real game plan has always been. As more and more people see this blatant money grubbing, they become suspicious of the motivations … as they should.
Warsaw made it obvious it was all about money. That is what will stick in many folks minds. The best thing skeptics can do now is to reinforce this picture whenever and wherever possible.
With regards to the point in this post “Chinese cleverness”, I was in the room (as an observer) when the contract was signed, when the French (EDF) sold the entire UK power infrastructure to the Chinese (UK Power Networks). Can anybody let me know if any other country has sold its entire power infrastructure to a foreign government?
Jimbo says (November 23, 2013 at 1:25 pm): “Overheating the center of the inner core reactor due to the so-called greenhouse effect on the surface of Earth may cause a meltdown condition, an enrichment of nuclear fuel and a gigantic atomic explosion.”
Aha! So that’s what happened to Krypton! 🙂
In response to CC Squid I also had a meeting with a VERY senior member of DECC, when I asked him what research the UK are doing into thorium, I received the answer, what is thorium? God help us.
“Hitlers annihilation a few years later.” Yes, and then look at what Stalin and his communist cohorts did over the decades (not to mention what the “Bolsheviks” did before the war) to “their own” people. Communists beleive that it is necessary to eliminate even by murder and exile to re-education camps, anybody who shows even a hint of opposition. The Greenies *are* communists. So do the math.
You’re wrong. When the history of today’s anti-CAGW struggle is definitively written, the name “Anthony Watts” will loom large.
” DirkH says: November 23, 2013 at 12:32 pm
It would be nice indeed if humanity finally got over itself and accepted this simple form of energy production. As with all technologies, we see irrational fear during its introduction.
Also, during that time, Rudolf Steiner, founder of the antroposophic movement, an esoteric movement, posited that candles harbor good spirits, light bulbs are so-so, and neon lamps harbor evil demons.”
While I love the new designs we have really dragged our butts in rolling over the aging first & second generation plants. They should have been replaced long ago with much safer designs that were available (and still are).
There is nothing irrational about fearing 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima type events. That is completely rational. Time for a tech rollover in the nuke industry!
I love that last bit. I always knew that there was something sinister about neon lights! 🙂
Thanks
@Charles Steigel
“On November 19, 2013, the sky was much clearer, resulting in a lot of data from the center of the Arctic Ocean, as also illustrated by the image below.”
So with that much methane hanging around, it is a good thing there is no sunlight to illuminate it at this time of year.
David Wells says:
November 23, 2013 at 12:28 pm
“…bright enough to recognise that we do indeed live in a finite world and once we lack the finite resources or the ability to extract and refine those finite resources the game is up…”
A nice little essay but I have one criticism and it is the theme of the quote. The beauty and magic of technology and economics is what has confounded Malthusians for generations. They think linearly and in two dimensional space, the resources and tech are exponential and three dimensional (at least) – not the same resources necessarily that are so important to us today. NGOs, soc_iali_sts, the UN and such think “We have to do something!” We don’t, the market and an infinite imagination makes the moves before we run out of anything. No central authority required. It’s automatic. We do not live in a finite world of resources in any real sense. There is no demand for Zinc, for example, there is a demand for corrosion proofing, alloy metals, non chargeable battery cases (do they still make zinc ones?) …..I was told you could even make a radio out of iron, clay, quartz and carbon and a few other very abundant resources back when the 1950s Club of Rome came to the table with their 25 years left of mineral and fuel resources. Who would of thought you could have a radio, telephone, TV set that fits in your shirt pocket. Fuel, I’ll let you guess. The biggest challenge to humankind is to get people to stop being afraid and making the job tougher. Its the Maurice Strongs and NGOs that don’t want people to not be afraid. I worked in Africa in the 1960s and 1990s and was apalled how little progress people had actually made in the those 30+yrs. I think if we had left them alone simply did trade, business and investment and the like with them, all the poor countries problems would have been solved. They have enormous resources that NGOs and thieving politicians have made inaccessible because no investor would be interested in the framework. Sending bales of money is a sure way to enrich a few and leave the rest to starve. I could go on because I have a strong sense of this stuff but this is enough for the night.
HGW xx/7 asks the right question:
“Do we need a leader, let alone want one?”
Things will go much better having a population-representative elected ‘board’ with a non-executive chairman. Modeling societies on corporations is unwise. Great Leaders, parties and national factions are the stuff of dustbins. No one is smarter than the group, even in hero-worshipping cultures. That is why they consult. The UN representatives should be proportionally elected and put a stop to this silliness. Ban Ki, it is not working!
As it becomes clear that CO2 is not causing catastrophic warming and that a Quiet Sun version 2 (QS2) can cause catastrophic cooling, all talk will go to coping with the drop in temperatures. Surprisingly, the poor countries are mostly safe from this. It is the northern developed regions that will have the most coping to do. Shorter growing seasons, less rain, more intermittence, early frosts – it adds up.
There are plenty of poor people in developed countries who will sink further into energy poverty until we have lots of Little Match Girls freezing on the streets. As a result most coping strategies will be executed within countries.
David Wells;
Paragraphs. Try them, we’ll like them. Abandoned your massive text-block about 1/3 the way thru.
I like this blog and detest Greenpeace, but am annoyed at this writer’s assertion that Stalingrad was the decisive event/battle of WWII. This is Stalinist propaganda, the real turning point was the entry of the United States into the war in December 1941. American supplies (tanks, airplanes, trucks) improved the mobility of the Russian Army while the American invasions of North Africa (1942) and Italy (1943) forced Hitler to divert some of his best Army Divisions from the Eastern Front to the West. Russian losses were ten times those of the Germans on the Eastern Front (24,000,000 versus 2,400,000); without American help, Stalin would have almost certainly lost the war.
@David Wells –
“transferring wealth from the poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries to the rich in poor countries” is so true! And it could be rephrased for “transferring from the poor to the rich” for us here in the US, under der Fuehrer’s regime – socialist regimes always concentrate wealth in fewer hands than in capitalist countries because there is no middle class, only poor and super-rich.
A minor historical point: the real turning point on the Russian front in WWI was not Stalingrad – it was the battle the following summer, July 1943, at Kursk. At Kursk the Germans threw their central armored reserves at the strongest section of tthe Russian line, where the Russians anticipated the attack and were so well prepared for it that in less than a week the attacking German forces were destroyed, leaving huge sections of the front wide open to immediate Russian counteroffensives. In their offensive at Kursk, the Germans broke rule number one of offensive military strategy, which is you hit ‘;em where they ain’t.
And it would seem that GreenWAR and the other thieves in environmental clothing attacked one of the strongest points on the skeptic front line – Poland, the country perhaps the most resolutely opposed to the AGW and socialist memes of all, to their soon regret. Warsaw was their Kursk, methinks, as well as their Stalingrad. And so now let us in the skeptic community mount our counteroffensive, ultimate target Washington and our own Fuehrer.
Meant tpo say WWII – mea culpa
“Jon says:
November 23, 2013 at 3:03 pm
Jon says:
November 23, 2013 at 2:44 pm
This has been going on for thousands of years. Creating ideas that the public can believe in and that grants the promoters some control over the masses and their resources?
Yes … like DDT, Mercury and PCB :)”
I am thinking more of religion and ideology. And in this case environmentalism.
I remember some years ago reading about radicals getting the idea to turn environmentalism in to a something that would dominate and even replace religion in the whole World.
This endless fight for thousands of years by the few to control and live of the many is what I am thinking of.
The actual turning point in WWII was the minor Battle for Ceylon. It threatened to cut off the trade route from India to England. It was also the first time the Axis forces were defeated anywhere in the world. Lastly it has been said that the loss of aircraft by the Axis forces there contributed to their loss in the Battle of The Coral Sea soon after, when they simply ran out of planes.
http://www.30squadronassociation.com/history/ceylon.html
So I would suggest that Canada’s repeal of carbon taxing and dumping of Kyoto might be the turning point.
However, it is not worth arguing about, it is just a historical note. The thing is that the cuckoos of the CAGW have finally been tipped out of the nest.
My belief is that they will turn to water sustainability as their next target.
“Jon says:
November 23, 2013 at 3:03 pm
“Jon says:
November 23, 2013 at 2:44 pm
Yes like DDT?”
What about DDT?
“They are aiming for a new global deal to be signed in Paris in 2015 to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol … ”
————————————–
So the next all-expenses-paid junket is to Paris? Life’s tough when you’re saving the planet.
As for a “new global deal”, good luck with that. The chances are so small that it would take nanotechnology to even identify them. But, the important thing is, we have a trip to Paris lined up, even though everyone knows that the prospect of anything more than weasel words coming out of it is infinitesimal.
As one of the mug taxpayers who fund these wankfests, to say that I am unimpressed is putting it mildly. The gravy train rolls on.
We have a long way to go yet in getting rid of these parasites.
Johanna said
“We have a long way to go yet in getting rid of these parasites.”
Good luck on that one, these few “parasites” that is feeding on the many has been with us for thousands of years as shamans and priests alike, and later since the enlightenment ideology.
I think it would be better to educate the many on the subject and behavior of these few?
Iinteresting to look at Stalingrad. But we could also call it the Warsawloo. 😉
The biggest delusion that needs to be debunked once and for all is that there is a coalition out there operating for higher purposes.
The only purposes any coalition operating is interested in is money and power.
It has always been thus and there is no sign of it changing.
‘Left wing women’ operate for money and power, attacking ‘right wing misogynists’.
‘Right wing capitalists’ operate for money and power, attacking ‘the Unions and socialists’.
‘The Chinese’ operate for money and power, through keeping quiet in the Western media whilst playing hardball in international diplomacy, economics and financial markets.
Et al, et al, et al.
“rtj1211 says:
November 24, 2013 at 12:48 am
The biggest delusion that needs to be debunked once and for all is that there is a coalition out there operating for higher purposes.”
The basis for it all is the UNFCCC and environmental interests behind it, that had this idea that We had Man made catastrophic climate change. The object was political, handicap today’s Western World kapitalistic economy and classic liberal freedom. And that would benefit leftist political interests only both nationally and globally.
Those trying to make money on the UNFCCC scheme would, if UNFCCC was successful, in the end loose it all.
Rtj1211
Says
“The only purposes any coalition operating is interested in is money and power.”
Then what about Greenpeace and WWF and other NGO’s idea and effort with UNFCCC, IPCC, Agenda 21 and etc etc…?
climatologist says:
November 23, 2013 at 4:24 pm
It ain’t over till it’s over.
OR the fat lady sings. Michelle or Merkel ?
My belief is that they will turn to water sustainability as their next target
JACK, they have been trying to switch to that one for about 2 years. Quote from a Greanpeace a$$hole “what do you switch to when you run out of water”. If that’s their best then it is dead in the water 🙂 They have been testing the “waters” for several ideas since climategate. They have tried methane, water, fracking, NO², deep water hydrates. They are fishing because they could see the end to their current scam on the horizon (it’s still a long way) so they need to prepare the numpties for their next tax scheme.
If only Warsawgrad was true. We in the UK are ‘led’ by sheep, and mediore sheep at that. The only people with any balls are Farage, for all his faults, and that ‘mad eye’ Monckton. All our politicians are so far behind the curve on Europe and climate change they are in danger of being lapped.
Personally I think that COP19 did rather well.
The messages that seem to come across are the increased certainty of IPCC about AGW, the urgency of cutting emmissions more drastically than ever, the settled nature of ‘the science’ and the need, and justice, of compensating poor countries for their costs in dealing with the effects and threats of climate change.
In Britain, where our future king has yet again confirmed that the recent typhoon was certainly caused by climate change, our goverments, of all colours, will step up and take responsibility.
The UK should immediately approve annual UK payments of at least £50 billion to developing countries, rising to £100 billion by 2020..
We need to immediately shut down all oil and coal power stations and learn to live with power only when renewables deliver. Let us heed the clarion call, reject industrial society and learn to live and work intermitently, as nature intends.
Politically, we should throw out most of the Lords from the upper house and replace them with appointees from the leading NGOs such as Greenpeace, WWFN, etc, together with leading green scientists and other advocates who will ensure our bright and innocent green future. These people will intervene as required to ensure that UK society never again pollutes the world.
About time, but then the truth always gets out and to paraphrase Scotty, ”you cannot break the laws of physics”.
The Russians did a great service to the World in standing up to these Greenpeace hooligans who have broken the law in so many countries of the World in their undemocratic actions in support of their narrow and often unworldly views on matters that effect us all. I dread to think of the reaction of the British government had Greenpeace’s criminal activities in the Arctic been carried out in British waters. I’m sure the perpetrators would not have spent a few weeks in prison for their actions.. We must all thank the Russians for doing what they did, and hope that it has sent a message to all other countries of the World that the law must be observed at all times,Countries must take firm action to stop the illegal activities of these fanatics who believe they have a right to take physical and sometimes criminal action against countries and companies who themselves are acting within the law.
Australia is not a lucid country yet
If voters knew the exact scientific truth, they would vote of scientific policies, but they don’t. They vote for unscientific type policies and only later discover that the Emperor has no cloths. The world now waking up to the fact that the jury is out on glow-bull warming itself, but that the cures are worse than the disease. Wind and solar power do not work and if they pick the wrong cure, where does that leave the original diagnosis?
Yet the media don’t tell that Warsaw was a defeat. This is what the French newspaper Le Monde writes:
Un accord sur la climat a été trouvé à Varsovie, samedi 23 novembre.
SYNTHÈSE. — Un accord sur le climat adopté à Varsovie.
Les tractations ont été extrêmement dures lors de cette “conférence d’étape” mais un accord a finalement été trouvé, fixant une feuille de route jusqu’en 2015.
So, “un accord a été trouvé”. Maybe those people see “la vie en rose”?
Jean Meeus says:
November 24, 2013 at 3:56 am
“So, “un accord a été trouvé”. Maybe those people see “la vie en rose”?”
No; all media in the EU are censored and controlled. Whatever you read in them is what the EU commission wants you to read.
rtj1211 says:
November 24, 2013 at 12:48 am
“‘Left wing women’ operate for money and power, attacking ‘right wing misogynists’.
‘Right wing capitalists’ operate for money and power, attacking ‘the Unions and socialists’.”
Blech. A capitalist, as opposed to an activist, first of all gains his money by selling a product. Making the product involves something called work. We argue with socialists because we hope we can help them understand these concepts some day lest they make another bloody mess like they did in the Purge in the USSR.
A very erudite chap picked it so scintillatingly well some time ago-
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/07/12/the-big-green-lie-exposed/
and with the bankers of London doing another Dunkirk with EU carbon emissions trading and abandoning their trading desks that leaves the socialists masquerading as environmentalists to invade Poland all they like. Besides the Russians aren’t interested in getting involved.
Hockeystickler,
“without American help, Stalin would have almost certainly lost the war.”
But you are ignoring the idiocy of Hitler. How many times did he order divisions, even whole armies to stand and fight to the last man. Instead of retreating and reforming they were made to stand in isolation, being rendered useless as a fighting force until succumbing to the inevitable.
Oh, and then there is the vast Russian territory to conquer. Stalin had already moved production to Siberia.
William Dilly,
Methinks you are having a laugh. It’s usually a good idea to end with a /sarc or smiley.
Absolutely right, but its not a laugh. The people of Britain are in the hands of willing idiots.
One day Ed Davey and his kind should be charged with treason
Why do our government whitewash Climategate, Tim Yeo, etc. and jump at the chance of handing billions to 3rde world dictators?
We must have a root and branch cleansing of the civil service, tainted politicians, professional learned societies that have gone leftist advocacy.
We have to find a voice and if UKIP will do it, fine.
Jon says:
November 23, 2013 at 3:03 pm
“Jon says:
November 23, 2013 at 2:44 pm
Yes like DDT?”
What about DDT?
What I mean is just because there are environmental cranks out there doesn’t mean that we should drop our guard with respect to our environment.
Not all uk media are censored, read Christophrt Booker. He has been telling the truth for a long time
Regarding the no leader ….may l suggest A. Watts, Dr Willie Soon, Prof Richard Lindzen, Steve Mcintyre,
C. Booker and Steve Goreham, to name a few. Where would we be without WUWT?
History will prove these men to be heroes imo.
Does anyone have a comprehensive list of which side countries took in COP19?
john piccirilli you write “Regarding the no leader”
I don’t think I have explained well enough about what I am talking about. I agree that there are many very able scientists who have been in the forefront of the assault on the hoax of CAGW. May I add the name of Dr. Judith Curry. But that is not the issue. No-one who matters is taking any notice of them. What we require is someone who cannot be ignored, and who with stand up and shout form the rooftops, that there is no science to support the hypothesis of CAGW.
I know it is farfetched, but the sort of person I have in mind is Sir Paul Nurse, or Lord Rees. If they stepped forward, it would change the whole situation overnight.
This article is illogical.
The nuclear power industry was to be the primary beneficiary of carbon tax or cap and trade schemes.
If uranium shares have bottomed, that is no sign of a collapse of the CAGW paradigm.
Col Mosby: “There‘s an exceedingly simple reason for the firming up of uranium prices – the world has begun building nucler power plants after a decades’ long hiatus.”
Wrong. The reason uranium prices are rising is because of the lapse of the Tenex uranium purchase agreement with Russia this year. This was the agreement which back in the 1990s was signed to turn Russia’s surplus weapons-grade plutonium stockpiles into reactor fuel. Over the course of about the last 10 years, the equivalent of about 20,000 nuclear weapons have been converted into nuclear reactor fuel.
The end of the agreement means that there is now a significant gap between available uranium supply and demand for existing reactors, let alone any new construction. To some degree, this was ameliorated by the shutdown of Japan’s 48 niuclear reactors post Fukushima, but this is only a temporary delay. It is expected that most of Japan’s nuclear reactors will be restarted over the next five years or so as inspections are completed and prefectures grant approvals.
Current world uranium production sits at about 55,000 tonnes annually, whereas annual consumption was about 70,000 tonnes annually. Most of this gap was met by the now-lapsed Tenex purchase agreement. So there’s a need for several large new uranium mines on the scale of McArthur River.
Any expansion of world nuclear reactor capacity will simply add to the supply gap noted above.
Ocean acidification seems to be their next move, but it is weak, and the public is fatigued by enviro scares. Nice article by the way! Long live WUWT.
Now as for this piece of nonsense
“Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?”
Jimbo is right to pour derision all over it. The earth’s core is radioactive because of the high concentration of uranium in it. But that has nothing to do with conducting fission. There can be no fission in the absence of a moderator.
And this:
“Overheating the center of the inner core reactor due to the so-called greenhouse effect on the surface of Earth may cause a meltdown condition, an enrichment of nuclear fuel and a gigantic atomic explosion.”
There are so many things wrong with this fantasy it’s hard to know where to start. Enrichment is done by removing U238, not by particle bombardment. There’s literally no way to increase the proportion of fissile material in the earth’s core. And without it, an explosion of the planetary core is simply not possible. Increased surface heat is utterly irrelevant; the core is already molten, and increased heating, however much, cannot speed up the rate of radioactive decay.
That such drivel was published in a supposed peer-reviewed journal shows how bankrupt the concept of peer review really is. Edgar Rice Burroughs published better material than this in imagining princesses and green-skinned men on Mars.
Jon says don’t forget get chemical contaminants in our environment. What is your CV? I am a Retired Chemical Engineer with 40 years of environmental experience. In the 60s and 70s we had problems and effectively addressed them.
What are you talking about? Sounds like you’re parroting someone else’s liberal dribble.
skunky says:
November 23, 2013 at 4:58 pm “With regards to the point in this post “Chinese cleverness”, I was in the room (as an observer) when the contract was signed, when the French (EDF) sold the entire UK power infrastructure to the Chinese (UK Power Networks). Can anybody let me know if any other country has sold its entire power infrastructure to a foreign government?”
Nigel Farage on the construction by China of a nuclear power plant at Hinkley:
“I am not concerned about Chinese money coming into this country – I welcome it. But what I think is bonkers is that we’ve gone for this plant at Hinkley, and we’ve guaranteed the Chinese investors a “strike price” as its called, over the course of the next 35 years, which is exactly double what the current cost of electricity is. It’s a dam*ed good deal for China, but I think it’s a rotten deal for the British tax payer. But it’s based on the idea I mentioned earlier on this show – they assume that energy prices will go up, and I think actually, if we get frakking, and start to use a lot more genuine new technology, the price can come down.”
In short, UKIP’s Nigel Farage objects to the “bizarre assumption that energy prices will rise in the next few years,” and counters that instead, shale gas has the potential to reduce energy prices by 50% in the UK.
chad wozniak – Kursk was another example of Stalin’s propaganda: von Manstein was well on his way to winning the battle when Hitler ordered him to stop attacking and took away his three best Army Divisions (because of the American invasion of Italy). vince causey- yes, Hitler made mistakes (a good thing for our side) but there is no getting around the fact that Russian losses were about ten times German losses. Without American help, the ratio would have been even higher. A good guide to what actually happened on the Eastern Front is ‘Deathride’ by American Historian John Mosier (Simon & Schuster 2010).
The comment site at the Daily Mail has been interesting. We have gone from 95% pro AGW to 98% anti-AGW. in fact, Warmists hardly dare raise their heads there any more.
.
Regards the Greenpeace activists being held in Russia, I think Russia should convict them for a nomination 6 months in a Siberian open jail. But, because these activists hate oil and coal so much, and Russia is fuelled mainly by oil and coal, they should be held in a special wing without any heating – during the Siberian winter. These activists would appreciate saving the planet, by not using any fossil fuels.
However, should they change their minds, and demand their cells to be raised above -50 c, their pleas for fossil fuel heating should be recorded and broadcast to the world. – plus an apology for being such fantasist pricks in the first place. 🙂
R
I agree.
The Greenpeace pirates should rot in a (cold) jail.
John M. Chenosky, PE says:
November 24, 2013 at 10:21 am
Jon says don’t forget get chemical contaminants in our environment. What is your CV? I am a Retired Chemical Engineer with 40 years of environmental experience. In the 60s and 70s we had problems and effectively addressed them.
What are you talking about? Sounds like you’re parroting someone else’s liberal dribble.
You’ve been out of the job too long … do your research 🙂
It is interesting and ironic that the vast plans of western european expansionists have on several occasions been done in by harsh eastern european winter weather, not climate.
@ Jim Cripwell – Excellent questions about leadership and delivering the death blow. Given that institutional inertia is almost all in favor of CAGW, an opposing force is required. To me, what would be very powerful is to get some major academic/institutional support. Is it possible to have a symposium or meeting of academics/real scientists who can come up with some ideas on what institutions to target? There must be many scientists ready to jump ship now and go public, how do we give them a vehicle with which to do so?
One other point. One of my complaints about the AGW hysteria is that it crowds out work on other environmental issues from fishery management to PCBs and BPA, just to name a couple. There are issues we can actually address but it seems that if you aren’t talking about AGW or connecting your concerns to AGW, you are not listened to.
Money simply exists to finance AGW. AGW is a useful tool for the power elite. Like communism in the 30’s it offers a simple solution, a devil, and a sense of banding together to fight the good fight. That the chief proponents of it seek to enrich themselves at everyone else’s expense is ignored because that is not part of the devil, or the simple solution or the feel good politics of it all. AGW feels right and many respectable people say it is right and find it quite easy to blame the devil’s of big business and big government for everything wrong with the world.
“Jon says:
November 24, 2013 at 8:33 am
Jon says:
November 23, 2013 at 3:03 pm
Jon says:
November 23, 2013 at 2:44 pm
“Yes like DDT?”
“What about DDT?”
“What I mean is just because there are environmental cranks out there doesn’t mean that we should drop our guard with respect to our environment.”
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259
“Environmental leftists traditionally have viewed the people killed by malaria as unfortunate, collateral victims of mankind’s highly necessary efforts to protect the natural environment from the alleged ravages of DDT. Some environmentalists, however, take their rationalizations in favor of the DDT ban much farther: That is, they view malaria as nature’s way of imposing a necessary check on the potential problems associated with overpopulation, and therefore as something that is not wholly undesirable.
For example, former (1969-1985) Sierra Club director Michael McCloskey said (in 1971) that his organization “wants a ban on pesticides, even in countries where DDT has kept malaria under control … [because by] using DDT, we reduce mortality rates in underdeveloped countries without the consideration of how to support the increase in populations.”
In a similar spirit, Club of Rome director Alexander King wrote in 1990: “My chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem.”
“In September 2006 the WHO announced that it would thenceforth actively support indoor spraying of the chemical “not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.” “The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr. Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO assistant director-general for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. “DDT presents no health risk when used properly.” Elaborating on this theme, the WHO issued a statement asserting that DDT “provides the most effective, cheapest, and safest means of abating and eradicating” infectious diseases like malaria and typhus, which “may have killed half of all the people that ever lived.”
In short order, environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense, and Greenpeace likewise accepted the stubborn reality that DDT, on balance, could help alleviate a great deal of human suffering. As Greenpeace spokesman Rick Hind told the New York Times, “If there’s nothing else [besides DDT] and it’s going to save lives, we’re all for it. Nobody’s dogmatic about it.”
This change of heart was too little, too late. The longstanding, uncompromising, inflexible dogmas of Mr. Hind’s organization and others on the environmental Left had already condemned at least 50 million innocent people to death in three-and-a-half decades.”
Jack says (November 23, 2013 at 11:15 pm): “The actual turning point in WWII was the minor Battle for Ceylon. It threatened to cut off the trade route from India to England. It was also the first time the Axis forces were defeated anywhere in the world.”
The Italians in North Africa were defeated in summer 1940. They were rescued by the Germans, who advanced to Tobruk, but the Germans were driven back to their start line in November 1941. The Luftwaffe was defeated in the Battle of Britain, summer 1940. The German army was defeated in front of Moscow in December 1941 and was still on the defensive when Japan raided the Indian Ocean in April 1942.
Lubos Motl says (November 24, 2013 at 12:40 am): “Iinteresting to look at Stalingrad. But we could also call it the Warsawloo. ;-)”
The difference between Stalingrad and Waterloo is the difference between a “turning point”–with a long road still ahead–and the end of the road. No doubt Fred Mueller picked Stalingrad as an example familiar to our European friends, but Americans may be more familiar with the battle of Gettysburg and the surrender of Vicksburg, both in July 1863. Neither was a Waterloo, as the War of Secession continued for nearly two more years.
Chad Wozniak says (November 23, 2013 at 9:52 pm): “A minor historical point: the real turning point on the Russian front in WWI was not Stalingrad – it was the battle the following summer, July 1943, at Kursk.”
I’ve seen it hyped as such when people want to sell a book on the subject, but it’s still hype. In 1941 the Germans attacked the USSR on three fronts with three army groups. In 1942 they could only scrape up the strength to attack on one front with two army “groups” filled out with ill-equipped allied armies. In 1943 they could only attack on a small front with two armies and one army “detachment”. Kursk was a spoiling attack with limited objectives intended to weaken the Red Army and shorten the line. Even a German success wouldn’t have reversed the outcome of the war.
Gary, you’ve got your dates wrong. O’Connor’s offensive against the Italian army in North Africa started with the Battle of Sidi Barani in November 1940. The offensive ended south of Benghazi in late December 1940. The Germans were already starting to land troops at Tripoli in January, and their counterattack came in March 1941.
Churchill’s decision to drain North Africa of troops in Christmas 1940 was probably one of the worst decisions by the Allies of the entire war. Instead of finishing Libya off, the forces sent to Greece were largely lost there and in Crete. It can be argued that the Allies never got their act together properly until Churchill was removed from strategic direction of the war and replaced by Eisenhower.
As for Kursk, Stalingrad, et.al., the turning point was the Soviet winter offensive of 1941-2. Between frostbite and Soviet action, the German losses totalled nearly one million during the four months December 41 to March 42. The Wehrmacht never recovered, which is why as you note it was only capable of one major offensive in 1942. Even had the Germans won at Stalingrad it would have had little effect on the final outcome of the war. The offensive into the Caucasus was already stalling out from sheer logistics.
And you’re right about Ceylon. It was an unimportant naval raid which was intended by the Japanese only to take the Royal Navy out of the war, which it did until 1945. The turning point in the Pacific was two events, Midway and Guadalcanal.
“I hope the Russians scuttle the Greenpeace ship very publicly in shallow water so it can be used as an artificial reef.”
I hope they confiscate it and equip it wit a reactor and armour plating for use as an icebreaker.
I reckon they will need it…
To Charles Steigel: The warming in the Arctic is not accelerating. And the conclusions you come to from the information you describe is highly speculative and unrealistic, as are most climate change future scenarios. Give it a rest, the planet and the environment is fine and always will be.
David Wells, I agree with your assessment, except that long before we run out of fossil fuels, technology will have devised new renewable energy supplies, such as fusion and /or other types. We will never run out of affordable energy.
I think one of the scariest points was the intended fund to be controlled or administered by the UN. Given the countries who typically control such units within the UN, I would imagine the amount of money handed to countries for actual “climate mitigation” would be miniscule. The majority would be used for “administration costs”. I am glad that there are now countries standing against such a fund and that the Warsaw Conference was so successful (sarc).
In short order, environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense, and Greenpeace likewise accepted the stubborn reality that DDT, on balance, could help alleviate a great deal of human suffering. As Greenpeace spokesman Rick Hind told the New York Times, “If there’s nothing else [besides DDT] and it’s going to save lives, we’re all for it. Nobody’s dogmatic about it.”
Yes but good god … at what expense to the environment! Did you ever read silent spring?
cgh says (November 25, 2013 at 6:43 am): “Gary, you’ve got your dates wrong.”
Yes, winter 1940. Thanks for the correction. By now I should know better than to rely on memory. 🙁
“As for Kursk, Stalingrad, et.al., the turning point was the Soviet winter offensive of 1941-2.”
THANK YOU! Great minds think alike! 🙂
“Even had the Germans won at Stalingrad it would have had little effect on the final outcome of the war.”
Though Stalingrad was a center of war production and the Volga a major transportation artery, the oilfields of the Caucasus were the real prize of the campaign, and its original goal.
“The offensive into the Caucasus was already stalling out from sheer logistics.”
As Glantz & House write at the end of Armageddon in Stalingrad, “In retrospect, however, it appears that Germany, if Hitler had concentrated his forces and resources, might have taken either Stalingrad or the Caucasus oil fields in 1942 but was incapable of capturing both. The latter goal appears especially possible in retrospect given that the Red Army had its own logistical difficulties in the Caucasus region.”
http://www.amazon.com/Armageddon-Stalingrad-September-November-Trilogy-Studies/dp/0700616640/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385423748&sr=1-1&keywords=armageddon+in+stalingrad
Jon says:
November 25, 2013 at 4:01 pm
“In short order, environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense, and Greenpeace likewise accepted the stubborn reality that DDT, on balance, could help alleviate a great deal of human suffering. As Greenpeace spokesman Rick Hind told the New York Times, “If there’s nothing else [besides DDT] and it’s going to save lives, we’re all for it. Nobody’s dogmatic about it.”
Yes but good god … at what expense to the environment! Did you ever read silent spring?”
Nope. The book “silent spring” led to a ban on the use of DDT for 3 and a half decade. Finally in 2006 WHO had to lift the ban because the claims in the book “silent spring” could not be validated by science.
Why would anybody read such a unscientific book?
And because of the unscientific based ban on the use of DDT for almost 3 and a half decade up to 50 millions have died?