While the latest IPCC working group III summary report has its share of gloom and doom and ridiculous edicts, it does have one redeeming quality as Josh points out.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
davidmhoffer says:
April 14, 2014 at 10:10 pm
“ . . . There was a time in history when candles and whale oil had well over 90% . . . ”
A bit before my time, but some of the family had gas lights from a well on their property. Being quite little at the time my sister and I did not like to visit – dirty walls, smell, and not bright in the big rooms with small windows.
I wonder if whale oil had better characteristics?
is CAGW gatekeeper, Andrew Revkin, complaining?
NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF FRACKING OR NUCLEAR (MUSTN’T LET THE CAGW-FOLLOWERS KNOW OR THEY MIGHT GET UPSET):
13 April – Nations’ Handling of New Climate Report Presages Divisions in Treaty Effort
(CHART CAPTION: A chart of trending news stories on April 13, 2014, from the website Newsmap.jp. News of the new climate report is the green block at the bottom right.)
Justin Gillis’s news story from Berlin on the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the one on the world’s options for limiting global warming — tells you all you need to know about the familiar contents. The chart of trending news in the United States above tells you all you need to know about how much people are tuning in. (Click to learn more about how Newsmap works.)…
[Insert, 3:52 p.m. | Eric Holthaus has posted an excellent summary of the economic points made in the report at Slate.]…
There’s an important back story — on how the final two days of negotiations between the report authors and government officials reflect global divisions that will only intensify as the world’s rich and developing countries wrangle over a new climate treaty that is supposed to emerge in late 2015.
Under rules created when the climate panel was established in 1988, governments have to approve the final summary for policy makers word by word and unanimously…
(FROM GILLIS ARTICLE) Some developing countries insisted on stripping charts from the report’s executive summary that could be read as requiring greater effort from them, while rich countries — including the United States — struck out language implying that they needed to write big checks to the developing countries…
(FROM AP’s KARL RITTER ARTICLE) Some developing countries objected and wanted the graphs to follow the example of U.N. climate talks and use just two categories – developed and developing – according to three participants who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the IPCC session was closed to the public…
Another snag: oil-rich Saudi Arabia objected to text saying emissions need to go down by 40 percent to 70 percent by 2050 for the world to stay below 2 degrees C (3.6 F) of warming, participants told AP. One participant said the Saudis were concerned that putting down such a range was “policy-prescriptive,” even though it reflects what the science says…
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/nations-handling-of-new-climate-report-presages-divisions-in-treaty-effort/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Climate%20Change&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body&_r=0
10 April: Revkin: I just gave a talk at TEDx Portland — a daylong event focused on various interpretations of the word “perfect.”
I was hardly perfect, but hopefully conveyed my core conclusion: that in our variegation and imperfection, we humans — with motivation and sustained work — are perfectly suited for surviving, and perhaps thriving, in a consequential, complicated century and changing climate.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/we-are-perfect-with-an-asterisk/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog Main&contentCollection=Sustainability&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body
John F. Hultquist says:
April 14, 2014 at 10:32 pm
A bit before my time, but some of the family had gas lights from a well on their property. Being quite little at the time my sister and I did not like to visit – dirty walls, smell, and not bright in the big rooms with small windows.
I wonder if whale oil had better characteristics?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gosh, I read a paper on indoor air quality in the early 1800’s about….well, a few decades ago. I dimly recall that there was a lot of soot and other problems with whale oil, but there weren’t a lot of alternatives. Gas burns pretty clean, but if your family was getting the gas straight from the well, there were likely impurities in it (my guess anyway).
Roger Sowell: “MIT recently applied for a patent on their ocean-floor grid-scale energy storage systems”
Anything off-shore is going to be expensive and short-lived. Oil platforms work well, because the price of oil exceeds the cost of building and maintaining those platforms. Unless the price of electricity soars (which is a real possibility if you take nuclear off the grid…), those installations are unlikely economically feasible.
Besides, if you truly believe in self-generation, then your ocean-floor energy storage is moot. Which is it?
Please… less activism.
***meant to add – Check out the Newsmap Chart on the Revkin/Dot Earth page to see how interested the public is in the IPCC Report. anthony might find a use for it in another thread.
Rune;
Besides, if you truly believe in self-generation, then your ocean-floor energy storage is moot. Which is it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, he promoted the living day lights out of that in another thread. I forget who took him on, but absolutely slaughtered him. If I got that that badly embarrassed on a thread, I wouldn’t show may face…er…name….er whatever for at least a year. Or come back under a different name.
Jordan says: “The Law Of Unintended Consequences bites again.”
No, it’s the law of what happens if you lie about you intentions.
The enviros have a vision of how we should live, reigning in rampant consumerism and treading more lightly on the earth that feeds us ( which I’m not totally unsympathetic to ). But in order to try to force others who don’t agree they latched onto the this “save the planet” crap. An argument so overwhelming that no reasonable person could disagree.
They have bet the farm on global warming to push their agenda, with 2-bit political skills : if we exaggerate they’ll have to listen and with a threat like environmental disaster, crop failure and wars we can dictate how everyone lives.
Left-leaning scientists started manipulating the data in an attempt to be “effective rather than honest”. Left-leaning media further distorted the science as it was actually written ( eg. Suzanne Goldberg, prime offender. )
Real politicians know how to turn any situation and are a little more calculating and better at it ( it’s their job ).
Someone, about 30 years ago decided to do a bit of political Aikido on the green movement. Encouraged the greens come charging forward, invested large amounts of govt money in biased science to “prove” AGW, then deftly flipped them on their back.
They now find themselves faces with a total contradiction. Having fairly successfully opposed nuclear for 40 years they now realise it is “low carbon” !!
The double irony is that most people here are cheer-leaders for nuclear power, yet are vehemently opposed to the AGW BS, which is the best argument in favour of nukes.
forget energy the only solution for the deep ecologists is to wipe out humans on a massive scale with famine and pestilence. reduce humans reduce co2.
Is there no intellectual sancturary safe from the addled mind of Piers Corbyn?
Dear QE2 – Please take this thick dollop home where he belongs and find work for him out of the public eye.
April 14, 2014 at 2:39 pm | MattS says:
April 14, 2014 at 3:03 pm | Kev-in-Uk says:
Mmmm, I’m in Queensland, Australia … Beautiful One Day, Perfect the Next ! 😉
It would appear that somebody high up in the IPCC has been reading Jared Diamond’s “Callapse” & David Archibald’s “Twilight Of Abundance” and arrived at the same conclusions. The difference being the IPCC claim it is to prevent “climate change” where as the two books show it is about survival of the Human Race whilst maintaining, or improving, our current standard of living,
Roger Sowell is a well known anti-nuclear troll. Do not feed the troll. I tried once a wore out my keyboard. His augments are not based on facts, just opinions which he is more then welcome to.
Friends:
I see that davidmhoffer is ‘over the target’ so is ‘taking flack’.
At April 14, 2014 at 2:39 pm here he wrote
His comment addresses the true causes of governments’ attitudes to the AGW scare and, therefore, it induced some nasty responses: Khwarizmi hurled obscene racist abuse, and Roger Sowell ‘snowed’ the thread with comments proclaiming his idiocy and ignorance.
Such responses are common when a comment addresses the fundamentals of the AGW-scare on WUWT.
Firstly, the AGW-scare has always been supported by proponents of nuclear power and natural gas. These supports are because the scare promotes the market shares of nuclear and natural gas by calling for closure of cheaper coal-fired power.
Support of nuclear power was a major reason why the political party of Margaret Thatcher was willing to support her starting the AGW-scare, and this is explained here.
The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University was established using money provided by oil companies (who produce natural gas) and the ‘climategate’ emails showed that a major concern of CRU continued to be maintaining funding from oil companies.
Attempts to impose AGW ‘mitigation’ policies were finally defeated at the Copenhagen CoP in December 2009, and AGW had ceased a decade earlier (it has not resumed since). The realities of reasons for the scare have become more apparent since then, and – as Josh observes – the recent WG111 Report overtly promotes those realities.
Hence, the very fine comment of davidmhoffer is worthy of serious debate, and I have some disagreement with his analysis of the present situation.
He says
I agree that the Russian Bear has again awoken, but I think the Bear has been prodded by the West and has responded by resuming the Great Game which all major powers played in the nineteenth century: I think it is a misunderstanding to see the Russian response as a resumption of the twentieth century Cold War.
Russia has reacted to the EU and NATO each attempting to gain total influence over the Ukraine which borders Russia. Russia sees this as a direct military threat which could become a future military danger and – predictably – has acted to negate the threat.
How would the USA react to similar military threat which poses a potential military danger?
Indeed, how did the USA respond when the Warsaw Pact provided a similar threat by attempting to install nuclear weapons in Cuba?
Natural gas is a strategic resource, and controlling strategic resources is an essential part of the Great Game.
Richard
PS, davidmhoffer, I add a warning.
Making comments which are too accurate can lead to you getting a ‘time out’ from WUWT because it induces the kinds of responses you have obtained.
LOL. LOL. LOL.
***CAGW gatekeeper, Graham Readfearn, avoids any mention whatsoever of NUCLEAR or FRACKING, yet quotes IPCC’s Ottmar Edenhofer, the very guy who personally endorsed nuclear in the few MSM reports that exist! as for the rest of his piece, it’s even sillier than all the previous stuff he’s been paid to write?
14 April: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: Is it un-Australian to be driving on with fossil fuel expansion plans?
As the IPCC warns greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut quickly, an Australian court decides that stopping a mega coal mine won’t cut emissions
About five years back, I was crawling in Brisbane traffic behind one of the city’s ubiquitous white utility vehicles on my way to an anonymous city centre office to sit my Australian citizenship test.
Stuck to the back of this ute was a large anti-immigration sticker, peeling on one corner, declaring “Fuck off, we’re full,” to all literate observers.
This, from a citizen of a nation first forcibly grabbed and then reshaped by immigrants, struck me as a statement that was as lacking in compassion for and consideration as it was loaded with sheer existential dumbness…
***Now before you double-check, you haven’t stumbled onto an Aussie culture blog in a place where you might have been expecting me rambling on about the latest United Nations climate change report….
Ottmar Edenhofer, a co-chair of the IPCC group that produced the report, said: “There is a clear message from science: To avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we need to move away from business as usual.”…
We are driving a ute at reckless speed towards a risk-laden future with a rear bumper sticker telling the climate literate world what we think of them.
Is that un-Australian?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/apr/14/ipcc-report-climate-change-queensland-alpha-coal-mine-liability
READFEARN OBVIOUSLY HID THE IPCC REPORT’S ENDORSEMENT OF NUCLEAR & FRACKING TO MITIGATE CAGW FROM HIS READERS, and the following comments show why:
SilverHead: Just one question for you then, Mr Readfern : if it was a no-emissions nuclear energy generation plant being proposed for the same site, would you still be agin it?
20reeds: Fantasy. There is no such entity as a no-emissions nuclear plant – the fuel has to be mined, processed and transported i.e. massive emissions, else the plant sits as a useless piece of industrial stupidity, in which case it might then be regarded as a no-emissions plant. Dr Helen Caldicot will fill you in on the remaining killer externalities of this dangerous technology.
Do I take it that you are a supporter of nuclear and therefore would be an advocate for nuclear waste disposal in third world nations or would you accept it in say a storage facility in your neighbourhood? Be honest now and tell us the truth!!
Brakingishard: ‘Straya, the mined and fracked country.
We ‘used’ to have a voice.
We’re so fracked.
I’d really like to defend Roger Sowell’s anti-nuclear stance…
But, as his arguments are cr@p & not factually based, I can’t.
The only upside is that while he’s ‘entertaining’ us on here, he’s not annoying anyone else & it makes him feel important.
As I write this the local wind farm is stopped, no wind (who’d have thought that could ever happen), but the local 40yr old nuclear plant is still reliably producing low cost energy.
Everyone seems to have missed the point ,that if we cannot use oil or coal, or nuclear or gas energy we could just stick with electricity!
Roger Sowell,
You, being a lawyer, surprised me by smearing France with innuendo. In part 11, you assert that French subsidized prices were Investigated for anti-trust by the EU. (see link) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-595_en.htm?locale=en
That paper is headed; State aid: Commission gives conditional approval to aid component in regulated electricity tariffs in France. Brussels, 12 June 2012.
“On completion of an in-depth investigation opened in June 2007 (see IP/07/815), the Commission concluded that the aid contained in these tariffs was compatible with the internal market on certain conditions, the main ones being:
(i) the introduction of regulated access for competitors to nuclear power from EDF’s existing nuclear power stations (the “ARENH” scheme) up to a ceiling of 100 terawatt hours,
(ii) maintenance of the ARENH price at its current level of EUR 42 per MWh pending Commission approval of a methodology to be proposed by France for setting the price, and
(iii) a gradual shift to cost-based pricing every year after summer 2012 until the “green” and “yellow” standard prices are completely eliminated at the end of 2015.”
So yes, the French were investigated, but you ignored the EU conclusions. You implied otherwise & that’s being economical with the whole truth.
If that is the level of partisanship, also to be found in parts 1 to 10, then I guess you did you waste your time. Whilst you are entitles to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. I guess some lawyers, like politicians, cannot stop lying to themselves… It’s a lack of moral integrity.
Mods:
I regret that Roger Sowell has managed to deflect this thread from the important subject illustrated by the Josh cartoon and discussed by davidmhoffer.
Two hours have passed since I made a post in attempt return the thread to its subject by replying to the analysis of davidmhoffer. I made the post at April 15, 2014 at 12:26 am and (assuming it appears) it will probably be here.
Please retrieve my post which will soon be so far up-thread that it will be overlooked if it does appear.
Richard
The IPCC says we need more Nuclear Power, but that will not translate into the actual actions to build them. I just had dinner last night with an engineering buddy of mine who’s field of expertise is hardening Nuclear Power plants against terrorists activities (a sad commentary on the times we live in), and he said he is personally aware of more than 30 plants in the United States that are ready to go from an engineering and funding perspective, lacking only approval by the NRC. He says, “Don’t hold your breath.” The Greens still have friends in lower governmental places.
another CAGW gatekeeper, Tom Arup, avoids any mention of IPCC’s fracking/nuclear endorsements, but manages a bizarre “imaginary” mention of nuclear:
13 April: SMH: Tom Arup: IPCC report a reminder it is not too late if we act now
Imagine for a moment that at next year’s UN climate negotiations in Paris a new global treaty to cut emissions is signed against the odds. It is modest, but a start…
Concerns about nuclear power ease, new plants are built…
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/ipcc-report-a-reminder-it-is-not-too-late-if-we-act-now-20140413-36lfe.html
the green NGOs & their MSM CAGW gatekeepers have voiced no objections to the IPCC’s endorsements of nuclear/fracking; in fact, they are doing their best to make sure the public don’t even know of the endorsements, so how anyone on this thread can be blind to this fact, or the following one:
Feb 2012: Politifact: Obama says he supported the first new nuclear power plant in three decades
Countering Republican attacks on gas prices, President Barack Obama gave a hard-hitting speech on energy policy in Miami on Feb. 23, 2012…
One of his speech’s shortest lines caught our attention: “We supported the first new nuclear power plant in three decades.”…
Back in February 2010, when the project received conditional approval, Obama himself praised the deal, connecting it to the need for climate change legislation.
“To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we need to increase our supply of nuclear power, and today’s announcement helps to move us down that path,” he said…
The experts we spoke with, both those who support nuclear power and those who oppose it, said that Obama’s statement was largely accurate, given that the last time a nuclear reactor received federal approval was 1978. And, his administration has so far supported the recent approval of new reactors in Georgia with $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/mar/02/barack-obama/obama-says-he-supported-first-nuclear-power-plant-/
you may be pro-nuclear, but what if it is to be funded in the name of CAGW, with taxpayers’ money, high carbon prices, etc?
MattS says: @ur momisugly April 14, 2014 at 2:39 pm
I am in southern Wisconsin. It is currently half past April and I have 34 degrees F and it’s snowing. Forecast for tonight is a low of 20 degrees F.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Matt I am in Sunny mid North Carolina and they have FREEZE WARNINGS up!
In April ten years ago we had 6 day over 91 °F. Max for the entire month was 4 days @ur momisugly 93 °F and the min for the month was 62 °F For the month of April in 2005 we had a max of 95 °F and a min of 73 °F so below freezing is NOT usual for this area in mid April especially near a solar cycle max.
I hope it does not kill off the strawberry crop. Nothing like fresh picked strawberries.
(Yesterday it snowed in parts of Oklahoma.)
@Gail Combs – I had to move the strawberry plants back into the greenhouse yesterday. Fortunately, they are in moveable containers. I am just a hobbyist, not a real farmer. 😉
This was one of my Open University text books. I remember a summer school discussion on it in the early 80’s where the greens shouted down any dissenting voices. One of them even said they refused to read any propaganda.
Hoyle’s arguments seemed irrefutable when I read it.
I wonder where we would be now, 30 years on, if his ideas had got traction?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Energy-Extinction-Case-Nuclear/dp/0435544314
nuclear has been part of the IPCC CAGW mix for years – but the NGOs & MSM have done a great job of keeping it from the average punter (including many CAGW sceptics – as evidenced by those commenting on this thread, who still insist on viewing CAGW from a political partisan perspective) :
April 2007: The President’s News Conference With Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan at Camp David, Maryland
Geo W. Bush: We talked about the environment and energy. I appreciated very much Shinzo’s vision of using technologies to help our energy security, our economic security, and at the same time, be responsible stewards of the environment. There’s a lot of work that Japan and the United States can do together, particularly in fields like emission-free nuclear energy, nuclear power. I mean, the truth of the matter is, if people really want to solve the issue of greenhouse gases, civilian nuclear power, powering our energy grids by nuclear power is the best alternative available. We can work on new technologies through our joint nuclear energy action plan and through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to bring technologies on the market as quickly as possible to assure people that we can deal with the waste, for example, in a responsible way.
We—over lunch I’m going to also remind Shinzo about my deep desire to have our folks driving automobiles powered by ethanol and biodiesels. And I’m going to share with him our strategy about reducing gasoline consumption in the United States by 20 percent over the the next 10 years as a result of ethanol, as well as our cellulosic ethanol technologies that are, hopefully, coming to market quickly…
Shinzo Abe: Let me also point out, as President mentioned earlier, that an important progress has been made on the climate change issue. And I finalized with the President a joint statement on the subject matter. It is gratifying that we agreed—Japan and the United States agreed at the leaders’ level to study jointly an intensified dialog on ways and means to make progress towards the ultimate objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, to resolve the environmental issues, and to resolve the greenhouse gas issue. I believe this represents an important progress.
It is essential that the world community act on the climate change issue in concert, and Japan and the United States agreed to work together on this front. Thank you. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25225
2007: World Nuclear News: IPCC sees role for nuclear energy
Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published its Summary for Policy Makers report on mitigation of climate change. The report acknowledged the role of nuclear energy as an option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but said that safety, weapons proliferation and waste remain as constraints.
Current nuclear power is included as a ‘key mitigation technology’ in the field of energy supply while advanced nuclear power is considered key for the 2030 timeframe, alongside advanced renewables like tidal and wave energy, concentrating solar and photovoltaics…
The text states: “Given costs relative to other supply options, nuclear power, which accounted for 16% of the electricity supply in 2005, can have an 18% share of the total electricity supply in 2030 at carbon prices up to 50 US$/tCO2-eq (tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents), but safety, weapons proliferation and waste remain as constraints.”…
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=13358
CAGW sceptics should be revelling in this opportunity to inform the CAGW-believers of the IPCC’s endorsements of the very things they hate, because the MSM & NGOs are most certainly intent on continuing to keep it a secret.
Interesting Roger apparently you don’t have an actual counter to my argument. Instead you waved your hands and provided an answer to one I didn’t make. So you concede your view on nuclear power is incorrect I take it.
Travis Casey says: @ur momisugly April 14, 2014 at 3:00 pm
Isn’t this what Prof. Muller is on record as saying? …
Muller has a Shell Oil exec as one of his consultants.
From Muller & Assoc.:
http://www.mullerandassociates.com/index.php
If you then go to the listing of the TEAM at Muller Assoc. you find. Arthur Rosenfeld, Former California Energy Commissioner among others.
Further down you find Marlan Downey
Click on Marlan Downey, Oil and Gas Executive
And guess what ? We find SHELL OIL!
Shell Oil and BP have been associated with the IPCC (and the WWF) from the start. Ged Davis, the Shell Oil VP who wrote the Sustainability Scenarios for the IPCC shows this in the February, 1998 Climategate e-mail which asks for comments on the attachment: “Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios” by Ged Davis.
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0889554019.txt
Another Shell Oil exec Doug McKay was at the IPCC scenario meetings. McKay was also Senior Financial Analyst with the World Bank. Robert Watson worked for the World Bank while Chair of the IPCC.
Then you have Shell Oil, BP and a Rockefeller Foundation funding the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia.
David Hone is not only SHELL OIL’S Senior Climate Change Adviser he is also Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association. He and his mentor James Smith. SHELL OIL’S previous UK Chairman took SHELL very deeply into Carbon Trading.
Who owns Shell?
The Dutch royal family (The House of Orange) is still reportedly the biggest shareholder in Royal Dutch Shell, although the size of its stake has long been a source of debate. Another major stockholder is the Rothschilds. The Rothschild Investment Trust was formed in 1988 and united the Rockefellers and Rothschilds as did the merger of their two banks. The Queen of England is also supposed to be a major stockholder.
SHELL and WWF:
Prince Bernhard of the Dutch Royal Family is the Founding President of the World Wildlife Fund. (WWF) HRH The Duke of Edinburgh served as International President of WWF for 16 years until his retirement at the end of 1996. John H. Loudon, Better known as “the Grand Old Man of Shell”, headed Royal Dutch Shell from 1951 to 1965. He was President of WWF from 1976 to 1981.
Ruud Lubbers served three terms as Prime Minister of the Netherlands between 1982 and 1994, thus becoming the longest serving Dutch Prime Minister…. He continued in Parliament as Senior Deputy Leader, and later Parliamentary Leader of the Christian Democratic Alliance. He became President of WWF International on 1 January 2000
If you follow the money it all leads back to the World Bank and oil companies.