Guest essay by Eric Worrall
More evidence that global climate cycles are aligned with US presidential election cycles.
‘Climate change moving faster than we are,’ says UN Secretary General
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondentUN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has said that if the world doesn’t change course by 2020, we run the risk of runaway climate change.
Mr Guterres said he was alarmed by the paralysis of world leaders on what he called the “defining issue” of our time.
He wants heads of government to come to New York for a special climate conference next September.
The call comes amid growing concerns over the slow pace of UN negotiations.
Mr Guterres painted a grim picture of the impacts of climate change that he says have been felt all over the world this year, with heatwaves, wildfires, storms and floods leaving a trail of destruction.
…
The world has the tools, and the ability. Renewables are cost-competitive with coal and oil, he said. By 2030, wind and solar could power more than a third of Europe.
But the lack of decisive political leadership was hampering everything, he said.
…
Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45471410
My question – given the UN Secretary General’s assertion that renewables are cost competitive with coal and oil, why does he feel that so much “decisive political leadership” is required? Normally when something is price competitive the free market takes care of the transition, industrialists embrace the new technology of their own free will.
Update (EW): Full speech available here (h/t Nick)
Time for Trump to kick this clown show out of NYC and stop funding them completely.
All the way back in the 1970’s there were billboards reading: Get US out of the UN. I recall seeing one in rural Oregon. We hippies laughed at those hick rednecks posting their HATE … only, it turns out those “hicks” were right. The UN is simply a front for worldwide Socialism. Worldwide climate fascism.
Those signs were put up by the John Birch Society. My dad used to say “Those crazy Birchers see a commie behind every tree.” This was in E. Washington and N. Idaho.
Then there were those little blue and white signs “Eat at Tiny’s, Cashmere, WA” nailed to trees and fence posts along roads all across the country.
Some of my father’s cousins were Birchers, and gave me their literature. Which went over interestingly with my mother’s relatives, who were quite lefty.
There were similar signs on the east coast also. I recall seeing them on I-95 driving to Florida.
I remember “See Rock City” painted on barns when I was growing up. These days, if you drive I-95 in the Carolinas you can’t miss Pedro and South of the Border. Funny signs if you like really horrible puns. They help pass the time on a fairly boring drive. I hope Florence doesn’t take them out!
So do I… and Pedro goes back to the 60’s… Pedro says, Chili today, hot tamale… 😎
“I remember “See Rock City” painted on barns when …… ”
…and all those Stuckey’s signs
Burma Shave!
I actually visited Rock City once.
I tried to visit Eagle Rock but couldn’t find it.
South of the Border was where all the high school kids in North Carolina went to get married. One story floated around both North and South Carolina was about the famous marrying judge that performed the weddings.
Before the wedding one young man went up to the judge and asked how much it was going to cost him? The judge replied that he should not worry about that now, he could settle up after the wedding. Immediately after the wedding the young man asked again. With the new bride present the judge looked at them both and replied: “How much is she worth son?”
I think we need to get Mueller investigating the UN for attempting to interfere in US elections.
It sounds like the UN Chief is trying to insinuate his agenda into our presidential elections. Trump will probably have a few choice words on this subject.
At a Michael Moore speech in Canada last week. One of the guest speakers urged everyone in the audience to donate to the Democrats. (Even Moore was smart enough to quickly grab the mike away and remind everyone in the audience that it’s illegal for those residing outside the US to contribute to political campaigns.. (Makes you wonder why Obama turned off the feature that checks for foreign addresses on his official campaign donation site.))
David Hogg, the anti 2nd Amendment kid from the Parkland Florida school shooting. He was nowhere near the shooting at the time. He is overreaching and will disappear soon.
” One of the guest speakers “
that would be David Hogg, once again showing the world his ignorance.
Yes, there will be endless Congressional investigations into forign tampering with elections and Canadian collusion
Since China has a 2025 plan to dominate world trade, UN needs to complain to them for money.
As Bob Hope once said. Americans always thought the UN building was like a great finger sticking up in the sky. Now we know which finger it is.
WhatFinger.com. News site accumulator. If it’s prog lefty that’s noted.
…and it’s not just being inserted up in the sky.
There are just waiting for the “right” PotUS, then the climate will calm and seas will stop rising. Or summat like that…another “messiah”!
With Greek columns on each side of the anointed one …
Psychotic political ignorance.
Liberals are all about “empowering” people….ever notice they are also the ones that claim every mental health issue know to man
Former secretary-general of the Portugese Socialist party. Surprise!
And President of the Socialist International from 1999-2005; then became UN High Commissioner for Refugees 2005-2015 when ” he was an outspoken advocate for a more coordinated and humane approach by European countries to the Mediterranean refugee crisis” (wiki).
Both issues advocate large transfers of funding from the West. Perhaps someone can connect the dots.
“given the UN Secretary General’s assertion that renewables are cost competitive with coal and oil, why does he feel that so much “decisive political leadership” is required”
Those things are only consecutive in the BBC’s summary report. The text of the speech is here. He cites many cases of adoption of renewables. He does not say adoption is held back by lack pf political leadership.
All on track then.
“consecutive.” Did you mean Competitive?
Would you please tell us why adoption is held back?
One straight-forward answer, any time now.
Yes there have been many adoptions of renewables. Mostly, solar-powered signs in remote locations where running a power line would not be economic.
There are lots and lots of installations of wind turbines and solar cells/solar mirror steam stations which always, always end up costing the rate-payers a higher electric bill.
Somehow you never seem to mention this. Contradict me….
Nick,
From the text of the speech YOU linked to:
So, not only would a shift to renewable energy save money, it would also
If they’re not competitive, can you explain how the h*ll they save us money?
The text of the speech contains so many blatant misrepresentations that debunking them all would make for a very long article. But as for the assertion that renewable energy is competitive, that’s what the man said. If it were true, the adoption would be instant, no person or industry uses any resource if another one that serves the same purpose will save them money.
David,
“If they’re not competitive, can you explain how the h*ll they save us money?”
Please explain your question. He said they are competitive.
“If it were true, the adoption would be instant”
Nothing happens instantly. Adoption is happening fast. Here is the plot from the 2016 BP review (see here). About exponential, doubling every five years (solar is much faster):
Last week, my wife and I went to visit some friends in Tehachapi, California. There are several very, very large wind-turbine farms at the east entrance to Tehachapi Pass, just northwest of Mojave, California. It was interesting to note that almost none of the first-generation wind turbines* were turning. More than half of the second-generation wind turbines* were turning, and most of the most modern ones were*.
I don’t know how old those old ones were, but I’d be surprised if they were more than 20 years old. Failure on that scale isn’t what I expect in the power-generation industry. Even many of the second-generation ones were dead.
* The “first-generation” wind turbines were supported on girder/derrick-like structures, and were quite small in diameter. Those that were turning were turning fairly rapidly. The “second-generation” wind turbines were mounted on masts and were larger in diameter. They were turning more slowly. The “third-generation” ones were also mounted on masts, and were of very large diameter. They were turning slowly.
If they were truly cost competitive utilities would be all over themselves to build them, without government coercion. Maybe someday, in 2035 even this might be the case, but it is definitely not today.
Hell, even if the total operating costs get down to a few cents per kWh, they won’t be price competitive until someone comes up with a cheap and reliable method of electricity storage.
That’s great news Nick – sounds like “no government action required”.
“New renewables (wind, solar, biomass etc) continue their meteoric rise from a feeble base and still only represent 2.8% of the global energy mix (that excludes biomass used throughout developing countries) …”:
http://euanmearns.com/bp-2016-global-energy-production-at-a-glance/
I don’t know exactly what that graph represents, but if it shows renewables being very successful, why on earth would Mr Guterres be complaining about the lack of renewable investment and calling for more political support?
Yes, its all very confusing. Apparently renewables are incredibly successful and cost competitive but decisive political leadership is still required to convince people to use them.
South Australia is the canary in the unreliable energy coal mine.
Someone tell Stokes that unreliable energy doesn’t work. It is only made possible by massive subsidies paid for by skyrocketing residential and business bills.
Adoption does not equal competitiveness.
” Mr Guterres be complaining about the lack of renewable investment and calling for more political support?”
He says there is a lot of investment:
“The rise of renewable energy has been tremendous.
Today, it is competitive [with] – or even cheaper – than coal and oil, especially if one factors in the cost of pollution.
Last year, China invested 126 billion dollars in renewable energy, an increase of 30 per cent o
Sweden is set to hit its 2030 target for renewable energy this year – 12 years early.
By 2030, wind and solar energy could power more than a third of Europe.”
But he’d like to see more. Well, of course he would.
If things are all going so well, then why the warning about the need to change course Nick?
If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us.
He’s saying that renewables are competitive, growing rapidly, but emissions need to be reduced faster.
So the required level of investment is lacking – there is a lack of investment.
Why is it that socialists actually believe that investing involves government seizing other people’s money, so that it can be spent on things the socialist approves of. (Usually things that financially benefit said socialist.)
Hi Nick,
If this is the case, should not the conference be held in Beijing? After all you don’t lecture Angels on the subject of sin…, You go speak with the devil
michael 🙂
Reduce they are still going up we are globally at 6% this year and rising because the world really is listening 🙂
“Today, it is competitive [with] – or even cheaper – than coal and oil, especially if one factors in the cost of pollution.”
Ah, ‘externalities’. The made-up cost that doesn’t really exist, just so the renewables gang can claim windmills and sun-catchers are cost competitive.
What a scam.
“…especially if one factors in the cost of pollution.” He means if, and only if you use the EPA’s manufactured death rate attributed to the 2.5 particulate pollution, deaths that are surmised by torturous manipulation of statistics. Added to the deaths are the costs of every conceivable sickness including childhood asthma, which Obama blamed on coal. Still no scientific proof and the whole “Clean Power” program has been pretty effectively debunked. Whenever someone talks about the “cost effectiveness” of green power they are quoting conclusions from some study or paper or article that has blindly accepted the EPA’s “cost of carbon” assertion. They aren’t lying (potentially) they have been lied to.
Linear No Threshold (LNT) assumptions, not observed data, are at the base of most of these estimates.
….and don’t forget the silly discount rate used in the calculations of future “harm”
“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.” – attributed to Paul Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Propaganda Minister in Nazi Germany.
Actually, Goebbels learned propaganda from the inventor of 20th century western propaganda, Edward Bernays, an Austrian born American, who was, not surprisingly, a “Freudian”, being a nephew of Sigmund Freud himself. Remember Freud and Marx were in the same Kaffee Klatsch back in Vienna. Bernays invented propaganda as we know it and had an avid pupil in Woodrow Wilson, one of the earliest “progressives”. One of their earliest uses of propaganda was convincing Americans to get into the “Great War”. Progressivism and Propaganda have been honed to a fine edge in these current times. The subjects and stated goals change, but not the endgame.
Pollution from coal and oil have been almost completely eliminated.
CO2 production should be subsidized, not taxed since it is a net benefit to the environment.
So Nick, why not stick a pinwheel up at your Aussie digs? You can watch it spin around occasionally, and eat the sparkly candy that comes out the bottom.
And Nick, how much of the Chinese money is being spent on dams and hydro? That’s the real bait and switch, isn’t it? Take the amount spent on hydro and include it into the renewables (which it is) but make sure the pretty pictures only show wind and solar.
It happens all over and is a deliberate lie in an attempt to mislead.
Nick,
The European wind association has been lobbying for extended and new subsidies for wind farms where the turbines are reaching the end of their life. They need that because without it they cannot compete on price with conventional power generation.
If, as you choose to believe, they are able to produce electricity as cheaply as fossil fuels why do they need any further subsidy for an existing PLANT? If they were price competitive then investors would invest without wind energy needing subsidy.
Germany is switching back to coal and opening new coal mines because the extreme cost of renewable energy is threatening manufacturing. In Australia and throughout northern Europe huge numbers of people are being forced to make a choice between heating and eating – for the sole reason that renewables are so expensive compared to conventional that the subsidy (tax) is driving energy out of the financial reach of the poor.
Nick, for once be honest and admit that the b.s. about renewables being cost-competive with conventional power generation is simply propaganda with not the slightest basis in fact.
They figured out you can’t build a Panzer with windmills.
The Panzerkampfwagen Tiger is especially difficult.
Adoption is happening so fast Guterres says there is a desperate need to change direction by 2020.
I’ve always been fascinated by how the advocates of wind and solar can in one breath, declare that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel, then in the next breath declare that without subsidies they can’t survive.
Cognitive dissonance isn’t a problem for those who have never engaged their minds.
Nick-san:
A silly chart showing how Loony Leftist governments are wasting $trillions on expensive, diffuse, intermittent, unreliable, unattractive, bird-decapitating/frying, inefficient and economy-killing wind/solar/food-for-fuel “alternative” energies is not evidence of their efficacy, but rather irrefutable evidence that Leftists are clueless about….well…pretty much everything…
Clueless about “pretty much everything” is correct! They are living on a different planet.
Ì wish ……..
That’s a disingenuous graph – I would expect better from you Nick. The growth might be “exponential”, but growth from a miniscule starting amount can still be tiny.
If you compare it to the global energy mix that includes fossil fuels, you’ll see that unreliables are an economic basket-case.
That’s a disingenuous graph – I would expect better from you Nick.
I don’t, disingenuous is what Nick is paid for.
Unicorn farts aren’t even rising as fast as energy demand, much less replacing anything…
Thanks for then graph.It’s exactly what I wanted to see as soon as Nick posted his.
Not only is Nick’s graph meaningless when compared to total energy demand and usage, as David Middleton has shown, but the vertical units are installed capacity, IOW nameplate. And we all know that wind and solar don’t actually produce anything near their nameplate capacity. So what’s meaningless divided by 4?
Which goes to the other fact that world emissions grew by 6% this year so our saviour renewables aren’t even keeping up with growth.
And if we were to remove the obscene subsidies available in the U.S., what would the graph then show???? From what I read, only the U. S. continues to think wind energy is free.
Well… Wind *energy* is free. It’s the wind turbines and other hardware that costs money… 😉
Actually, I’m doubt we yet know enough about the climate to predict the effects on local climate of withdrawing any noticeable amount of energy from the wind. After all, they are trying to tell us that increasing the amount of CO2 from 0.04% to 0.05-0.06% is going to have dire consequences for the entire Earth.
Weren’t we told by Bill McKibben that we would face dire consequences if CO2 exceeded .035% of the atmosphere? All we have seen thus far has been beneficial.
Indeed. Amazing their supposed “concern” about “climate change” extends to a change of CO2 level that is well within natural variation, yet they want to extract poor quality and unpredictable energy from wind without the slightest consideration of how THAT might negatively affect the “climate.”
Actually it’s not. Because you have to have REAL power plants running inefficiently on standby backing the wind turbines up when the wind isn’t blowing hard enough,or is blowing too hard. Plus the unpredictable “free” wind power being haphazardly added to the grid results in spikes and drops that cause brownouts and blackouts if not well controlled and managed. All this duplication of infrastructure and additional grid management work (and potential mishaps) are NOT free.
To borrow an old phrase, twice nothing is still nothing.
Now Nick, let’s see that same chart as a fraction of all power produced?
PS: What would those numbers look like if you remove the subsidies and mandates?
If solar is so wonderfully competitive, it’s taking it a long time for it scale up to a significant commercial level against fossil fuels and nuclear power. The U.S. Energy Information Agency, as of last year, says that solar provided only 1.3% of our electricity needs here in the U.S.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3.
Not very impressive when one considers that the solar panel was invented 64 years ago in 1954:
http://energyinformative.org/the-history-of-solar-energy-timeline/.
The low energy density of solar and its intermittent nature might explain why this is the case, if nothing else does. From what I’ve read, solar requires a LOT more land area than traditional power plants because of its poor density.
And then there is solar’s “dirty little secret” which is the toxic waste that solar panels leave behind:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy/.
The toxic waste that solar (and wind) leave behind could very well lead one to conclude that there is really no such thing as “clean” energy. All of the energy sources we use now leave toxic waste and or pollution behind of some sort.
With current technologies, “clean” energy is a myth.
An entertaining link, for instance:
“… Sweden is set to hit its 2030 target for renewable energy this year – 12 years early. By 2030, wind and solar energy could power more than a third of Europe …”.
According to Sweden.se, Energy use in Sweden:
“The reason for this low emission rate is that 83 per cent of electricity production in Sweden comes from nuclear and hydroelectric power. Cogeneration from combined heat and power (CHP) plants accounts for 10 per cent of the electricity output in Sweden, and these are mainly powered by biofuels. About 7 per cent of the electricity comes from wind power …
… Solar panels are still quite rare in Sweden. Only 0.09 per cent of Sweden’s electricity production came from solar power in 2016”.
As an aside I can imagine the outrage from the Greens in Australia if large scale nuclear, hydro dam construction and cutting down forests for biofuels were proposed.
It seems that when windmills and solar reach about 30 percent of a nation’s capacity, the problems with these unreliable sources really start to show themselves.
Germany is nearing the 30 percent level and is having to rethink their energy strategy. I think South Australia is also about 30 percent unreliables. California will be getting there in the future. Three crash-test dummies for the rest of us to examine. After examination we will realize we don’t want to go where they are going: Higher energy prices and less economic activity.
And when subsidies are removed the inevitable happens.http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/04/weed-covered-solar-park-20-acres-11-million-only-one-and-half-years-old/
Considering about 1/5 of Sweden is above the Arctic Circle, I find it hard to believe that solar will ever be effective. Half the year, 1/5 of the country is in (near) complete darkness and the remainder has weak solar.
So… What’s holding them back?
The Nickpicker at it again.
Geez, and this while the US emitted less CO2 than the rest of the world?
Yes but USA achieved the CO2 cuts using the wrong technology.
Which belies the Climateers’ true agenda.
“while the US emitted less CO2 than the rest of the world?”
Well, with about 5% of the world’s population, one would hope so.
And about 25 percent of the world’s economic activity.
[US] is ” about 5% of the world’s population ” – and a small percentage of that 5% produce over 75% of the world’s grain exports
And the largest reduction in globally compared output of CO2
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bpco2.png
http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-in-2017-us-had-largest-decline-in-co2-emissions-in-the-world-for-9th-time-this-century/
That was a poorly crafted counter-argument Nick. Population has a lower effect on energy consumption than industry has.
UN agencies must change their attitude on global warming and carbon credit policy through which minting money. Recently, Indian media without fail reports on this topic, more particularly the statements of World Bank. Here is my comment on one such report reported by The Hindu daily newspaper. UN agencies must give top priority to minimise the pollution [air, water, soil & food] that menace to human health and destruction of natural resources availability to life forms on the Earth.
Cloudy forecast: on climate change on thehindu.com
Making hue and cry by some international agencies including World Bank is for the proposed green fund of $100 billion per year for five years. Everybody wants a share in this. The fact is that the so-called global warming is 0.15 oC per Century. So, even by 1000 years the impact is negligible. The fact is the observed [adjusted-mutilated data series] between 1880 to 2010, the trend is 0.6 oC/Century. According to IPCC more than half is due to greenhouse effect inwhich global warming is a part. Even if we assume it is 50%, then the global warming is only 0.3 oC/Century. However the satellite data shows half of this only [0.15 oC/Century]. As CO2 increases this reduces drastically non-linearly. So, by 1000 years it is still less than 1.0 oC/Century. The seasonal and annual changes are more than 5 oC. So, global warming component is insignificant.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
“… why does he feel that so much “decisive political leadership” is required?”
Simple. It is NOT cost-competitive. It is NOT cheap or free. And it is a quagmire of junk. Every program I’ve seen that involves a homeowner building a house that is partly powered by wind and/or solar resources is an individual effort, not a commercial project. Every single one of them.
It may seem as though he has bats in his belfry, but he’s simply looking for freebies and a generous handout of cash from the good ol’ USofA.
When this wall-eyed nonsense stops, I’ll be very happy. Meantime, Antony, no dice.
I’ m quite conservative(mainly of my own money). I’d like to thank you all for paying your fair share to make the family electrical bill very low. Thanks to installation subsidies, solar renewable energy credits(SREC), and other subsidies we pay essentially zero in electric bills.
Your generosity is deeply appreciated.
p.s. renewable subsidies are a huge waste of money.
“He wants heads of government to come to New York for a special climate conference next September.”
Seems there is a climate conference every week.
Yawn.
You mean the “conferences”that ban all reporters, cameras, cellphones, and lock the doors? The double super secret climate priesthood practicing their secret handshake?
As US President, Trump should attend and give a speech lauding coal, shale gas, and petroleum as the continued global answer to affordable energy. And give a big middle finger as he walks off the podium to all the tinpot dictators.
I think California Governor Jerry Brown is having some kind of climate conference in San Francisco tomorrow. Climate conferences are an industry.
Guterres looks like your favourite uncle, doesn’t he? Probably good with the kids at Christmas?
So here’s the deal. He was Secretary General of the Socialist Party in Portugal and while Prime Minister of that country he became President of the Socialist International. He was succeeded as PM by Jose Manuel Barroso who went on to become President of the European Commission – (not now, of course…he’s moved on to become non-exec chairman at Goldman Sachs, natch).
Guterres is a One World Government proponent and a dyed-in-the-wool arch redistributor of wealth. Guess whose wealth he is keen to redistribute?
The CAGW scare is simply convenient for his political purpose. If it became a meme that bloodsucking pink fairies were the result of national self determination and growth by capitalism, he would be on his soapbox solemnly warning that the earth was rapidly approaching the PFTP (Pink Fairy Tipping Point).
Trump, like Thatcher and Regan before him, knows that these people are very good at running out of other people’s money. He’s at the UN because voters are a huge inconvenience to him and his cronies.
People like Guterres are existential threats to national sovereignty and democracy. He is an absolute menace.
The next election for US President is Nov 2020. Who ever wins gets sworn in January 20, 2021.
Sorry Mr UN-Marxist wannabe, too late for you.
“Renewables are cost-competitive with coal and oil, he said.”
If they were, he would not have to say anything, it would be happening by itself. Shaky understanding of Econ 101, Supply and Demand.
Who cares what he said?
Example: shale gas is displacing much coal and oil in energy production, producing a pronounced decrease in US CO2 emissions.
In many places natural gas is cheaper than oil. It’s often a waste product and simply flared off.
Why should we care what he says? He’s not a ClimateScientist[tm]
And if he was a “climate scientist™”, I would care EVEN LESS about what he said.
Run away warming after 2020, now that sounds exciting. Is that one degree C a month, a year, a decade, a century. Did the chief of the gravey train give any indication.
Whoo hoo the earth is going out of control. I can’t wait.
Regards
The UN Chief seems to be saying 2020 will be a “tipping point” for the CAGW. He’s wrong. The tipping point has already happened, on Nov. 8, 2016. A little sanity finally entered the CAGW debate on that day.
one could even say a stable
geniussanity 😉Hummm, take out wood and dung as part of the renewable energy calculation and the renewable number pretty much is invisible in the global energy production totals. Stop the lies on renewable energy needs to be a hashtag! It is quite too common to blend the miniscule solar and wind input (Global energy demand wise) into that renewable number, then overstate/insinuate wind and solar are actually viable replacements. They aren’t. BTW, does anyone think massive deployments of wind and solar fields don’t have any impact on anything?.
All the shrill “sky is falling” – chicken little stuff. It is all a desperate appeal to make us believe flagrant untruths. Once we are sucked in to swallow the Kool-aid of the (UN) lies, we will be their zombies-emotionally blackmailed in to performing the most insane of acts, like destroying the energy based civilization that supports 1,000 times more humans than in Neolithic times just 10,000 years ago. Like the Pagans of old, we will become their slaves and find ourselves being participants in the most absurd behaviour. You know, like sacrificing virgins.
Reminds me of the scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom where Indiana is forced to swallow some liquid that turns those that swallow it in to zombies. Luckily, he was able to not swallow the zombifying Kool-aid, unlike most of our “leaders” who willing swallow the Kool- aid.
As the absurd narrative of “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” (you can just sense the warmists hyperventilating and flapping their little wings of indignation) unravels and people wake up that the whole lot was rubbish without any hard evidence, the rhetoric and shrill calls of imminent catastrophe will only become louder and ever more absurd. Always reminds me of some child chucking a temper tantrum, soiling their diapers in the process.
The Emperor is indeed wearing no clothes. Our BS meters must surely be ready to explode.
Desperate rhetoric and desperate lies to support a baseless assertion.
Or work put how to use government regulations to suppress it.
I came up on this when researching companies who competed potentially with LCD screens.
The questions asked was ‘what would be the impact of a cheaper and better technology than LCD – for example OLED?’
The answer was a total loss of investment made in vast and massively expensive LCD factories in the Far East. Big money would be trashed.
Instead the big money would buy up the patents and sit on them until they had got their money back on LCDs.
Where is it running away to?
Wrong way on a 1-way track? /
At less than 1 degree per century, that’s one of the slowest “runs” I’ve ever seen.
Yes, yes, yes & all that, but Free Markets won’t produce a Globul Guvment paid for by Western taxpayers, coz the Indian & Chinese taxpayers certainly won’t put thier hands in their pockets!
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has said that if the world doesn’t change course by 2020.
Just like 1990.
Yet another point of no return. I’ve tried to make a list of all of them, but I’m running out of room in my notebook.
You must have missed at least half of them. I’m sure they would fill more than two large notebooks by now.
When will we pass the point of no return for points of no return?
“But the lack of decisive political leadership was hampering everything, he said.”
You are not taxing enough. Tax more. Please send the remittance to us. Our representatives are running low on funds.
He’s a complete muppet..
*Where* did he get the ‘runaway climate’ notion from – if not from advisers of some sort (climate scientists?) He’s a busy guy and cannot do everything. OK.
But surely surely *surely* he could at least ask them for why they say what they do, basically, what evidence or precedent is there?
If they tell him it is unprecedented, which they will, he’ll then be told that ‘the computer said so’
He will then also be pointed towards ‘The Media’ – a tsunami of information overload, sensationalism and fakery – fakery that he himself will have commented on.
And there-in is the problem. He has passed the buck. Twice, just to be sure of getting away scot-free.
1. To the computer, supposedly now= A Device for predicting the future. Take the Gold Medal for gullibility
2. To the media. Very lovely. Have another medal, this time in the Triathlon. (Naivete, Cherry-picking & Confirmation Bias)
Mister. You are The Boss. You tell us as much. Your minions tell us as much. We pay you a shed load of $$$ to be The Boss.
As The Boss, The Buck is supposed to stop with YOU.
With your age, education and experience, YOU are supposed to filter the junk that lands in your lap, be sceptical and wise and take robust decisions based on that. You are patently not doing that and are incapable.
Please close the door behind you on your way out.
thank you, have a nice day.
(Could have suggested he switch off the lights but I don’t think they were ever switched on)
You misunderstand his purpose and motivations. He isn’t “The Boss” in order to do any of what you suggest. The goal is one-world, socialistic control by any means necessary. facts be damned.
I tweeted it
https://twitter.com/Thongch34759935/status/1039423938336456704
It is just s shake down , the Un is once again out for cash . Obama spolied them and they hopping that post Trump those ‘good old days ‘ will retrun.
“If the world doesn’t change course by 2020, we run the risk of runaway climate change”
Just another arbitrary “We’re all doomed” date. How many previous threats have come and gone without the world coming to an end?
Prince Charles: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/4952918/Prince-Charles-we-have-100-months-to-save-the-world.html
Think that’s the end of 2017.
“Renewables are cost-competitive with coal and oil, he said.” (When heavily subsidized.)
The trouble is that the market value of the energy produced is negative. Look at Germany and Ontario paying to get rid of it.
Even if you were paid to take this equipment, it is not worth the land used and the cost of connection.
It doesn’t produce energy that fulfills demand.
Leftists worldwide have gone completely insane with their Trump Derangement Syndrome.
How any rational individual can look at the empirical evidence vs. CAGW’s laughable predictions and conclude, “Global Warming is worse than we thought”, is either an imbecile, a liar or both:
(This chart is dated with the current UAH global temp anomaly at just 0.19C vs CAGW projections of nearly 1.2C)
The CAGW Ho@x is already disconfirmed, and the more Leftists continue to lie about its efficacy, the bigger the blowback will be against the Left once CAGW becomes an even bigger joke than it already is.
Samurai, what is the source for this chart?
Derby-san:
This was a chart Dr. Christy (runs the UAH Satellite database) prepared for his expert testimony during a 2016 US House EPA Hearing.
My guess would be that bottom model run, the one that so closely matches the Balloon and Satellite datasets would be called
Monkey throws darts
Hello Derg, the origin of the chart is Univ of Huntsvelle Alabama. They are heavy into rocket stuff and high energy physics.
What MIT pretends to be.
michael
Is there anyway to get an up to date version of that chart?
There is that one, lonely model that seems to be tracking the observations.
Must be broken. /sarc
That one was produced by Monkeys throwing Darts and was only included for hoots /SARC
From the speech
“We are experiencing record-breaking temperatures around the world.
According to the World Meteorological Organization, the past two decades included 18 of the warmest years since 1850, when records began.
This year is shaping up to be the fourth hottest.”
So not a record breaking temperature then.
The other years of the past two decades were not record-breaking either. None of them were warmer than 1998, except for 2016, which was 0.1C warmer.
And then there is 1934, which was 0.5C warmer than 1998 and 0.4C warmer than 2016.
The “Hottest Year Evah! narrative is pure propaganda.
And the Hansen 1999 chart showing the relationship of 1934 to 1998:
While politicians and elites denounce people who refuse to join the green express as deniers and worse,the truth is emerging.
The real obstacle to decarbonising the economy is democratic consent, or lack thereof.
Obviously the Don’s America first is very distressing for the international Marxist parasitic cancers.
2 yeats see and their NGO’s charities and assorted leeches are starting to feel the defunding pain……..
6 more years of Trump please god.
“It has a long history of watering down and undermining multilateral agreements. But, in leading the charge to block practically every discussion on finance for the Paris guidelines, the US administration is threatening the future of the agreement and multilateralism itself.”
“if the world doesn’t change course by 2020, we run the risk of runaway climate change.”
Is it my fevered imagination or do the goalposts keep shifting?
They put them on rails years ago. Makes it easier.
Even NASA, career home to Dr. James Hansen, said something about the runaway concept in the web article “Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget.” It’s still in the agency’s web archives. The author was Rebecca Lindsey. Dated January 14, 2009. An excerpt follows.
“Temperature doesn’t infinitely rise, however, because atoms and
molecules on Earth are not just absorbing sunlight, they are also
radiating thermal infrared energy (heat). The amount of heat a surface
radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. If
temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to
the 4th power). If the temperature of the Earth rises, the planet rapidly
emits an increasing amount of heat to space. This large increase in heat
loss in response to a relatively smaller increase in temperature—referred
to as radiative cooling—is the primary mechanism that prevents runaway
heating on Earth.”
And if you connect the dots and realize what is happening above us in the variable emitter powered by weather, you can see how fixating on a runaway scenario is just not good sense.
“My question – given the UN Secretary General’s assertion that renewables are cost competitive with coal and oil, why does he feel that so much “decisive political leadership” is required? Normally when something is price competitive the free market takes care of the transition, industrialists embrace the new technology of their own free will.”
To a UN bureaucrat, cost-competitive means that the US still has some money left to be stolen, not that product X has a similar price to product Y.
Why don’t any journalists ask him how much this rise is, what it is expected to become, and how much of this is natural? He won’t know even that basic info. He talks total BS.
Also why he thinks it will run away, when the interglacial perturbations out of ice ages into interglacials are stopped dead when they get to current temperatures after 7Ka of relentless rise, while CO2 is still rising rapidly, but increasing clouds from the warming oceans cool the surface and reflect the sun with 100 times more control than any little human effect. None of this is news. It is really very simple, the planet takes care of itself, a few Watts/M^2 p are not significant either way to our planetary scale climate control system, or the long term perturbations driven by the Milnkovitch cycles.
Heat from sunlight evaporates water.
Clouds are concentrated water vapor with a dash of various particulates.
Clouds reflect and/or diffuse incoming sunlight.
Therefore, more sunlight -> more heat -> more evaporation -> more clouds -> more reflected/diffused sunlight -> less heat
It’s a textbook directly proportionate, self-correcting negative feedback. The only times it temporarily “fails” (by working TOO well) are during sudden spikes of particulate density, like volcanic eruptions or meteoric impacts.
Convincing people around the world to waste money on subsidized boondoggles that make electricity more expensive is just cover to keep the narrative consistent. The real objective is wealth transfers.
DJT is already taking steps to slash US funding for UN. Since he is going to have a second term in which to gut even more UN funding and foreign aid these hucksters had best find a new grift to run.
From your lips to God’s ear.
With the constant talk of renewables and especially wind I just have the same question in my head. As Europe was using wind power in grain mills and for raising water for a couple of hundred years before steam engines were available, why were they dumped so quickly by everyone. The only answer my simple brain comes up with was that they were a very poor means to do a job. I think that is still true today.
Better than doing those jobs by hand, but dropped with no regret when a more efficient alternative became available.
So they want to come here in sept of 2020 and meddle in our election. This is what the Logan act (Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.) was intended to prevent.
We don’t need their interference. Gitmo has a few open bunks if I recall.
michael
Keep in mind that the Logan Act has never really been tested. There are many that believe it is unconstitutional.
The SCOTUS does not hear theoretical cases, so for the constitutionality of a piece of legislation to be ultimately ruled on, someone must first invoke it or attempt to enforce it, and someone else must object to the same, thereby generating a “flesh-and-blood” case.
The line-item veto is a relatively recent example. It couldn’t be challenged in court until a President attempted to use it. Clinton finally did, and that kickstarted a real case that led to it being ruled UnCo.
Its a fair question, but I would ask a different one.
If we only have a small amount of time to start reducing global emissions in order to avert a catastrophe, why is the UN not urging the world’s biggest emitter, and the one doing over one third and rising of total global emissions, to reduce the 10 billion plus tons that it is putting out? Why are ‘we’ – whoever that is – not demanding that this country stop funding and building coal fired plants all over the developing world, when its the largest constructor? And reduce its coal use, when it mines and uses more than the rest of the world put together.
That is, China.
It makes zero sense. Why all this attention to the US, which is only doing around 5 billion tons and falling. Why all the attention paid to the developed West? The countries that are emitting two thirds or so of global emissions, and which are growing fast, are China, India, Indonesia and the rest of the developing world.
As for California, they want to go zero carbon. But there is never any account of what difference this would make to global temperatures, could they even do it. Because it would make none.
It is truly shocking how there is absolutely zero science behind CO2 causing global warming or climate change. The physics of the CO2 molecule and the Greenhouse Gas Effect simply rule out CO2 as the cause of the effects the alarmists claim.
Source #1
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/09/10/quantum-physics-101-why-co2-cant-be-melting-the-glaciers-and-sea-ice/
Source #2
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/09/08/why-co2-is-irrelevant-to-the-earths-lower-atmosphere-you-cant-absorb-more-than-100/
There is a reason Climate Science doesn’t do experiments, the experiments will rule out CO2 as the cause.
Runaway UN budget demands after the next U.S. election.
And Trumps a shoe-in anyway,…….
”its the economy silly”.
“It’s the economy, stupid!” Originally a quote by one of Clinton’s staff. Coming back to bite them now. Between that and near-daily TDS tantrums broadcasted on national television, I say the Dems will be lucky if Republicans don’t take enough seats for two-third majorities post-midterm.
(In a 100% just world, that would be three-quarter majorities of real conservative Reps and summarily proposing amendments to undo the century-old vandalism done to the Constitution by so-called Progressives. But that’s too much to ask, at least for now.)
The Democrats wouldn’t have a chance at the voting polls if we had a genuine neutral news media. The Leftwing News Media’s lies and distortions are the only thing keeping the Radical Left in the game.
Run away? At best it’s a slow crawl away.
Driven by statistical unicorns that are measured and randomly assigned blame to.
I say remove the U N building in New York and put up wind turbines on the land. Shirley a win-win for everyone.
and then relocate the UN building to a country whose economic system is in-line with what the UN has been insisting is they type of economic system that the world should switch to in order to combat global warming/climate change, like Venezuela. They get what they want (a socialist economy) and we get what we want (rid of the UN globalists). win-win
“and don’t call me Shirley”
Thank you 🙂
God bless the Trumpster, orange hair, blue flame shooting out of hjs butt and all. Love him!
From the article: “Mr Guterres painted a grim picture of the impacts of climate change that he says have been felt all over the world this year, with heatwaves, wildfires, storms and floods leaving a trail of destruction.”
He couldn’t prove any of this was connected to CO2 if his life depended on it. Yet he speaks with such certainty. I guess that’s what makes a good liar.
Nick Stokes , as usual, exaggerates and misleads. He is making grandious claims for solar power in China,claiming it is the means of reducing pollution in Chinese cites,which he claims is due to coal burning. That is quite a lie, but that’s another “coal is dirty fiction” tale. As to solar, China did spend $126 billion on solar facilities in 2017, which accounts for practically all of the solar expenditures in that year worldwide ($160 billion). Nick failed as usual to mention that on
June 18th 2018, China announced a suspension of any new solar projects. Dead is their previous plan for 20% solar by 2030. Wind projects had been suspended a year or two ago.
As per usual, the main fiction from the renewable crowd is in the presentation of data. Typically they cite “installed capacity” (maximum possible output) not net capacity (actual energy produced)when comparing energy sources. A nuclear plant typically operates at (or
even above) their installed capacity, while onshore wind operates at roughly 20-25%, and solar varies – averaging roughly 20%. Nick produces numbers which sound impressive, until compared to other energy sources. The fact is that in 2017 Chinese solar generated 118 TWhrs. That is miniscule compared to the energy produced by the only reliable renewable, Chinese hydro, which produced 1126 TWhrs of power that year. Solar acounted for 1.8% of total power.
One single nuclear plant can produce roughly 12 TWHrs per year and China has on order or
in the immediate planning stage 150 new reactors, capable of producing 1800 TWhrs and another 300 reactors are planned, capable of producing 3600 TWhrs, or a total of 5400 TWhrs from
new nuclear construction. Solar power will hardly be more than an asterisk in future Chinese energy tables. A nuclear plant lasts for more than 60 years, often three times longer than solar or wind.
But, I’m sure, this buildout of conventional reactors is not what is going to happen : China is pushing development of molten salt nuclear reactors, which no energy technology can possibly compete with, from any standpoint . These nuclear reactors can operate in load following generators, eliminating the need for much peak energy fossil fuel power generation.
The Chinese have already demonstrated their ability to produce Gen 3+ light water reactors for less than $5 billion per GW. Does anyone realistically doubt that they will not do as well for molten salt reactors?
Hahaha. Always in the future never now! Always planted just far enough ahead to give them time for the goldfish brains to forget. However this is different. An unacceptable political message from this over promoted mouthpiece. He should resign immediately for intrreferring in a sovereign countries democratic process as well as demonstrating an inability to tell empirical data based fact from politically motivated belief.
And again, I ask, what exactly will be the impact that the UN provides in regards to the climate?
I can already tell you their solution will provide them with money and power.
My guess is that ANY impact on the climate will be indecipherable – except possibly eliminating people’s ability to live comfortably within it if you don’t happen to live along that particular latitude line where you don’t need heat or AC.
Caves, urine and bugs, remember.
Brings to my mind a song from the 60’s, Runaway by Del Shannon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S13mP_pfEc
The UN is a cesspool of socialist corruption and evil. With designs on being the world government and destroying the capitalist free market while murdering billions.
Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the next step is to proclaim Obama as the World Leader for Life. Hell, he’s already that in his own mind. Of course the UN delegates would vote on it to give it the appearance of a democratic decision.
You really should not address him so abruptly as “Obama”. That is just a touch disrespectful don’t you think? His correct title is “His exalted Greatness Barack Hussein Obama the Anointed One, Healer of the Nations, and Calming Hand of the Rising Oceans”.
That suggests a definite and disastrous change in the U.N. (and E.U.) mind think: To avert “runaway climate change” destroy the United States of America.
I suppose that after which the U.S. Treasury would be come the property of the W.M.O. Green Climate Fund!
Ha ha!
Do the Democrats have to report the value of this endorsement as a campaign donation?
The bbc also put out an article saying that eating less meat would be better for water consumption and the environment. They’re going all in on this, is there a climate conference coming up.
There’s always a climate conference coming up. Those climate alarmists sure do like their little junkets to lavish resorts and exotic locales.
When he says “cost-competitive” he means AFTER additional trillions of dollars of subsidies, er, government “investment”.
The alarmists have drawn so many lines in the sand that it looks like a rumble strip going down the side of the highway.
When, when, when will they ever learn to make the drop dead date some time past the expected lifespan of the current crop of kindergartners?
The only thing that’s “runaway” is runaway corruption.
Yet another tipping point ? NO.
Thousands of bureaucrats will be pushed out of jobs if funding is not restored.
That’s the real tipping point. Their Tenga tower of bureaucracy is on shaky ground and Trump’s getting close to pulling out the right block.
Does he have some sort of proof for this assertion or is it a mere thought bubble?
I thought we already passed the point of no return.
As far as entropy is concerned, we’re passing a point of no return every nanosecond. 😮
Very shrewd incoherent babbling form this career politician. He bamboozles the audience in a way that it looks like this: birds fly and a dollar can buy things, therefor bicycle. It is very hard to argue with that.
He is also wrong when tries to state facts instead of mere “beliefs” According to this: https://yearbook.enerdata.net/renewables/renewable-in-electricity-production-share.html
Europe is already on the 1/3 mark. What he actually means is all energy production not just electrical. The little cunning politician..