Day: October 6, 2023

Wrong influences give us corrupted “science”

From CFACT

By Larry Bell

Confronted with major decisions, we’re repeatedly told by government authorities to “trust the science.”

But by whose scientific authority?

Is it global institutions like the World Health Organization (WHO) that assured us the COVID-19 virus originated from pangolins in a Wuhan wet market rather than a laboratory that our own government funded?

Is it the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that assured us masks and shutdowns would help prevent the spread, and that vaccines were safe for low-risk children regardless of the obvious fact no long-term studies were possible?

Is it the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) whose purposes and alarmist pronouncements its key members and government advocates have admitted being about global wealth redistribution and whose theoretical climate models have proven grossly overheated?

Is it our current president and advisers who claim climate change is causing “historically high” temperatures and severe weather events to become more frequent despite readily available records showing this to be untrue?

Is it taxpayer-funded government agencies and “green energy” subsidy seekers claiming to save the planet from climate doom by replacing the 80% of global and domestic energy provided by fossil fuels by increasing the 3% provided by wind and solar combined and adding millions of electric vehicles that depend on rare earth minerals controlled by China to already overloaded power grids?

Is it scientific journals headed by ideologically aligned revolving-door editors who cycle between government and academic positions to close out dissenting scientific findings in favor of politically compliant narratives?

Patrick Brown, climate co-director at the Berkeley, California, Breakthrough Institute, acknowledged this problem by voluntarily admitting to having censored one of his own studies to increase the chances of getting published.

Writing in the Free Press, Brown explained that he omitted “key aspects other than climate change” from a paper on California wildfires because such details would “dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell us.”

Brown added that editors of scientific journals “have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives.”

Sadly, tragically, much of what is termed “science” today is fundamentally influenced by all of the above.

The late Apollo 7 astronaut Col. Walter Cunningham summed up a different view of science in a statement he offered for the back cover of my first of two books written more than a decade ago on this subject, “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax.”

My long-time friend Walt observed: “Those of us fortunate enough to have traveled in space bet our lives on the competence, dedication, and integrity of the science and technology professionals who made our missions possible. … In the last twenty years, I have watched the high standards of science being violated by a few influential climate scientists, including some at NASA, while special interest opportunists have dangerously abused our public trust.”

Included are some researchers at academic institutions whose careers largely depend upon getting funded by government grants and thence published in likewise bias-confirming journals.

As for that science being “settled” regarding a human greenhouse gas-caused climate crisis, a “World Climate Declaration” made public in August by the nonprofit scientific Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) endorsed by 1,609 informed scientists and professionals — including two Nobel Laureates, John Clauser (USA) and Ivar Giaever (Norway/USA) — clearly says otherwise.

Among many objections to crisis claims and consequences, CLINTEL notes that climate models are not remotely plausible as policy tools: They exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases while ignoring the enriching and vital vegetation benefits of CO2, which is essential to all life.

Even Gavin Schmidt, who succeeded climate activist James Hansen as head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), admitted to the renowned journal Science in 2021 that “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this admission that the models can’t be trusted as a policy instrument. … You end up with numbers for even the near‐term that are insanely scary — and wrong.”

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer clarified the organization’s true agenda in November 2010 when he advised that: “… one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth …”

The late Stephen Schneider, a lead author on three overheated IPCC reports who had previously warned of global cooling, told Discover magazine in 1989 that capturing the public’s imagination about climate risks entails “getting loads of media coverage.”

“So,” he said, “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have,” whereby “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

The next time you hear someone from the government with any such an agenda telling you to trust the science, don’t confuse ideological and/or political motives with legitimate and necessary trust in the scientific method … a rational process of observation, measurement, evidence, logic, debate, and iterative revision of concepts and theories where uncertainties are stated.

No, we can’t always count on scientists being right, but we should demand objectivity, rigor, and honesty.

Our lives, families, and nation’s future depend on this.

This article originally appeared at NewsMax

Author

  • Larry BellLarry Bell
  • CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston.
  • He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture.
  • He is also the author of “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax.”

The Jupiter Effect: The Hubris of Green Central Planners

Watts Up With That?

In the annals of history, there have been countless tales of rulers and leaders who, in their hubris, believed they could command the very forces of nature. The ancient Roman god Jupiter, King of Gods, was believed to be above the fray of mere mortals, wielding power over the skies and storms. Fast forward to today, and we see a modern-day “Jupiter Effect” manifesting in the realm of energy and climate policy. The recent article by Tilak Doshi in Forbes titled “The Jupiter Effect: Climate Change Policy From On High” offers a scathing critique of the hubris displayed by today’s leaders in their approach to climate change policy.

“In ancient Roman mythology, Jupiter (Zeus in Greek mythology) was the King of Gods, above the fray of mere mortals and the lesser gods. Over the last few weeks, the Jupiter effect in energy and climate policy was evidenced twice over.”

The article highlights the audacity of leaders like President Emmanuel Macron, who, with a wave of his hand, asked the fuel industry to “sell at cost price, that is to say that no one makes a margin”. Similarly, California Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent legislative actions seem to be more about virtue signaling than practical solutions.

“What is it about imperious “green” rulers who inflict impossible rules on demonized fossil fuel businesses that undermine the very foundation of their existence – namely, their capacity to deliver profits for their shareholders – to “fight climate change”? The hubris of leaders who imagine that their punitive “decarbonization” actions can have even the slightest impact on climate change is breath-taking.”

The article rightly points out the irony of these leaders’ actions. On one hand, they demonize fossil fuel businesses, and on the other, they fail to recognize the foundational role these businesses play in the global economy. The constant peddling of electric vehicles, solar and wind power, and other “green” technologies, often amplified by a scientifically illiterate mainstream press, is overwhelming for the average person. Yet, the real-world implications of these policies are far from the utopian visions they promise.

“King Canute apocryphally commanded the incoming waves to halt and not wet his feet or cloak. As the waves inevitably drenched him, he said: “Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but he whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.” The humility and wisdom of Canute and his respect for eternal laws is evidently lost on the likes of Macron and Newsom.”

The article also touches upon the vilification of “Big Oil” and the misguided notion that these corporations are solely driven by greed. As Thomas Sowell aptly put it:

“I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not ‘greed’ to want to take somebody else’s money.”

The push for electric vehicles (EVs) is another area where the article sheds light on the glaring inconsistencies in the green narrative. Despite massive government subsidies, unsold EV models are accumulating in showrooms, and the economic viability of these vehicles remains questionable.

“The hype over electric vehicles has become ever more threadbare. Unsold models are “piling up” in showrooms and dealer lots across the US despite massive government subsidies.”

Furthermore, the article highlights the impracticality of relying solely on renewable energy sources like wind and solar. The intermittent nature of these sources requires massive energy storage solutions, which are currently not viable on the scale required.

“The viability of mass scale battery storage was examined in a report published last month by The Royal Society of Great Britain. Examining 37 years of wind patterns, the learned Society concludes that mass-scale battery storage is not a viable proposition for the national grid powered by intermittent wind and solar sources.”

In conclusion, the “Jupiter Effect” in modern climate change policy is a stark reminder of the dangers of hubris. Leaders who believe they can command the forces of nature and the global economy with edicts and decrees are bound to face the harsh realities of the world. As Friedrich von Hayek wisely noted:

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design”.

It’s high time our leaders took a page out of King Canute’s book and recognized the limits of their power. Only then can we hope for pragmatic and effective solutions real and not made up challenges we face.

Hottest Evah September!!

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

Well, they would, wouldn’t they!

The latest of many heat records broken this year is putting the world on course for its hottest year ever, and is a sign of what is to come in future, according to scientists.

Last month was not only the hottest September on record, new data has confirmed, but it was higher by a margin described by stunned scientists as “extraordinary”, “huge” and “whopping”.

https://news.sky.com/story/september-2023-was-worlds-hottest-september-on-record-by-extraordinary-margin-new-data-confirms-with-scientists-blaming-more-than-climate-change-12976750

I’ll ignore the ignorance of journalists who think that the world started in the 19thC, during the Little Ice Age. And the fact that a “global average temperature” is a meaningless construct, which assumes you can average completely different things.

According to satellite data, the temperature anomaly last month was 0.24C higher than the previous peak in 2016:

Latest Global Temps

The idea that GHGs can make such a difference in such a short period of time is utterly absurd. But the Sky report does give us a clue:

Piers Forster – the interim chair of the government’s Climate Change Committee but speaking in his capacity as climate change professor at Leeds University – said variations between months each year are usually quite small.

“Therefore, breaking the previous September record by a whopping 0.5C is crazy and shows something really bizarre is going on in the oceans,” he said.

Greenhouse gases have been warming not just the atmosphere but also the deep ocean, especially in the Atlantic, added Prof Forster, and now a change in ocean circulation is “causing some of that heat from the deeper ocean to resurface and bite us”.

Forster is quite wrong, knowingly I suspect, because it is physically impossible for GHGs to warm the deep ocean. This is because infrared radiation can only penetrate the top few millimeters of the sea.

However, oceans are an enormous heat store, and a change in ocean circulation, as implied by Forster, can have large effects on atmospheric temperatures.

After all, swings from La Nina to El Nino can often increase global temperatures by a full degree, and that is just a result of ocean circulation is a small part of the Pacific.

And that heat is supplied by the sun, not carbon dioxide.

Why then is there no scientific research going on into what is happening in the oceans and why? Is it more convenient just to blame climate change?

There has also been absolutely no mention in any of these reports of the underwater Hunga Tonga volcano, which erupted in January last year, blasting an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere.

Water vapour, as we know, is by far the most powerful GHG, responsible for about half of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. The eruption was so powerful that the plume reached the stratosphere, where it can only very slowly return to the Earth’s surface, unlike water vapour in the troposphere.

For the months after the eruption this greenhouse effect was countered by the cooling effect of the ash and aerosols sent aloft. Now that this effect has receded, we are seeing the full greenhouse effect of the plume.

One study last year found that:

This extra water vapor could influence atmospheric chemistry, boosting certain chemical reactions that could temporarily worsen depletion of the ozone layer. It could also influence surface temperatures. Massive volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Mount Pinatubo typically cool Earth’s surface by ejecting gases, dust, and ash that reflect sunlight back into space. In contrast, the Tonga volcano didn’t inject large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere, and the huge amounts of water vapor from the eruption may have a small, temporary warming effect, since water vapor traps heat. The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere and would not be enough to noticeably exacerbate climate change effects.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/08/17/hunga-tonga-its-role-in-rising-global-temperatures/

They calculated that the radiative forcing from this plume of water vapour was about two thirds of the CO2 growth between 1996 and 2005.

How much of the recent spike in temperatures is due to Hunga Tonga is debatable.

But what I find remarkable about this, if unsurprising, is how there has been virtually no public discussion of this, or serious scientific research into it. Instead climate scientists seem to want to brush it under the carpet, and blame rising temperatures on “climate change”.

Global Food Production vs. “Climate Catastrophe”

The Heartland Institute

This week we look at agriculture, which seems to be constantly under attack as either being a contributor to climate change, or will suffer from predicted climate change catastrophic effects.

But, the reality is far different. Despite a modest warming over the past century, agricultural yields continue to grow, setting several new record highs in the past decade. Further, despite media claims of effects from drought and heatwaves, crops continue to flourish.

Join our host, Anthony Watts, and weekly panelists, Dr. Sterling Burnett and Linnea Lueken as we take a hard look at the real-world data, as well as discuss the “Crazy Climate News of the Week.”

Tune in LIVE for Climate Change Roundtable at Noon CT/1PM ET this Friday to engage in this enlightening discussion. Don’t forget to leave your questions to have them answered live during the show! Tune in to share your thoughts and be a part of the conversation.

The Next Great Total Solar Eclipse On US Soil Is Now Just About Six Months Away…Monday, April 8th, 2024

From Watts Up With That?

[note from Charles. Anthony and I trekked to Central Oregon to view the 2017 Solar Eclipse, chronicled in this post]

Paul Dorian

This map shows the 20-year (2000-2020) “median cloud fraction” in the month of April at approximately 1:30 pm local time as measured from NASA’s Aqua satellite.  The path of totality on April 8, 2024, is shown with red lines marking the northern and southern limits and a blue line up the center. Based on this climatological cloud cover map, Mexico and southern Texas offer the best prospects for a clear view of totality. Data courtesy: NASA.

Overview

In August of 2017 America went crazy for the first coast-to-coast total solar eclipse on US soil since 1918 and it provided a great opportunity for scientists and all sky watchers. What was referred to as “The Great American Solar Eclipse” took place on August 21st, 2017 when the moon passed between the sun and earth. Total solar eclipses occur somewhere on Earth every year or so, but generally cast their shadows over oceans or remote land masses.  If you missed the 2017 total solar eclipse or it turned out to be cloudy in your particular area then there will be another opportunity in just about six months from now on Monday, April 8th, 2024. This time the Moon’s dark shadow, about 115 miles wide, will cross Mexico, sweep northeast from Texas to Maine, and then darken the Canadian Maritimes. 

Cities inside the totality path for the April 8th, 2024 total solar eclipse (Courtesy GreatAmericanEclipse.com)

Details

The next total solar eclipse visible on US soil will come on Monday, April 8th, 2024. This one will feature a duration of totality up to 4 minutes and 27 seconds which is almost double that of “The Great American Eclipse” of August 21, 2017. It is estimated that the 2017 total solar eclipse was witnessed by around 20 million people from Oregon to South Carolina and the next one is very likely to be viewed by many millions more. The prediction of “many millions more viewers” is quite safe considering the fact that there are 31 million people already living in the totality path which will extend in a southwest-to-northeast fashion from Texas to Maine. 

The solar eclipse of April 8, 2024, will be total in a narrow path from Mexico to the Canadian Maritimes and partial to the northwest and southeast. Yellow curves indicate how much of the Sun is covered by the Moon outside the path of totality. The difference between a total solar eclipse and a partial one is literally the difference between night and day, so get yourself into the path of totality if you can. Courtesy GreatAmericanEclipse.com

In the US, totality will begin on April 8th, 2024 at 1:27 (CDT) in Texas and will end in Maine at 3:35 pm (EDT).  The narrow path of totality—where the Moon covers the Sun completely, causing a total eclipse – runs through Mexico (from SinaloatoCoahuila), the US (from Texasto Maine), and Canada (from OntariotoNewfoundland). And if you happen to live in southern Illinois or southeastern Missouri then you will be lucky enough to be in the “totality zone” for the second time when including the 2017 celestial event. A partial eclipse will be visible across nearly all of North America, and a sliver of western Europe.

This animated GIF shows the Moon’s shadow arcing across the Pacific, then traversing North America, and ending at sunset not far from Spain. The longest duration will be near Torreon, Mexico at 4 minutes and 27 seconds. The inner black circle, the umbra, is where the shadow is complete — a total eclipse of the Sun. The outer shadow circle, the penumbra, shows the extent of the partial eclipse. The partial eclipse will be slight near the outer circle and deep near the path of totality.

During a total solar eclipse, the Moon blocks the Sun’s bright face — the photosphere — briefly revealing our star’s outer atmosphere: the shimmering corona, or “crown.” The corona is always there, but we usually can’t see it because the photosphere is about a million times brighter and drowns it out. When the Moon covers the Sun’s bright face, the corona is definitely the main attraction, and depending on location, the corona will be visible for up to 4 minutes 28 seconds.

These are the times and durations of the eclipse at several points inside the path of the total solar eclipse.

Made of rarefied gas heated to millions of degrees, with its atoms highly ionized (stripped of electrons), the corona gets sculpted into streamers and loops by the Sun’s powerful magnetic field and shines with a light seen nowhere else. Those who have witnessed it say it is hauntingly beautiful and one of the most awesome sights in all of nature. During those moments of totality, it is safe to look directly at the Sun, even through binoculars or a telescope. But whenever any part of the photosphere is uncovered, it is essential to view the Sun through a safe solar filter, that is, one that meets the transmission requirements of the ISO 12312-2 international standard. Such filters are widely available and are not too costly. Looking at the uneclipsed or partially eclipsed Sun through dark sunglasses or any other unapproved filter is a recipe for serious and potentially permanent eye injury. 

Diamond Ring Eclipse By Anthony Watts 8-21-17

At the beginning and end of totality, the thin middle layer of the Sun’s atmosphere, the chromosphere, blazes in an arc of ruby red. The sky darkens to a deep twilight blue, with yellow, orange, and pink sunrise/sunset colors on the horizon in all directions. Bright stars and planets may become visible in the darkened sky and the air temperature will often drop noticeably. The dark sky even tricks nocturnal animals into thinking it’s nighttime and you may hear crickets chirping or see birds returning to their nests.

Remember…when it comes to solar eclipses…99% is definitely not the same as 100%…getting inside the path of totality is critical as this is the only place the corona can be seen.

One final note… after 2024, the next total solar eclipse to be visible from the United States will be in 2044.

Meteorologist Paul Dorian
Arcfield
arcfieldweather.com

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube

The electric grid needs good failure mode analysis

New York City suffered a blackout

From  CFACT

By David Wojick 

new-york-cant-buy-its-way-out-of-blackouts

Failure mode analysis is a standard engineering practice. It means figuring out the basic ways a system can fail, each way being a mode of failure. Once you understand these failure modes, you can do things like watch for them, or prepare for them, or take steps to keep them from happening.

Way back when I was a junior engineer, I did mathematical failure mode analysis for large dams. There were just 3 to 5 basic modes, depending on the design. Earth dams had more than concrete ones, but I digress.

We now have repeated, even urgent, warnings that the electric power grid is increasingly prone to failure. Some of these warnings have come from people who actually oversee the grid, including FERC, NERC, and the independent system operators (ISOs). My fellow skeptics have also been vocal about this growing threat of disaster.

Everyone talks about blackouts, but I have not seen a detailed analysis of the various ways these might occur. I suspect there are several different basic ways, each calling for a different approach. So here are some starter thoughts.

First of all, there are deliberate rolling blackouts versus uncontrolled blackouts. ISOs and utilities may well have internal plans, or perhaps rules, for running rolling blackouts. If so, it would be very helpful to know what these are. For example, emergency service groups at all levels of government could have rolling blackouts response plans.

Uncontrolled blackouts may be unpredictable, but they can still be planned for to some degree. I live way out in the country, and we get blackouts several times a year, so we have a well-prepared routine for dealing with them if they do not last too long.

Of special importance are the size and duration of blackouts, as both features deeply affect planning. Should we expect a lot more small blackouts or just a few more big ones? How about really big ones, a few of which have occurred in the past?

It also matters how hot or cold it is, especially for large, long-lived blackouts. Severe cold is really dangerous. The Texas disaster killed a lot of people, and PJM almost went that way last Christmas.

The first question is how much failure mode analysis can already be done using existing computer models? The ISOs and utilities do a lot of modeling. For example, the ISOs already can determine what system upgrades will be needed before a new large generator can be connected to the grid. The wind and solar people complain about this because it sometimes makes their remote projects very expensive.

If the ISOs can do that kind of detailed flow analysis, they ought to be able to see where things are likely to break and what that might do to the system. I am reminded of The Wichita Lineman line saying, “if it snows that stretch down south will never stand the strain”.

It may well be that they are already doing this sort of failure mode analysis; they just don’t want to tell us about it, lest it worry us. But given all the warnings, we clearly need to worry and to take steps to address that worry.

It also may be true that they cannot do the kinds of failure mode analysis I am describing. The growing threat is new, after all, so the software simply may not exist. I seem to recall both the New England ISO and PJM saying they really could not evaluate the impact on the reliability of this attempted transition.

If this is true, then given the huge amounts of potential damage, including deaths, we should be developing that software as fast as possible. Not knowing the impact of the near-term transition on reliability is a true emergency. We may be flying blind into the wall of impossibility.

There is another form of failure that also needs to be addressed, namely wholesale power price spikes. We have already had a few of these and are still struggling to figure out how to pay for them. When unit power prices go from tens of dollars to thousands, there is a lot of damage, even if it is fiscal, not physical.

FERC and NERC reliability standards require various forms of analysis. Publicly accessible failure mode analysis should be among them. Vague warnings are not good enough.

Author


David Wojick

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy.

For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/ Available for confidential research and consulting

NSW fireghters foil fire risk at smoking green energy unit

MGA Thermal based in Newcastle 

From Tallbloke’s Talkshop

October 6, 2023 by oldbrew

MGA 

Storing electricity, e.g. from renewables, is an ongoing headache with a recurring problem. If things go wrong ‘hazardous materials crews’ may be needed, along with a ‘bulk carbon dioxide tanker’ to cool things down – spot the irony. The company’s aim of ‘Making 24/7 renewables a reality’ is looking a tad optimistic.
– – –
Firefighters have called in expert technicians to help deal with a dangerous heat build-up at a cutting-edge renewable energy storage plant but the incident has been stabilised, reports The New Daily.

MGA Thermal is behind a new form of thermal energy storage that allows retrofitted coal-fired power stations to distribute renewable energy long after it was produced.

But the company had to call in firefighters on Friday morning at its demonstrator plant in the Tomago industrial area, north of Newcastle.

Initial assessments of over-heating machinery led to the evacuation of 15 businesses.

Hazardous materials crews in breathing apparatus later detected smoke emanating from power cables on the 14m-long structure.

A bulk carbon dioxide tanker from Sydney cooled the machinery while dry chemical powder was used to douse the burning cables.

Specialist engineers called in
A Fire and Rescue NSW spokesman said the incident and factory was not something the crews had encountered previously and they expected it to be protracted.

“That’s why we have called in our scientific team too and we’re working with their engineers who are the experts in their field,” he told AAP.

The scene was deemed to be in a steady state about mid-afternoon and the emergency was scaled down. The exclusion zone had earlier been reduced, allowing most businesses and an arterial road for the Port Stephens area to reopen.

The new technology is built around a compound known as ‘mMiscibility gap alloy’ (MGA), which is manufactured in large brick-like blocks designed with two key materials.

Tiny metal alloy particles are dispersed through a matrix material. These particles melt as the blocks are heated and energy is absorbed, while the matrix material remains solid and keeps the molten particles in place.

The energy is stored in the solid-to-liquid phase change and is released as the blocks cool and the particles become solid again.

Keeping watch
A Fire and Rescue hazardous materials crew will remain at the scene for the next day or two to monitor the situation.

Developed by University of Newcastle scientists and backed by several government agencies, MGA Thermal’s blocks are about the size of two bread loaves and allow renewable energy to be transported and used on demand.

Full report here.

MGA Thermal Demonstration Plant by MGA Thermal Pty Ltd

Conspiracy of Silence: MSM Runs Protection Racket for Wind & Solar Rent-Seekers

From STOP THESE THINGS

The glaring fault with the mainstream media is not so much what they publish, it’s what they refuse to publish. The truth runs a distant third to woke memes and fashionable mantras.

How we found ourselves in a world where power prices are simply unaffordable, and power can only be delivered according the vagaries of the weather, isn’t all down to rent-seeking crony capitalists and politicians, on the take. No, the mainstream media have been in it, up to their necks. They still are.

Notwithstanding the renewable energy driven disaster unfolding in Europe – that in turn is driving a nuclear power renaissance – and the near total collapse of the offshore wind ‘industry’, the MSM keep dishing up propaganda memes about wind power being cheaper than coal (it isn’t) or that the ‘transition’ to an all-wind and sun powered future is simply ‘inevitable’ – plus or minus a few million (near-mythical) mega lithium-ion batteries. Notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Another classic line is about such and such wind farm ‘powering’ 100,000 homes. Which is clearly meant to give the impression that those homes will be powered exclusively by wind power, generated around-the-clock and available on demand, irrespective of the weather. The list of fantastic fictions presented by the MSM is only limited by the deluded imagination you’d expect to drive a deranged cult.

The Australian’s Chris Mitchell identifies the conspiracy of silence that has allowed the wind and solar ‘industries’ to ply their subsidy-soaked trade for far too long.

Journos are failing the public in their reporting on renewables
Chris Mitchell
The Australian
17 September 2023

The main sources of misinformation on Australia’s renewable energy transition are journalists from the ABC and the Nine newspapers.

And it’s not just about exaggerated reporting of natural disasters. Think about preconceptions among environment writers about the rights of people directly affected by the renewables grid expansion. Add to that journalists who ignore inconvenient facts about what is really happening to emissions around the world, and especially in China and India.

This column suggested last year that editors should send reporters into regional Australia to look at the reaction of rural communities affected by the rollout of more than 10,000km of poles and wires to connect renewables projects to the eastern states’ grid. This column has also pointed many times to misreporting of China’s renewables expansion while ignoring its rapidly expanding CO2 emissions.

The piece examined the plight of landholders affected by Transgrid’s HumeLink transmission project. Middap explained what fourth-generation Snow Valleys land holder Dave Purcell sees from his farm: eight to 14 steel towers, up to 76m high, carrying cables crisscrossing his cattle property.

Even Minister for Energy Chris Bowen sympathised with the plight of such farmers. “In my experience, most concerned community members are not anti-renewables, anti-transmission or anti-progress. Nor in most cases are they opposed to projects going ahead if their concerns are addressed,” Bowen was quoted saying.

National environment and climate editor Nick O’Malley savaged the new NSW Labor government’s decision to extend the life of the Eraring power station in the Hunter Valley. This is the country’s largest power source and the likelihood it would need to remain open beyond the 2025 date owner Origin Energy has flagged for closure has been known for years.

O’Malley quoted NSW Minister for Energy Penny Sharpe on social licence and renewables. “As Sharpe says, transition involves dispersing energy production that was once centralised mostly in the Hunter Valley across the state. Objections to new solar farms, wind turbines and transmission lines from landholders across the east coast are increasing.”

The piece, a full page, went on to quote several green energy lobbyists and planning experts about the slow processes of the NSW Department of Planning. From people whose land is being dissected by such projects – not a word. The renewables industry lobby owns the SMH’s journalism.

Reporting about the renewables commitments of the No.1 and No.3 global CO2 emitters, China and India, is just as lacking. Too many environment writers focus on increasing renewables use while ignoring that both countries are expanding their coal capacity.

In fact, The Telegraph in London on September 6 said China had this year started on new coal capacity greater than the entire existing US coal fleet. Yet in much media here it is Australia that is the emissions pariah.

At least The Guardian was honest enough to publish the truth on August 29. Quoting analysis by the Global Energy Monitor and the Centre for Research of Energy and Clean Air, The Guardian said “… in the first half of 2023 (China’s) authorities granted approval for 52 gigawatts of new coal power, began construction on 37GW of new coal power, announced 41GW worth of new projects and revived 8GW of previously shelved projects.”

Yet ABC radio’s flagship morning current affairs program, AM, on September 11 reported – po-faced – that Australia was being left behind by China’s energy transition as renewables industry leaders here pleaded for subsidies to help compete with US President Joe Biden’s misnamed Inflation Reduction Act spending on US emissions reduction.

Reporter Annie Guest interviewed Tim Buckley from the consultancy Climate Energy Finance who called for $100bn in government investment in renewables and critical minerals such as copper and lithium. Buckley believed the Future Fund should become an equity holder in renewables projects.

John Grimes, CEO of the Smart Energy Council, told Guest China was leading the world in the production and export of solar panels, wind turbines and EVs. “The rest of the world is in China’s dust,” he said.

Indeed, China has been the biggest beneficiary of the global energy transition across the West, even though it has increased domestic coal consumption by 300 million tonnes a year and last year increased emissions by 10 per cent over the pre-Covid peak set in 2019, according to The Conversation on July 10.

It is the biggest emitter by far, has the fastest-growing emissions and yet is the winner from commitments in Europe, East Asia, North America and Australia to reduce their emissions. In effect, the rest of the world is exporting its industrial base to China for no net gain on global emissions.

In fact, several European car makers, including German giant Volkswagen, have warned in recent months that European car production is on the verge of collapse in the face of cheap imported Chinese EVs and conventional cars and soaring power prices in Europe.

Now President Biden is using the Inflation Reduction Act to get a piece of the action China has been enjoying and European vehicle, electronics and chemical companies are moving manufacturing facilities to the US. Renewables lobbyists here want government subsidies so they can get some of the cake too. But what if it all fails?

AM was incurious about China’s rising emissions, the dangers of governments picking winners, the severe economic downturn in China, and the possibility Biden’s green agenda may just be a trillion dollar act of self-harm.

An editorial in The Wall Street Journal on September 4 warned many projects that were made possible only by Biden subsidies are now seeking large price increases from utility ratepayers to compensate for higher interest rates and soaring investment costs. Offshore wind developers in New York are seeking a 48 per cent rise in their power delivery contacts.

“The Alliance for Clean Energy NY is also requesting an average 64 per cent price increase on 86 wind and solar projects,’’ the Journal said. It noted growing demand nationally for renewables projects in the wake of Biden’s subsidies had driven inflation in the prices of renewables components.

So the laws of supply and demand apply even in the green economy? Who knew.

Good journalists should cast a sceptical eye over the self-interested claims of people wanting government handouts to boost private profits. Many consumers don’t pay for their media, relying on free sources such as the ABC and The Guardian.

It is incumbent on such sources to test the claims of those who stand to profit from new technologies. ABC consumers may be astounded to know there is as yet no economically viable technology pathway to green hydrogen. Nor would many realise most energy specialists expect all countries will continue to rely on gas for decades to firm renewables.
The Australian

This Summer Was Not Even in America’s Top 10 Hottest, Say Scientists

From The Daily Sceptic

BY CHRIS MORRISON

The mainstream media continue to fall hook, line and sinker for the tempting alarmist bait set by urban heat corruptions. The Guardian said a record was set this year in the U.S. city of Phoenix during a “hellishly hot summer” with the most hot days over 110°F. The BBC’s report on Phoenix took the opportunity to add that heatwaves are becoming more frequent and intense, “because of human-induced climate change”. It is often hellishly hot in the desert state of Arizona, and in fact last summer was the warmest in Phoenix going back to 1933. But strip out the heat created in the ever-expanding concrete and tarmacked metropolis, and it turns out the area was only the 11th warmest on record.

If the record hot summer in Phoenix was due to global warming, as claimed in almost all media, then it would show up at weather stations surrounding the city – “right?” asks Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). As regular readers will recall, Dr. Spencer and his UAH colleague Professor John Christy have been engaged in a recent project to determine the extent of urban heat corruptions in cities. Dr. Spencer took the official surface temperature data for Sky Harbor Phoenix Airport, shown by the red curve in the graph above, and compared it to all rural stations within 10-100 kms of Phoenix. Spencer concludes that the urban heat island effect was the dominant cause of the summer records in Phoenix.

In fact the gap between the red and green lines could be larger since Spencer notes that he used rural data from the U.S. weather service NOAA that had been ‘homogenised’, a controversial process that often leads to rural data being equalised with surrounding areas. According to Spencer, there are unsupportable conclusions being drawn about the supposed role of climate change in the record high temperatures being reported in some U.S. cities. He adds: “Cities are hotter than their rural surroundings, and increasingly so, with or without climate change.” This can lead to extra warmth of up to 10°F, mostly at night, he finds.

The scale of the urban heat corruption is laid out in wider research recently published by Spencer and Christy. They note they are preparing to publish their first paper looking at temperature data across the lower American 48 States with the dramatic conclusion that summer warming between 1895-2023 in U.S. cities has been exaggerated by 100%. Across the United States, much of which is rural, the urban heat effect is placed at a significant 24%. The data investigated are taken from version four of NOAA’s Global Historical Climatology Network, which is an important constituent part of global temperature datasets such as the Met Office’s HadCRUT. The subsequent corruption of the global figures used to promote Net Zero is an issue that seems to be of little interest to most media.

Spencer and Christy calculate the urban heat effect by using satellite maps and data to compute how temperatures change with population density across thousands of closely-spaced pairs of weather stations. Previous ongoing reports on their work have highlighted the heat corruptions at airports, the most startling proving to be Orlando in Florida.

The above graph shows that the raw data for the international airport suggested warming of 0.3°C a decade, but the ‘de-urbanised’ figure fell to just 0.07°C. Airport readings are popular among alarmist-minded weather services around the world. In the U.K., the Met Office frequently quotes the temperature at Heathrow, while on July 19th last year, it declared a record high of 40.3°C halfway down a runway in use by three Typhoon fighter jets landing at RAF Coningsby.

The recent U.S. summer was the 13th warmest in the record if adjusted for the effect of urbanisation, says Spencer. The heat was not consistent across the continent, with over a dozen cities in the south said to be in record territory, while milder conditions were found elsewhere. Needless to say, the Guardian went into full catastrophe mode, speculating that this could be the “new normal”. Climate scientists say the heat and other extreme weather is in line with three decades of scientific prediction amid humanity’s relentless carbon emissions. “It might, in fact, be the tip of the iceberg compared with what is to come,” adds the speculation-rich Guardian.

It is a little warmer in parts of the planet at the moment, a mostly natural process probably due in part to the effects of a developing El Niño and, possibly, the extra 13% water vapour in the stratosphere due to last year’s Hunga-Tonga submarine volcanic eruption. Spencer shows how the heat bait is set and happily swallowed by narrative-driven mainstream media. “A city has record warming, so it must be due to global warming caused by burning fossil fuel,” he explains, “but what role does climate change have in these recordings at selected cities? Most of what we hear through the media comes from urban reporting stations, or at least airports serving major urban areas.”

Or in the U.K., he might have observed, from readings collected at airports with temperature-measuring devices placed only a few metres from powerful after-burning military jets.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

Superfund Cleanups Descend Into Uncertainty

From Watts Up With That?

US Supreme Court foregoes opportunity to encourage cleanup of contaminated waste sites

Paul Driessen

Urban and industrial centers generate enormous quantities of wastes that can create major health problems unless they’re handled properly.

In 1900, New York City and other big metropolitan areas were plagued with millions of tons of horse urine, manure and carcasses. The carcasses went to rendering plants; the urine evaporated or washed into rivers; and some manure was dumped into the same rivers, along with garbage, industrial chemicals and untreated toilet discharges, creating vast stinking cesspools.

Most manure was left on streets, to be pulverized into dust that children and adults inhaled, with predicable health results.

Automobiles gradually replaced horses, eliminating equine pollution but creating new problems that catalytic converters later helped resolve. Meanwhile, new laws, wastewater treatment plants and industrial processes gradually eliminated effluents, cleaned up rivers, and helped fish and wildlife populations rebound. (I grew up on Wisconsin’s Fox River and watched as its ecosystems were reinvigorated.)

However, a legacy of dangerous chemical wastes remained in many soils and river sediments. Congress enacted the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to implement requirements and incentives for cleaning up these historic hazards.

The legislation is often called the Superfund law, because money collected under it from chemical and other companies is held in a supersized account for cleaning up large hazardous waste sites, when companies actually responsible for the contamination cannot be found or are no longer in business.

In many cases, companies responsible for all or part of the pollution step forward and voluntarily begin remediation. Superfund provisions encourage such behavior. However, other times multiple parties discharged hazardous substances over years or decades, no one initially knows exactly what or how much is there or where it came from, and only one company (or none) begins cleanup efforts.

CERCLA thus also says a company that voluntarily cleans up a Superfund site, instead of being compelled to do so by a legal judgment or settlement, can then seek recovery of costs from other parties, according to their respective shares of overall responsibility. This reflects basic principles:

Sound public policy should encourage companies to step forward, begin the cleanup process and later recoup costs they have incurred beyond their fair share. Government should find ways to save Superfund money for situations where responsible parties cannot be located or no longer exist.

This is what usually happens. But sometimes companies must think they’ve been transported to Alice’s Wonderland, where nothing makes sense and words mean whatever speakers choose them to mean.

That’s certainly the case with Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP. Georgia-Pacific purchased a Michigan papermill in 1990, decades after various mills had polluted 80 miles of the Kalamazoo River, three miles of Portage Creek, and adjacent waters. The extensive area was designated a Superfund site due to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) that the pre-Georgia-Pacific paper recycling mill and other operations had discharged into the waterways from the mid-1950s to 1971.

G-P nevertheless voluntarily committed to start cleaning up the river bottoms, even though its predecessor had caused some of the pollution, and overall responsibilities had not been definitively established. That’s exactly the behavior Congress wanted to encourage. To date, Georgia-Pacific has spent many years and over $100 million removing the contaminants. But the cleanup still isn’t finished.

G-P could ultimately be compelled to spend millions more, even though later investigations determined that other companies were also responsible for the pollution and thus should share in the costs. So Georgia-Pacific went to court, seeking compensation for past expenditures and equitable sharing of future cleanup costs.

A federal district court found that Georgia-Pacific was actually responsible for only 40% of the contamination (and cleanup costs). Three other companies also shared the blame and therefore should also share in past and future costs: NCR (40%), International Paper (15%) and Weyerhaeuser (5%).

The three defendant companies appealed, claiming G-P had waited too long to petition for redress. Two appellate courts had heard similar appeals – and rendered totally different opinions about when the Superfund statute of limitations begins to run.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals found that the short three-year timeframe for recovering and sharing costs should be triggered only when a court renders a full judgment against a liable party for recovery of specific costs or damages. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the clock begins running the moment a court makes a “bare-bones” declaratory judgment: that someone is liable – even though others could also be, but the evidence is still insufficient to determine and apportion actual damages and cleanup costs.

This divergence of appellate court opinion presented a perfect opportunity for the US Supreme Court to step in, sensibly interpret the Superfund language, and affirm congressional intent to ensure that good corporate citizens aren’t punished for their good deeds and saddled with entire cleanup bills.

In fact, the Court just considered these issues, in Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products v. International Paper Company. G-P petitioned for certiorari, asking the court to hear the case on its merits.

Displaying Alice in Wonderland syndrome, the U.S. Department of Justice agreed that Georgia-Pacific was indeed victimized by an erroneous Sixth Circuit decision – but argued that the Supreme Court shouldn’t take the case, because it was somehow “a poor vehicle” for resolving the issues at bar.

This is upside-down logic. In fact, failure to grant certiorari would mean vital Superfund incentives will be turned upside-down, companies will be disincentivized from taking responsibility for initiating potentially very expensive hazardous waste cleanups, and the federal government (and taxpayers and consumers) will end up paying large sums for ongoing and future cleanups.

In passing the Superfund law, Congress understood that early good faith efforts to initiate and pay for cleanups could saddle companies with full removal and remediation costs, unless they: (a) know they will ultimately be able to identify all other responsible parties and compel them to pay their fair share of total cleanup costs; or (b) do the impossible – by finding those parties and bringing legal actions against them within three years.

The scope, extent and causes of environmental contamination – whether from pollution over decades or from a single event – are often not understood until after years of investigation, analysis and litigation. Determining all contributing factors and parties more often than not requires more than three years.

The February 2023 Norfolk Southern train derailment in Ohio is a perfect example. Complicated factors caused the disaster, multiple parties likely share responsibility for it, and its full nature, scope, cleanup requirements and costs will not be ascertained for years.

The contradictory Appeals Court rulings create a much more litigious environment for Superfund events like East Palestine. Years or decades of cleanup delays are the last thing impacted communities need.

The Supreme Court nevertheless denied certiorari. Many Court observers, myself included, believe it should have accepted the case and made these legal and policy principles clear for Georgia-Pacific and future Superfund parties. Now confusion will reign, cleanups will be delayed, and responsible corporations will balk at undertaking costly cleanups.

Let’s hope the Court grabs the next “vehicle” that arrives at its door.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org). He received his J.D. from the University of Denver College of Law.