Mythical Subsidies

By Michel de Rougemont – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Following the decarbonisation goals set forth in the Paris climate agreement of December 2015, appeals are made to suppress energy subsidies linked to the use of fossil fuels, and to increase consumption taxes massively as an incentive to burn less of them.

According to « experts » of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in a report published last December[1], energy is the beneficiary of subsidies amounting to $4’900 billion in 2013, or 6.5% of the global GDP. On its part, the International Energy Agency (EIA)[2] estimates them at $532 billion for that same year? The not so small 920% difference stems from considerations given to so-called negative externalities associated with the use of energy.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Dr. Judith Curry Explains The Reality Of Bad Climate Science And Bad Politics

By Larry Hamlin – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Dr. Judith Curry conducted an interview with YouTube which was published on August 9, 2017 where she clearly lays out the many flaws and failures of “consensus” climate science and how this highly politicalized scheme tremendously misleads policy makers regarding the need for government directed climate actions.

Regarding the role that human greenhouse gas emissions play in driving the earth’s climate Dr. Curry concludes that:

“On balance, I don’t see any particular dangers from greenhouse warming. {Humans do} influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don’t think it’s a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability.”

Continue reading

Here’s How to Avoid Climate Panics

By Dennis Avery – Re-Blogged From TownHall

Americans have suffered needless climate-related panic for the past 40 years—not realizing that, since 1850, our newspapers have given us a climate scare about every 25 years. And none of them was valid.

Fortunately, climate science is now good enough to predict the key abrupt climate cycles that Mother Nature visits upon earth through the millennia. After the cold of the Maunder Sunspot Minimum at 1715, for example, earth’s temperature warmed 0.3 degrees in less than 25 years. Then two centuries later, the temperatures dropped equally swiftly into the cold of the Dalton Minimum. These abrupt shifts occurred over decades rather than centuries. Some shifts have been favorable, an equal number were unfavorable – and none involved carbon dioxide.

Here's How to Avoid Climate Panics

Continue reading

World’s Nations Building Huge Numbers of New Coal Plants Despite Emissions Growth

By Larry Hamlin – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

A recent article discussed at Watts Up With That? exposed that many of the world’s largest CO2 emitting nations are proceeding with energy policies involving the building of huge numbers of new coal plants without regard to increasing CO2 emissions completely contradicting the aims of the Paris Climate Agreement.

These nations actions clearly show the Paris Climate Agreement is meaningless in addressing global emissions and that President Trump was very wise to reject it’s oppressive provisions that were imposed on the U.S.

Continue reading

Debunking Inside Climate’s “5 Shades of Climate Denial”

By David Middleton – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Sometimes, words fail me in describing the absolute disregard of the placement of NOAA official climate monitoring sites. For example, this one in Clarinda, Iowa submitted by surfacestations volunteer Eric Gamberg:

 

The MMTS temperature sensor is the short pole next to the half pickup truck.

For those of you that don’t know, this station is located at the wastewater treatment plant there. I’ve written many times about the placement of stations at WWTP’s being a bad idea due to the localized heat bubble that is created due to all the effluent coming though. The effect is especially noticeable in winter. Often you’ll see steam/water vapor in the air around these sites in winter, and more than one COOP observer has told our volunteers that snow sometimes does not stick to the ground at WWTP’s.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #275

By Ken Haapala, President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project

The Week That Was: July 1, 2017 Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

Climategate 2017? Last week TWTW discussed a paper by Santer, et al. that seems to support the view that, generally, global climate models greatly overestimate the warming of the atmosphere. The exception is the model by the Institute of Numerical Mathematics in Moscow. TWTW suspected that the paper may be part of a ruse, a trick, to discredit John Christy’s Congressional testimony on December 8, 2015, and February 2, 2016. Christy had stated that global climate models overestimate warming by 2.5 to 3 times. The new Santer paper is similar to one in the Journal of Climate on December 21, 2016.

The 2016 Santer paper claimed that the Christy did not properly account for stratospheric cooling. If that cooling is included, the warming projected by the models is only 1.7 times what is occurring. Yet, Christy specifically limited the data in his testimony to 50,000 feet, below the stratosphere, to avoid the complexity of the issue. The new Santer paper, published in Nature Geoscience on June 19, 2017, has many of the same authors as the previous paper. A noted exception is that Susan Solomon of MIT is not included in the second paper. [Michael Mann is listed as a co-author in the second paper.]

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #274

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

Upheaval in Washington: One can describe the election of Donald Trump and the beginning of his administration as an upheaval against establishment Washington, including both political parties. Certainly, those expressing dissatisfaction at the early steps taken by the Trump administration are from multiple political alliances. Some political groups are outraged by the administration’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement (Accord), other groups are concerned that the Administration is moving too slowly. Each set has arguments that are, at least, partially right.

Some of those objecting to the US leaving the Paris agreement may have counted on lavish US spending on their pet schemes. As mentioned in June 10 TWTW, the Paris agreement involved side agreements that could be costly to the US taxpayer. For example, according to its defenders the Mission Innovation pact of 2015, involved a US commitment of over $6 billion in 2017 and increasing to over $12 billion in 2021. The purpose was to double expenditures on clean energy research and development, apparently without approval by Congress.

Continue reading