Monthly Archives: January 2021

Alamists Have the Media on Their Side.

Posted on January 27, 2021 | 4 comments

I have been consulting or blogging about climate change for some 20+ years.  I began in an advisory role to a member of Delaware’s Legislative body.  That followed by setting up a climate change website.  Alas, I gotten older.  My zeal has not changed but my reduced stamina for research has resulted fewer postings.  And my level of frustration is peaking.

Unfortunately, one thing is unchanging.  That is the alarmists’ predictions are way over the top. I mean by that, their global temperature forecasts, principally made by their computers, are always higher than the measured temperature.  Their statements pronouncing that things are worse that they ever have been, like tornados, hurricanes, droughts, sea level rise, disappearance of the polar ice, end of snow, etc. are refuted by the data regarding those issues.  

I believe that the number of skeptics has increased over those 20+ years, thanks to the increase in number of outstanding skeptic blogs, like WUWT, Icecap, Climate Depot, Principia Scientific, Junk Science, DrRoySpencer, SePP, GWPF and a whole host of other outstanding ones—-just too many to name.

But the skeptics still have trouble getting through the walls erected by the mainstream media. Why the media have dropped their investigative role and adopted a full- throated support for the alarmist is beyond my ability to understand.  Because the predictions of apocalypse by apocalypse made by the alarmers that have not come true, you would think that the media would treat the continuing barrage of over-the-top predictions with distain.  Instead, the predictions get headlines and sycophantic stories.

The alarmist’s kind of “science” should not be the basis for formulating legislation.  Politicians may be good lawyers, but they are typically poor scientists.  Some are opposed to capitalism and want socialism.  Look at President Biden’s Green New Deal site and you will find many of them.  Others are swayed by the media pressure and think they better go along with the crowd.  Some may actually believe the alarmists rants.  Very few of them are scientifically knowledgeable enough to see through the scam.  Today, I do not have confidence that a majority of the Senate Republicans are skeptics.  

The science is not settled so no new legislation, please!

It seems to me that there are only a few things that will swing the pendulum our way.  One is a decline in the living standards and the economy.  Higher prices for everything caused by the cost of electricity, the cost of gasoline, the cost of home heating, and generally the subsequent rise of the cost of living. These are issues that the typical citizen feels and that might change the politicians.

As former President Obama said, 

 Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket – YouTube

The other pendulum swinger is for the global temperature to go flat or begin to drop.  The global temperature went flat for about 15 to 18 years around the turn of the century.  It began to climb again when two El Ninos happened.  They are natural causes, not atmospheric CO2 concentration.  

I have been researching what may bring about big cost of living rises and what are the factors that will cause global temperature to rise or fall in the future.   If I can get something cogent on those two topics, I will post my thoughts.

cbdakota

4 Comments

Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Global Temperatures, Media Bias, warmer prediction fails

UN Says The US Is The Most Successful Major Country in Carbon Emissions Reduction

Posted on January 8, 2021 | 3 comments

The UN released its global emissions and carbon report last month.  The U.S. is the most successful major country at mitigating its own pollution carbon dioxide (CO2).  So successful according to a Forbes posting written by Ellen Wald titled “The U.N. Says America Is Already Cutting So Much Carbon It Doesn’t Need the Paris Climate Accord”. 

“According to the report,

“The United States of America emits 13 per cent of global GHG emissions.” Comparatively, “China emits more than one-quarter of global GHG emissions.” The U.S. still contributes the most greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the world, but, over the last decade, the country’s GHG emissions have been in decline (0.4 per cent per year). “Greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the U.S. are dropping precipitously while those of China, India and Russia continue to rise. With the world’s most successful economy (over $21 trillion in 2019), it is not a surprise that the U.S. pollutes more per person, but the U.S. is making great strides in changing this.” 

The following chart is from the UN report showing total and per capita emissions:

President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2017.

“In 2017, the White House said, that if it remained a part of that agreement, “compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.” Instead, the U.S. continued decreasing its greenhouse gas emissions faster than any other major polluter, and it did so without the Paris agreement.”

Unfortunately, we know that the president elect, Joe Biden, wants to sign up again.  It may be too late to negate any signing even though the Paris Agreement appears to be a treaty which requires a 2/3 majority of the US Senate to approve it. The Senate is going to be controlled by the Democrats for the next two years.  Whether or not this is a treaty may not get resolved is a question.

The UN comment about the US not needing to join is frivolous. The Paris Agreement requires that the developed nations need to contribute $100billion every year to a fund for the under-developed nations to use to reduce CO2 emissions.  And you will not be surprised to know, that the biggest contributor to the fund is expected to be the US.  So far, I don’t believe the fund has  ever reached $100billion cumulatively, let alone annually.  The US has voluntarily contributed to the fund.  Why, I do not know.

So, the UN is desperate for the US to rejoin. 

cbdakota

3 Comments

Posted in China, CO2, Environment, fossil fuels, Paris Agreement, President Trump

More Pork For Renewable Energy

Posted on January 7, 2021 | 2 comments

Hugh subsidies are lavished on wind and solar energy in a newly enacted Federal bill.  More pork for crony capitalism.  More high-priced electricity for the customers. 

The proponents of wind and solar energy say that subsides for fossil fuels and nuclear are bigger than those for these so-called renewable energy systems. Forbes posted “Why is solar energy getting 250 times more in Federal tax credits than nuclear “by Robert Bryce.  Bryce’s posting shows that this is not the case.

 “According to a December 21 estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation, the extension of the solar sector’s investment tax credit (ITC) will cost the American treasury another $7 billion between now and 2030. (The ITC may also be used for offshore wind projects.) The extension of the wind industry’s production tax credit (PTC) — which like the ITC was supposed to be phased out — will cost another $1.7 billion. Those billions will be added to the $27 billion in ITC  credits that were already designated for the solar sector and $34 billion in PTC that will be collected by Big Wind between now and 2029. (Those last two numbers are from the Treasury Department.) “

“Given the tens of billions of dollars that are being lavished on solar, wind, and other politically popular energy programs — tax credits for fuel cells, carbon capture and sequestration, and “two-wheeled plug-in electric vehicles” also got extensions in the budget bill — I decided to seek an answer to a simple question: which energy technology gets the most in federal tax incentives? “

“The answer, by two country miles, is solar energy.

In 2018, the American solar industry got roughly 250 times as much in federal tax incentives as the nuclear sector, when compared by the amount of energy produced. Coming in a close second is the wind sector, which got about 160 times as much as nuclear. “

EJ = Exajoule   An exajoule is a measure of energy.  Exa is 10 to the 18th power. An exajoule is equal to 277.8 terawatt-hours

“In 2018, as shown in the graphic, America’s nuclear sector received about $13.1 million in tax incentives per EJ while the solar sector soaked up $3.3 billion per EJ – or 253 times the amount given to nuclear. The wind sector got $2 billion per EJ, or about 158 times as much as nuclear.

Congress is allocating yet more money for solar and wind even though America’s nuclear sector is producing about twice as much carbon-free electricity every year as wind and solar, combined. Despite its importance to America’s climate goals, the nuclear sector is foundering. Numerous reactors have closed over the past few years and more will be shuttered in the months and years ahead. In New York, the Unit Three reactor at Indian Point will be shuttered in April. In Illinois, Exelon EXC -1% is planning to shutter two nuclear plants. In California, the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is slated for closure in 2025.” 

I recommend that you read Bryce’s full posting by clicking this link.

I am agnostic about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) role in climate change.  Theoretically it is a player but the positive feedback that is claimed for it, looks to be exaggerated. Especially when nature’s negative feedbacks are ignored. Moreover, nuclear energy appeals to me in that it satisfies my desire to have something that can be reliably making electricity for a long, long time into the future.  It will extend the availability of fossil fuels to make valuable products, not just heat—perhaps the Earth will make natural gas and oil at an equilibrium with the fossil fuels withdrawal. Who knows?

One would think that the Greens would welcome nuclear energy based upon their crusade to eliminate man-made CO2 emissions.  But they don’t.  And they say that their programs are science based?

cbdakota

2 Comments

Posted in Electricity, Energy Development, fossil fuels, government subsidies, Greenhouse Gas Effect, Nuclear Energy