When Green Policies Fail (Nearly Always)

The unrelenting push for so-called renewable energy to replace coal in order to save the planet has its collateral damage. If you push up the price of electricity to make renewables competitive and decrease overall usage then people are going to find that alternatives become economically feasible- like ditching grid power for diesel generators. That’s got to be a win for the environment.

Jo Nova writes:

Some South Australian farmers going fully diesel for electricity

Diesel generator.  Coupole d'Helfaut in 1944,

Maybe they’ll get one like this one? ;-) Circa 1934.*

Green management of the South Australian grid scores another big success for the environment:

The Manns’ electricity costs have more than doubled in five years, from about $200,000 per annum to $500,000.

Due to the high prices, the family will this summer switch to diesel power to run their 116-stand rotary dairy and 14 irrigation centre pivots at Wye in the lower south east of South Australia.

The Manns are among Australia’s top 10 dairy producers, in terms of volume, milking up to 2300 cows and producing 19-21 million litres annually.

If only South Australia had more “cheap” solar and wind power, their electricity might be as low cost as the coal-fired Victorians:

Their move comes as South Australia’s dairy lobby has calculated the state’s dairy farmers paid about 40 per cent more for power than their Victorian neighbours last season.

The Mann’s are definitely going diesel this summer, but may set up a mixed solar-diesel-battery plan in the long run:

“Its embryonic, but information we have is saying we could get a payback within five years of (setting up a system on-farm) not connected to the grid, a combination of solar, diesel and batteries.

Imagine how expensive your electricity has to be for a small diesel generator to be cheaper than mass produced coal power? This could be the first time in 130 years that people connected to coal turbines switch off to use their own small fossil fueled generators because it’s cheaper.

Another world first for South Australia. And possibly a mark of the grid saturation point of intermittent renewables.



Melanie Phillips writes that the  climate “scientists” are startnig to admit that the computer models might be running “on the hot side” and we may have a bit longer to repent of our sins against  Gaia.
So the long walk-back from the doom merchandising begins. It will take a few more years and a few more trillion dollars thrown into emissions reduction and expensive renewable energy, but our politicians (except the Greens of course who are the thickest of the lot) will eventually wake up to the con.
The tragedy of lives lost by people who could not afford to heat or cool their homes, the jobs lost in manufacturing industries, the hospitals and schools that could have been funded on money diverted is all incalculable.


Climate scientists have now admitted they were wrong about man-made global warming and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Not very wrong, you understand, just a bit wrong. Apparently the planet is still going to hell in a carbon-lined hand-cart, just more slowly.

A study in the journal Nature Geoscience says the world has warmed more slowly than had been forecast by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions. You don’t say.

Global average temperature has risen by about 0.9C since pre-industrial times but there was a slowdown in the rate of warming for 15 years before 2014.

Er, would that be the slowdown that was authoritatively said not to have happened because the computer models all said it was impossible for it to happen, because everyone knew that rising CO2 levels inescapably caused global temperatures to rise and anyone who said the evidence of the slowdown showed the entire theory was bunkum and hogwash was a “denier”?

Yes, it would.

The Times reports:

“Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author, said: ‘We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.’

“He added that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago ‘so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations’. Too many of the models used ‘were on the hot side’, meaning they forecast too much warming.”

Nevertheless, according to the study rapid reductions in emissions will still be required – but the world now has more time to make the changes.

But if the computer models were wrong, on what evidence do these scientists base any calculation of what reductions in emissions will be required? On what basis do they still maintain there is a need for any reductions at all?

According to Myles Allen, the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”.

Oh really? Why isn’t it surprising? The theory hasn’t changed: you know, the theory – sorry, not a theory but the unchallengeable and incontrovertible and inconvenient truth – that rising CO2 levels cause a rise in global temperature.

So what exactly was it that had been fed into the computer models a decade ago that caused them to fail to predict that rising CO2 levels would not continue to cause such a rise in global temperature – or to be more precise, that they would cause a slowdown for a few years? Does the theory itself have a break for R&R? Because such a slowdown was certainly not included in the catechism of anthropogenic global warming theory.

Well, it was just those darned pesky computers that screwed up, wasn’t it, and led those scientists astray. Not the scientists’ fault at all, was it.

The truth is rather different. As many of us have been saying since AGW theory was first invented in 1988, the idea that computer modelling could ever predict something as stupendously complex as climate change was always scientifically illiterate. Computers are only as good as the information that is fed into them. If you feed rubbish in, you get rubbish out. Fed inadequate information designed to prove AGW theory, the computers disgorged predictions that proved AGW theory.

The whole thing was a scam from start to finish. Will these Potemkin scientists ever admit that? Even now the Met Office, among others, is still trying to spin the data, as David Whitehouse reports here.

For the past three decades, AGW zealots have insisted that “the science is settled” (itself another piece of anti-science illiteracy). They not only denounced as “deniers” those who actually looked at the evidence and questioned the theory but also sought to ruin their reputations and careers.

Climate-related science has been corrupted by ideologically-bent grant-funding only given to projects designed to prove the theory; government policies have been catastrophically skewed to undermine energy production and screw the poor through fuel bills inflated to meet the costs dumped on energy production through an orthodoxy no-one in government had the intelligence or cojones to fight.

We have been the victims of junk science. Maybe the highly limited admission of error in this study will help blow down the whole rotten facade of pseudo-science and finally expose this charlatanry for the ideological con-trick that it is.

Jo Nova- 91 Volcanoes in Antarctica Found Under The Melting Glaciers

Who would have thought it? Volcanoes, not CO2 melting the Antarctic Ice

Jo Nova writes

Antarctica – 91 volcanoes coincidentally found under glaciers warming “due to climate change”

It’s possibly the densest concentration of volcanoes in the world, some as high as 4km and we didn’t even know these existed til recently.  Despite that overwhelming ignorance, we’re 97.00% certain that all the warming in Antarctica is due to your car and airconditioner. Robin McKie, The Guardian writer, talks about the recent discovery of so many volcanoes under the ice. Not surprisingly, we have no data on how active these volcanoes are. However because we *know* climate change is definitely wrecking Antarctica, it follows that your car, air conditioner and pet dog could melt more ice, take the pressure off the tectonic plate and set one off. Then things will really get out of hand.

Anyhow, it’s just a coincidence that all the warming in Antarctica is where the volcanoes are.

Antarctica, Warming, Climate Change, volcanoes, West Antarctic, glaciers melting.

Warming in Antarctica   |    New volcano discoveries

Spread the hagtag #allvolcanosmatter.

From The Guardian: Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet

Scientists have uncovered the largest volcanic region on Earth – two kilometres below the surface of the vast ice sheet that covers west Antarctica.

The project, by Edinburgh University researchers, has revealed almost 100 volcanoes – with the highest as tall as the Eiger, which stands at almost 4,000 metres in Switzerland.

Geologists say this huge region is likely to dwarf that of east Africa’s volcanic ridge, currently rated the densest concentration of volcanoes in the world.

These newly discovered volcanoes range in height from 100 to 3,850 metres. All are covered in ice, which sometimes lies in layers that are more than 4km thick in the region. These active peaks are concentrated in a region known as the west Antarctic rift system, which stretches 3,500km from Antarctica’s Ross ice shelf to the Antarctic peninsula.

You Can’t Do Heavy Industry On Renewables

Maybe the Green-Left Collective is starting to wake up to the fact that even in a post-truth age, you can’t just pretend that wind and solar can replace thermal power without affecting the whole economy.


Jo Nova writes:

Matt Howell, the CEO of Tomago Aluminium Smelter, told a few home truths on ABC radio Monday.

To paraphrase in my own words:

1. Aluminium Smelters gobble electrons for breakfast. His smelter uses 10% of  the entire electricity supply of the most populous state in Australia (NSW).

2. If power goes out without warning for more than three hours, the smelter pot lines freeze, permanently. The company goes to the wall.

3. The largest battery in the world would keep their smelter going for all of 8 minutes. There is a good reason there are no solar or wind powered aluminium smelters anywhere in the world.

4. The government can ‘t let the market solve anything whilst it is simultaneously destroying the free market by propping up the market failures at the same time.

5. Electricity pricing has suddenly gotveryugly. Their electricity bill may now be subject to price spikes where it could cost them $4 million just to keep one pot line running during that spike. It is as if suddenly gas stations only sold $400 per Litre petrol. (Which would be$1800/per gallon).  What he doesn’t say, but which logically follows from that, is thatheavy industry in most of Australia can no longer get reliable electricity at an affordable price, even with forward contracts. Cry, scream, run with your factory.

6. In Australia, if we achieve “zero coal” we will also achieve “zero heavy manufacturing”.

7. If we want heavy industry, we need a HELE Coal plant. There are hundreds being built around the world, and we are selling our coal to them. How crazy are we?

Howell makes some great points. It’s good to see an ABC presenter willing to let the evil capitalists speak. Well done Matt Wordsworth. I found something worth listening to on the ABC this year.


Read the rest of the article, including the link to the interview here

Amazing: Plants Adapting to Increased CO2

The CSIRO has found that plants around the world are absorbing more CO2 and doing it more efficiently than ever before. As the concentration of CO2 rises in the atmosphere all kinds of plants are growing faster, but using relatively less water to do so.

This confirms the satellite images showing that the world is greening.

Rising carbon dioxide is making the world’s plants more water-wise

Land plants are absorbing 17% more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere now than 30 years ago, our research published today shows. Equally extraordinarily, our study also shows that the vegetation is hardly using any extra water to do it, suggesting that global change is causing the world’s plants to grow in a more water-efficient way.

Water is the most precious resource needed for plants to grow, and our research suggests that vegetation is becoming much better at using it in a world in which CO₂ levels continue to rise.

The ratio of carbon uptake to water loss by ecosystems is what we call “water use efficiency”, and it is one of the most important variables when studying these ecosystems.

Our confirmation of a global trend of increasing water use efficiency is a rare piece of good news when it comes to the consequences of global environmental change. It will strengthen plants’ vital role as global carbon sinks, improve food production, and might boost water availability for the well-being of society and the natural world.

Read the full article here