Carbon Dioxide is plant food. Earth is currently in a “CO2 famine”. The geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000ppm to as high as 8000ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than today’s levels. And, a peer-reviewed study this year found that the present day carbon dioxide level of 400ppm was exceeded – without any human influence – 12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm.

It is thus good news that carbon dioxide levels have reached 400ppm and the greening of planter earth can continue. Read more:

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/14/global-warming/

Wind energy is expensive, unreliable, kills thousands of rare birds, lives on subsidies, increases the risk of blackouts, annoys neighbours and devalues their property, messes up the environment and does not reduce the production of carbon dioxide. Check out this encyclopaedia of wind energy failings: http://www.akdart.com/wind.html

Combined climate and econometric computer models produce any desired result.

Ronald Bailey | August 2, 2013

… “In an incisive new study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Robert Pindyck rips the social cost of carbon estimates derived from integrated assessment computer models to pieces. In his National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?,” Pindyck concludes that the models all “have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs such as the discount rate are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the social cost of carbon estimates that models produce.” Pindyck adds that the “models’ descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the social cost of carbon, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome.”…

Full article: http://reason.com/archives/2013/08/02/the-social-cost-of-carbon-garbage-in-gar

By Kimball Rasmussen | President and CEO, Deseret Power | November 2010
With Acknowledgement to: John Droz at the Alliance for Wise Energy: http://www.wiseenergy.org/

“Wind energy has a highly intermittent output that significantly mismatches demand and delivers energy largely when it is less needed. Wind cannot satisfy the demand requirements of a utility unless it is backed up with fossil fuel plants and/or energy storage projects. This results in duplication of resources and additional costs, with little, if any, carbon mitigation. Further, the steep increases and declines in power delivery of wind put the reliability of the grid in question. The tactic of switching off excess wind supply only diminishes the already weak pattern of intermittency and adds to the per kWh cost of wind. Typically, wind resources are located far away from where the power is needed and require significant additional costs of building new transmission. Intermittency, duplication and grid operations all significantly increase the already high cost of wind energy.

“Wind becomes even more questionable when proven solutions like natural gas can deliver even greater reductions in emissions at half the cost.

“While solar power is much more grid friendly than wind, it is generally the most expensive form of renewable energy. Solar energy quasi-matches system peak load periods, but the peak solar output significantly misses actual electric system load peaks. In addition, solar facilities still produce only about 18 to 25 percent of the time. Without electricity storage, solar energy will not be able to do more than serve as a supplement to other forms of energy. It is not currently a full-scale alternative to baseload energy.

“A Renewable Portfolio Standard, or mandate of 20 percent, can result in a utility-scale duplication of net investment in generating plant of 100 percent or more. The mandate can also cause the wide variation of rate impacts, depending on availability of renewable energy projects and other utility specific parameters.”

Full detailed report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/rational-look-at-renewable-energy.pdf [PDF, 3.5MB]

Climate Alarmists Rebuffed in Australian Election

The climate alarmists and carbon taxers have suffered a body blow in the recent Australian elections – it was a turning point in the war on carbon.

The victorious leader, Tony Abbott, had made it absolutely clear throughout the campaign and in the days immediately after his victory, that abolishing the carbon tax is one of his immediate priorities. Many factors played a part in his victory, but his outspoken and steadfast opposition to the carbon tax was an important one.

Thank you to our supporters for all the congratulatory comments about the role of “Carbon Sense” in preparing the way for this public revolt. Here are a couple:

Well Done Oz, well done Carbon Sense.
I congratulate Australia for chucking out those who were destroying your country, and congratulate you and “Carbon Sense” for the unyielding, persistent stream of useful scientific and logical argument against the climate lobby. Your message has been so powerful and so well presented for so long, surely it played a significant part in keeping the majority on the side of reason?
M.R.

I have followed your crusade and cheered for you. After all, your personal energy and determination must have had an important role in reminding your fellow Australians that the scare tactics and policies of climate change fanaticism are nothing more than a scheme of the political left. I am amazed by your lasting commitment to defend the professional and scientific truth about carbon, and challenge the claims and lies of demagogic politicians and opportunistic “scientists”. I must thank you for your efforts and would be honoured if we could maintain our professional link and friendship.
M.M.

And a General Comment:

Maybe you should change your name from “Carbon Sense” to simply “good sense”.
Even though I think you’re stark raving mad sometimes – other times I think you’re maybe the only sane one left! You remind me of Sisyphus at times!! Keep up the battle.
K.C.

There was good news and bad news in the election.

The good news was that the Labor/Green/Independent coalition that had led Australia into the unwinnable war on carbon was decisively rejected. The Labor vote fell to its lowest level for a century, the Green vote fell 3% and the independents who helped create and support this destructive green coalition are no longer in Parliament.

The other feature of this campaign was the high public interest in the election and the big dissatisfaction with all major parties. Lots of small single-issue parties were formed and contested the election. Most of these small parties were also opposed to the carbon tax.

And a few of them were smart enough to maintain strict discipline among themselves on how preference votes were directed, ensuring that some of them were elected to the Senate.

There was one bad note in the election. Two prominent new small parties, the Palmer United Party (PUP) and the Katter Australia Party (KAP) foolishly directed significant preferences to the ALP and/or Greens ahead of the Liberal/Nationals. This was done partly out of spite, but mainly in a big gamble that did not always pay off.

Bob Katter’s largely conservative supporters reacted badly to him “assisting the enemy” and his primary vote fell dramatically. His hold on his own electorate has become marginal. Clive Palmer’s pact with the Greens got less publicity before the election and he did surprisingly well all over Australia. He probably got one Senator elected because of his shady deal with the green devils, but then in another state a Green Senator will probably be elected on Palmer preferences. So we may be stuck for six years with at least one Green senator who should not have been elected.

Another feature of the election was the minimal support for the anti-coal-seam-gas party.

Now we need to make sure the new government dismantles the whole climate industry.

Stop Press: Germany’s conservatives also just won a massive victory in their latest election. Greens lost heavily, their vote falling from 16% in polls early in the year to 8% now (from 11% last election). More:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/merkel-wins-third-term-in-general-election-a-923755.html

More, as well as:

• How to Untangle the Climate Bureaucracy: Last In, First Out
• Abolish the Unreliable Energy Targets
• Arctic Ice Confounds Costly Computers
• Taxing Air
• We Have a New Consensus: 99% of Climate Models Overestimated Global warming
• The Last Word

Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/carbon-quake.pdf [PDF, 101kB]

Keywords: Australian Election, Green vote falls, dismantling the climate bureaucracy, renewable energy targets, Arctic ice, taxing air, climate models fail.

Killing Australia’s carbon tax is a good idea but it should happen immediately, not later.

But replacing it with an ETS is a very bad idea and should never happen.

The carbon tax is a known amount, simple in principle, needs no bankers or brokers, and all receipts end up in Australian hands. And it is easy to abolish at any time.

The ETS is a variable and unpredictable carbon tax. It creates business uncertainty, is complex in operation, encourages brokers, lawyers and speculators and it will drain our money to middlemen and into the European carbon credit casino. And it will create a growing army of vested interests who will forever oppose its abolition.

Neither the fixed tax nor the vacillating tax will have any beneficial effect on climate.

The carbon tax should be axed, but replaced with … NOTHING.

More, as well as:

• The Heavy Cost of Climatism
• Who’s Afraid of a Bit of Warmth?
• Warmists should Go the Whole Hog
• “Taxing Air” by Bob Carter, John Spooner and friends
• Stop the Greens who Gamble with our Future

Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/replace-ctax-with-nothing.pdf [PDF, 41KB]

Keywords: Carbon tax, Emissions Trading, corruption, speculation, Kyoto failure, ice ages bad – warmth good.

The Australian Climate Commission says Australia needs to reduce emissions “to nearly zero by 2050”.

Such a reduction can only be achieved if the Climate Commission has a secret plan to use nuclear power or for a massive expansion of hydro power.

If they do not have such a plan, their “nearly zero” emissions target would force the shut down of most of the energy, transport and industrial infrastructure developed since James Watt invented the steam engine.

Imagine Australia with “zero emissions” – which means zero production of carbon dioxide from human activities and industries.

This would mean zero usage of coal, oil, petrol, diesel or gas, zero production of cement or steel and the shut-down of 92% of Australia’s electricity generators.

Sunbeams and sea breezes cannot supply 24/7 electricity – the only feasible non-carbon options for Australian grid power are nuclear or hydro. Has the Climate Commission joined the nuclear power lobby? Or do they have a secret plan for big hydro developments on the Snowy, the Franklin and the Tully-Millstream?
And how do we keep our diesel-fuelled transport fleet operating? Using big, big batteries and even more nuclear or hydro power to recharge them at every roadhouse in the outback? (But once they eliminate our grazing animals and their emissions, we will not need road trains.)

And how do we keep planes operating? Are they suggesting that we divert most of our sugar production to producing power alcohol?
(more…)

Vincent Gray is a Wellington scientist with a long career in research who has specialised in climate science for over 20 years. He has submitted comments on all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1,898 for the last one. He has published critiques on many of the issues involved and has concluded that carbon dioxide has a beneficial effect on the climate and not a harmful one.

Here are his conclusions on the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere;

• All plants depend on carbon dioxide, which is also the source of much of that other life-supporting gas, oxygen.
• There is no correlation between variations in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and surface temperature.
• The increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is wholly beneficial. There is no evidence it causes harm.

Read more: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/gray-carbon-dioxide-beneficial.pdf

We are told, incessantly, that carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming – it is not.

The primary source of surface heat is radiant energy from the sun. Minor heat comes from geothermal energy from volcanoes and hot rocks. Trivial quantities of local heat are brought to Earth’s surface by humans using stoves, cars, boilers, engines and factories powered by mined fuels such as coal, oil, gas and uranium. Even using “green” energy such as ethanol, wind or wood has a tiny temperature effect by transferring solar energy from farms and forests, to be released eventually as waste heat in cities.

Solar energy is more concentrated in equatorial areas and is moved pole-wards by the circulation of air (99.9% nitrogen, oxygen and argon), and by water and water vapour via evaporation, condensation and ocean currents. These processes are all driven by conduction, convection, latent heat and Earth’s rotation, not carbon dioxide. They are the major forces creating weather. Variations in solar cycles and cloud cover control longer term climate change.

Carbon dioxide plays almost no part in any of these dominant weather processes. Moreover, it does not burn, nor is it radioactive – it cannot produce heat.

More, as well as:

• Spinning Carbon Scare Stories out of Nature’s Tornados
• Europe’s Green Hell
• Sunset for Solar Subsidies
• The Green Kiss of Death

Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/gas-of-global-warming.pdf

Keywords: Global warming, carbon dioxide, solar cycles, tornados, green energy in Europe, solar subsidies, renewable energy targets, blackouts, energy policy crisis, Green poison.

The Kyoto Protocol was dreamed up by the Climate Jet-set in Kyoto, Japan in 1997.

One of the first decisions of born-again-green PM, Kevin Rudd, was to commit Australia to Kyoto Phase 1 in 2007. This treaty required signatories to reduce production of carbon dioxide to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012.

As a late joiner, Australia got a lower target, involving no actual cuts. And they achieved that easy target by robbing Australian landowners – they stole carbon credits from landowners by imposing tree clearing bans. That larcenous trick can’t be pulled twice.

Ironically, the death notice for the Kyoto misadventure was posted by Japan, the birthplace of Kyoto, when they announced at Cancun in 2010 that Japan would not agree to any further targets. Japan was shocked at the billions in liabilities they had accumulated by not meeting Kyoto 1 target cuts.

Undeterred by this warning, another ALP/Green government agreed to Kyoto 2 in 2012 – 5% below 2000 levels by 2020.

This target, agreed to without due diligence, is dreamland stuff for Australia. Once the growing population is taken into account, this target would require Australians in 2020 to maintain industries and create new jobs using 30% less hydro-carbon energy per capita than was used in 2000.

Mining and mineral processing, agriculture, manufacturing, transport, tourism, electricity generation, cement, forestry and fishing are the backbone industries of Australia.

Not one of these industries could maintain production while also significantly reducing their production of carbon dioxide, unless Australia embarks on a crash program of building new hydro and/or nuclear power stations. The chance that green regulators or politicians will allow either of these options any time soon is zero.

The use of carbon fuels, more than any other indicator, measures the growth and health of modern economies. The only way to kill carbon is to kill the economy – close industries or send them overseas. The Global Financial Crisis probably did more to reduce the use of hydro-carbon fuels than Kyoto will ever do.

Japan’s exit from Kyoto obligations was soon followed by Canada and Russia. USA never signed, nor did China, India, South Africa or Brazil.

Thus the four biggest economies in our region (USA, China, Japan and India) are not burdened by Kyoto. Nor are our big competitors – Brazil (iron and beef), Indonesia (coal), Chile (copper) and Canada (wheat). We only have the Kiwis and the faraway Europeans sharing the sinking Kyoto ship.

The Kyoto Agreement is a failure. Australia repealed the costly carbon dioxide tax. Next we should get rid of Kyoto liabilities.

Read more, as well as:

• Penguins Pray for Global Warming
• Enviro-Hypocrites
• The Overflow Column for other items of interest

Read the full report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/kill-kyoto.pdf [PDF, 154KB]

Keywords: Kyoto liabilities, Antarctic ice, penguins, environmental hypocrites, climate summits, false consensus, species extinction, kill climate sceptics, climate summit, natural gas car.