Politicians are continually increasing the risks of electricity blackouts with their dangerous climate policies. It is foolish in the extreme to believe that humans can change the future climate by collecting carbon taxes and covering the hills with wind turbines.
We should ask them: which is worse – gradual man-made global warming or sudden electricity blackout?
Alarmists try to scare us by claiming that man’s activities are causing global warming. Whether and when we may see new man-made warming is disputed and uncertain. If it does appear, the world will be slightly warmer, with more evaporation and rainfall; plants will grow better and colonise some areas currently too cold or too dry; fewer old people will die in winter and sea levels may continue the gradual rise we have seen since the end of the last ice age. There may even be a bit more “green” in Greenland. There is no evidence that man’s production of carbon dioxide is causing more extreme weather events. Any change caused by man will be gradual and there will be plenty of time to adapt, as humans have always done. Most people will hardly notice it.
What is certain, however, is that global warming policies are greatly increasing the chances of electricity blackouts, and here the effects can be predicted confidently – they will be sudden and severe.
Prominent climate alarmist James Hansen claims that the wisps of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere could melt all the ice caps, cause the ocean to boil and that would be the end for all of us.
Listen to the him trying to scare us witless:
Are we and the fishes and the corals in danger of being cooked?
The diagram below shows that the Pacific Ocean surface temperature is not rising – in fact it looks to be slowly turning into a cooling phase. The seasonal variations caused by the sun are obvious, but there is no correlation between this horizontal trend of temperature and the rising trend of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.
The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on the Australian federal government and the opposition to abolish all renewable energy targets, certificates and subsidies.
The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that it was time for those who worship wind turbines to pay their full cost, and not force electricity consumers and tax payers to pay for a costly, unreliable and obsolete method of generating electricity.
“Wind power has been around since Don Quixote and it belongs in an industrial museum not in a modern economy.
“For too much of the time, the wind just sucks subsidies when it should be turning turbines.
“The 20% renewable energy target is unachievable without perpetual government mandates and subsidies and should be abolished.”
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
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.”…
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
Keywords: Global warming, carbon dioxide, solar cycles, tornados, green energy in Europe, solar subsidies, renewable energy targets, blackouts, energy policy crisis, Green poison.
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.
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
Endangered Przewalski horses have become extinct in the wild. Photo: AP
Preservationists think that Herculean efforts should be made to preserve every dying species.
Attempting to preserve environments of the past, they lock up land, sea and mineral resources, prohibit development and oppose water conservation. And now, in a vain attempt to preserve the climate of the recent past, they are crippling our energy supplies with futile mandates and taxes designed to force-feed “green energy”.
They should engage in preservation activities at their own cost with their own property, but should not use governments to force society down this risky road.
RSS
