Climate Panic Blog Page 2a Newer Stories
Original Writing by StewGreen
Thinking it through saving energy uses energy
BBC just reported a report saying people spend the money they save on energy efficiency on more energy. OK don't gloat , but think further. Energy prices are continually going up. Family on 10K spends 2K on energy next year they will use 0.2K less, but price goes up by 0.1K and a further tax increase causes a 0.1K So actually Opec and tax office ends up with more money some of this will be spent on energy i.e. a 10% cut is really only a 9% or 8% overall.

So if these people don't spend their saving money on stuff, should they put it in the bank ? But surely if I invest my 0.2K the bank will lend out 10 times that ie 2K so if 10% of that is spent on energy then that’s 0.2K so no net carbon saving anyway.

If I spend the 0.2K on zero carbon stuff like piano lessons (a walk away) and the teacher spends the 0.2K on art classes etc Then there is a genuine saving.

PANIC ! Fossil fuels may run out in 300 years time
- Ice methane deposits are only 10 times the size of all the hydrocarbons ever used by man. Yet people have been banging on about Peak Oil must have known - my analysis

update : 09/11/07 - Brazil has just discovered huge reserves of oil, last week it was the Chinese in easy shallow water another spanner in the works for peak oil theory. And another case showing future projections are wrong.

Solar Experts maths is not very good Jeremy Leggett ABC Radio
his maths was just totally flawed. Things like by switching to solar torches Africans will save 30% of their income. Claims 1 kerosene lamp emits 360Kg of CO2/year, then says 1000Kg over 7 years, well which is it ? my analysis

1934 US warmest year, not 1998
NASA admits US temperature records are wrong
(update : when you look into the details you see that it's not such a big deal as the error was quite tiny, but it was enough to flip 1998 and 1934 around. So the sceptics can't scream so loud, but neither should the believers have been screaming "See it's getting hotter, when actually, before the correction 1998 was so minutely hotter. Still one side is able to say "the warmest 5 years ever were in the 1990's", whilst the others can say the warmest 10 years ever were in the 1930's)

From ..ABC's counterpoint programme

So climate models are wrong. A scientist noticed that the last years temperature records were lower than last years uniformly across the US when he questioned what was happening they admitted there has been an ongoing error with the way average temperatures have been calculated. Incredibly they didn't announce this. So 1934 is now the warmest year on record not 1998. The commentator said that he thought global climate models were wrong, as they fail to factor in the cooling effect of increased cloud an reiterated they are not predictions at all just "well it could be as bad as this" models as they are never able to say next years temperature will be X.

Sat : James Lovelock geologist spoke in favour of theory of MMCO2 disaster
- Europe will become a desert, normal reactions are useless tokens.. We need to put giant heat reflectors in space and mimic volcanoes, by spraying dust into the sky. .. Etc See pc369.htm

Sat : Ian Plimer geologist spoke against theory of MMCO2 disaster
This week on ABCs In Conversation, well-known sceptic and anti-creationist Professor Ian Plimer geologist spoke against theory of MMCO2 causing global warming. He spoke against the "consensus", calling it bad science. He was interviewed by ABC's Robin Williams an adamant non-skeptic and consistently answered the points logically and scientifically. Interesting to hear another experienced top scientist speak against "consensus", Williams was exasperated.

15 recently strong reports debunking GW
strong report on GW Is able to produce 15 recently strong reports debunking GW

Climate Bet Challenge

I see they carry an article by a scientist who will bet Al Gore $10,000 his climate predictions are wrong for the next 10 years.

it says “…there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.

9th July Counterpoint prog had "forecasting analyst"

on - made strong points 1. professional forecasters are not very good 2. IPCC forecasts are not scientific at all they are opinions site been running since 1997
turns out his US partner is the guy mentioned above "Following in the tradition of Julian's Simon Bet, Scott Armstrong will announce a $20,000 Global Warming Challenge (each side to post $10,000 to go to a charitable cause nominated by the winner) that he will be able to more accurately forecast climate change than can any current fully disclosed climate model. "

Their report

Human CO2 production miniscule

Human CO2 production miniscule compared to nature so can't assume atmospheric CO2 changes are due to humans : Professor Bob Carter (Marine Geophysical Laboratory James Cook University) said on ABC Radio National April 2007

My Error Volcanoes in normal years 1% of man, usually
I found a mistake in one of my key arguments : that Volcanoes throw off 80 times more CO2 than humans. When I checked my figures I found I had made an error in converting teragrams to tonnes cos there are a million grammes in a tonnes. So instead of volcano production being 80 times more than human; human is 100 times more than volcanoes . Volcanoes CO2 usually 1% of human

If a super volcano goes up then that's very different. The Yellowstone eruption is late, but could occur anytime in next 10,000 years.

It's the numbers stupid

It's the numbers stupid !

Upto 100% of global warming scaremongers are wrong

Upto 100% of global warming scaremongers are wrong The "upto" trick

Sydney "Earth Hour" a marketing scam

Sydney "Earth Hour" a marketing scam

Some Notes

New Scientist Gone Unscientific
What's happening to New Scientist ? It's writing about Climate Change in a totally unscientific way now all pop hysteria and no numbers. XDiscreditedX George Monbiot writes one of the main articles - is it just the Australian edition ? * My mistake 5/12/07 I had got him confused with the guy who wrote the book about Power Lines causing cancer, but that was Brodeur. He maybe a hyping none-scientist, frequent scare story writing journalist/activist and they maybe are giving him more weight than he deserves.. , but he wasn't the person I was thinking of so he's not the discredited one.

EU Law will force airlines to use carbon trading from 2009 - airline will get huge windfalls from carbon trading cos their initial limit is so high ..power sector has benefited big time already - doesn't really provide incentive to reduce CO2 at all.

new research : one says the Artic is melting, another that planting trees anywhere than the tropics produces more Global Warming - Logging is the answer to Australia's perceived global warming "crisis". "Tasmania's bushfire crisis would not be so severe if the state's forests had been logged rather than protected, Federal Forestry Minister Eric Abetz said today." more

"the upcoming report from the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) will reduce its estimate of the human effect on climate change by 25% and cut in half their estimate of the maximum rise in sea levels which climate change could cause.

A Skeptics Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism, Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists who Cover Global Warming , the first link I had, suddenly disappeared

What a good documentary programme the ABC Radio National Counterpoint - giving adequate time to present the contrary point of view to the quick, but "of course" soundbites we hear in the news. E.g. The movie Mine Your Own Business Mining companies view against eco- warriors good story

The answer to Gore's film about CC is now a book link

standby doesn't use much power 12th December
a physics professor told me TVs use 10W on standby as there is a heater on the tube so they come on quickly, this is the first I heard of it. The info on the internet was all blurred, but eventually the spec sheets of the conventional Philips TVs shows them all using less than 3W (I suspect real power is far less 0-1W). 1W is the 2006 "Energystar" requirement for most devices. Some people claimed to have measured higher on their home TVs, but it's quiet possible they were using equipment which is not designed to measure low power. US reports repeatidly spoke of saving $10 per year per TV which is bugger all. There is an argument to be made that some families have multiple devices all on standby, but I am willing to bet a lot of almost nothings is still nothing. All the stuff that people buy everyday well that's a lot of energy in manufacture and transport ..simple life.

Convenient Soundbites - Inconvenient complexities and Catastrophe Porn 12th December
The media love all kinds of catastrophes -they are instant big stories, easy to write.

There was a great journalist : (Andrew Bolt's opinion on Climate Change in the media on ABC .He questioned why the media picks up on the negative reports giving the public the impression that it’s all consensus that disaster is happening, when so many scientists disagree .
the audio : interview is 25 minutes into prog
--- Much More pc325

- and the unreported cosmic rays research
- business and government can see $$$ in CC
- the carbon trading scam

Even more stories ... Original Background Notes

HOME ** Feedback/comments ** stew@stewgreen.comnospam ** Index of My Essays