Paul Syvret seems to be hoping no one will notice that he doesn’t even try to respond to arguments about wind turbines. His technique to avoid debate is to decree that some other people were wrong once on a different topic. They used a rapid fire technique called a Gish Gallop, so therefore, thusly and henceforth anyone with a rapid fire technique can be dismissed with a handy wave of The Gish. It’s just another label in Syvret’s all-purpose excuse-list for not having a grown up conversation.
Those who have no evidence just make things up and toss insults. Syvret of The Courier Mail defends the wind industry from its critics — not with data about windfarms, but with allegations of imaginary astroturfing and denialism. He uses all his biggest scientific words: it’s “a barrage of BS”, “pseudo-science”, and a crusade run by a rat-bag in an incestuous network. He wants to make sure his readers know the critics are shills and conspiracy nutters because, well… he says so.
The Australian Environment Foundation is his main target today. What’s it guilty of? Well, it links to unpaid bloggers that Syvret doesn’t like: those ” sites promoting climate-change denial (such as junk science queen and conspiracy theorist Jo Nova) .”
It’s guilt by association, and three bonus mistakes in one sentence: Syvret can’t name any science the “deniers” deny, any “junk science” on my site, or any conspiracy theory I promote. Not firing blanks are we Paul?
Spot the real conspiracy theory
Syvret is convinced that money drives skeptics and unnamed “vested interests” conspire with the IPA. He has exactly no evidence to back this up. I don’t think he’s noticed though.
He thinks the critics of windfarms just pretend to be “grassroots”. As if no rational citizen could possibly object to wind towers even though they are expensive, unreliable, and don’t make any difference to CO2 emissions. Indeed any sane Green ought to object to them because there are far better ways to reduce CO2 (if only it mattered). If you care about the environment, wouldn’t you want the green-money spent on something that worked and didn’t kill quite so many bats and birds?
Unlike him, I don’t need to invent conspiracies — I can just talk about systematic flaws and quote studies.
- Wind powered electricity costs 2 – 3 times as much as coal fired electricity (Victorian Auditor General).
- The intermittent power is tough on the grid, and makes coal-fired efficient plants run inefficiently (Inhaber 2011).
- South Australian windfarms have saved a mere 4% of their rated capacity in fossil fuels at a cost of $1,484 per ton. (That would be 96% useless, and costing 150 times more than necessary for what they do — Hamish Cummings AEMO Data.)
- They are falling over, will probably snap in half at sea, and the latest studies show their theoretical capacity was “overestimated” by a factor of 2 – 14 (Adams 2013).
- They kill eagles and explode bat lungs. (See also Sharp 2010 and Subramanian 2012.)
- $250 billion a year is invested into renewables each year (UNEP). Doesn’t that count as a “vested interest”? Or is “vested interest” just another insult to be tossed, rather than two English words to convey information?
But now I’m just Gishing aren’t I? Too many points, and Syvret can wave The Gish, and 6 million raptors and bats will be grateful. Spared the slicing and dicing thanks to his neutralizing logic.
Now maybe wind farms are getting better at not killing bats and birds; I hear they are improving. And there may be a role for towers in remote areas, or in the future. Perhaps we ought be spending more researching them. But Syrvet’s response to the cost-benefit analysis is essentially to say “You are a paid astroturfer and mentally deficient nut.”
This is not the kind of reasoning that Western Civilization was built on.
Can anyone name a wind project that doesn’t need forced payments from taxpayers to survive and which reduces CO2 emissions in the grid it works in?
If one such “farm” exists, how much it will cost to reduce world temperatures by 0.1 degree with that technology, rounded to the nearest trillion?
Move along here, there’s nothing to see
Is Paul Syvret just another victim of sloppy language and one-sided research? Did he fall for the “denier” label and assume he didn’t need to meet a skeptical scientist, or even read their blogs?
Name-calling bites the name-caller: brain off, parrot-mode engaged — pass along the abuse. He reflexively reeled off “climate change denier” without even investigating the words, let alone the targets — can he name a single person who denies the climate changes? Who is that strange soul who thinks the Earth was once a perfect constant global 15C.
Name-calling serves a diversionary purpose. Some unwitting readers (like Paul) will write the targets off without even hearing their point of view. If you have a megaphone, insults will work for a while. But skeptics have a megaphone too. No wonder thousands of readers are turning off the junk journalism and shifting online to where the real debate is.
Has journalism become a theatre-of-therapy? It’s almost as if Syvret has projected all his own failures onto his opponents. Within the one article, lies the baseless conspiracy theory, the loopy logic, and the urge to whip up loathing in the rent-a-rage crowd. Who is the denier here?
REFERENCES
Amanda S Adams, David W Keith. Are global wind power resource estimates overstated? Environmental Research Letters, 2013; 8 (1): 015021 DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015021
Inhaber, Herbert (2011) Why wind power does not deliver the expected emissions reductions, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, volume 15, pages 2557–2562.
Victorian Auditor-General’s Report, Facilitating Renewable Energy Development, April 2011. 2010-11:27. PP No 21, Session 2010–11 [PDF]
Sharp. A., DEH Conservation Programs Manager, Northern & Yorke Region (2010) Briefing note on the effects of wind farms on bird and bat populations, Government of South Australia [PDF]
Meera Subramanian (2012) The trouble with turbines: An ill wind, Nature, 486, 310–311. [source]
UNEP report “Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment” (2012)
“firing blanks” . Are you saying hes impotent or just infertile?
151
How about un-important and infantile.
443
[snip]
11
i have no idea what you said ace but it must have been good
30
“Firing blanks” is a military term which means going through the motions, and experiencing what it might be like, “for real”, but not actually doing anything useful, and not having any effect whatsoever.
It applies to most journalists in the Australian tabloid media.
390
i thought you where a journo……………..oh yes of course in NZ my mistake.
21
So “Firing blanks” doesn’t mean burning wood hip pellets instead of coal then ?
10
Another excellent take down by the ‘queen of logic’ – not ‘junk science’ – that’s a Syvret competence!
Like all CAGW alarmists Syvret has no inclination to debate and no evidence to offer, only ad homs and other logical fallacies.
Once they’re reduced to name-calling it doesn’t take long for the general public to see that they’re all wind and no substance.
Syvret: clearly in the pay of ‘BIG WIND’.
454
The only thing usually missing from Paul Syret articles for the Courier Mail is the disclaimer:
‘This Article is a paid presentation for Greens/Labor’
He has a history of poor articles in support of Labor, one of the funniest being that when Labor was reduced to 7 seats from an overwhelming majority in the Queensland State Parliment that it was a message to Coalition Leader Tony Abbott. The State Election wasn’t a close run thing BEFORE the State Labor brand started flinging mud….
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/abbotts-lesson-in-alp-licking/story-e6frerdf-1226310735673
The logic of this stooge is certainly something that proves that natural selection sometimes fails.
333
Meant Syvret not Syret. My apologies.
10
Mine also. When my Queensland friend referred to the Queensland nut, I always thought he meant the macadamia.
20
Instead of discussing the critique and fight their arguments he solely do the “ad hom” distractions/off rail thing. Mostly hand way wing.
There are only 2 possible arguments for today’s wind power.
The first is that it’s sole purpose is to be a ideological symbol for the leftist and greenies(have a strong feeling they are mostly placed where they can be seen?) Like the church for Christians. The second is to give believers a good feeling when they see them. But if you know that they probably mostly are meant as ideological symbols(radical environmentalism) and the simple facts that they are expensive and solve nothing it will instead give people a bad feeling when they see them.
10
He’s not all bad, Jo, he called you a Science Queen!
Or is that more sceptic cherry-picking?
72
My guess is that he represents a culture and ideology that basis is undermined by reality, simple logic and science.
Hence “science queen” is probably an insult and label, free target, for his culture? Hate speech?
00
Where have I seen this guy before? He looks very familiar. Oh! I know him, he lives in a place called The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC USA.
The similarity is not just remarkable, it’s a mirror image. They have become extremely adept at this; able to dodge a tall question at a single bound, more powerfully than a locomotive and faster than a speeding bullet — Super Dodger Man.
Not only has the public begun to believe but they themselves are starting to believe their own hot air.
It proves what we’ve already known (or should already know), that if you say it often enough, by some magic it becomes true. But don’t be too hard on Syvret Obama. After all, he has hungry mouths to feed. The similarity to maggots comes to mind. 🙁
Before you begin to think I’m too hard on them, remember the harm they’re doing. Then judge my attitude.
331
Roy,
In my business, we have a saying, “The further away you are, the clearer the view”. From the perspective of the U.S. or New Zealand, it is easy to see that this guy is a self-opinionated drone. But within his personal sphere, I am sure that he is a legend in his own lunchtime.
381
I think the dissenter(s) prove the point for you, Rereke. Isn’t that considerate of them? 🙂
I’m beginning to like red thumbs sometimes.
30
I’ve pooped things with more intelligence than Syvret … to be sure, he is nothing more than an ignorant git, the self appointed one-man Queensland political opposition in place of the Tarago occupants (not enough labor members in opposition to fill a Tarago), a shill for the socialist eco-loons … I’m sure that there’s an academic paper that he can be slotted into, I’m thinking along the lines of a Lewpaper.
82
I’m thinking more along the lines of bog paper
20
Joanne, you’ve suggested he could claim “victim status” and he doesn’t deserve it.
There are true victims in the world that are demeaned by the inference and he doesn’t deserve being afforded an alibi for what he is doing.
62
Victims of this guy’s particular brand of madness to be precise.
41
Mark, I don’t think Syrvet would be grateful to be described as journo who didn’t see through an obvious word game, fell for the false meme, and parroted it all the way.
113
He wouldn’t notice
40
“Can anyone name a wind project that doesn’t need forced payments from taxpayers to survive , and which reduces CO2 emissions in the grid it works in?”
The first question above is interesting; in other words , is there an economic wind operation anywhere, any scale?
Anyone?
160
Actually, I have heard of some. A few backcountry farmers in New Zealand are installing wind turbines to power water pumps, electric fences, remote radio control and monitoring equipment, and other electric infrastructure.
These units are tiny. They would barely supply the average household with power. But, putting these units in, is cheaper than running, and maintaining, a distribution line over long distances.
Installation costs are high, in terms of buying the unit and batteries, and in the opportunity cost of installation (they do it themselves). Also, the batteries need replacing at fairly frequent intervals (yearly?) because of the temperature extremes they experience.
On the benefit side, New Zealand has no shortage of wind, and the guv’mint hasn’t found a way of taxing it, yet. So, even with the maintenance overheads, it is still reckoned to be cost justified.
(Source: Presentations given at the National Agricultural Field Days at Mystery Creek in the Waikato)
Note: These units don’t do anything in regard to controlling CO2 emissions (or the stock emissions), but neither does anything else.
210
RW, my understanding is that there are a collection of windmills that generate at 50% (of the time), may be near Wellington – a world beating ratio for windmills I am told. However, whether this is ‘economic’ I wouldn’t know. If the price for power is high enough, any generation becomes economic (provided someone wants to/can pay for it), including the recruitment of large crowds to blow at the windmills when aeolian activity flags.
30
They are only economic because the land they are on was not really viable for farming – too much wind, don’t-ya-know.
40
Take away the subsidies and artificial crutches and none of them can be described as capable of standing on their economic merits.
30
You have reminded me of a Japanese accountant commenting on end of financial year reporting, “much rotation and dangerous” he said
20
He meant to say that it was a vicious circle
40
I had to give you a tick for that — it was nicely done. 🙂
10
Uh-oh. They’re back … Karoly & Co.
At WUWT:
“Australian scientists take 6 degrees of global warming off the table, say it is closer to 2 degrees”
Progress? Not exactly. Just means we have to destroy everyone’s standard of living much faster …
92
They should have mentioned that the whole range should be moved downward with 2C as their now ‘likely’ increase … but that would put the other end of the scale in the negative, much like the cold weather currently experienced everywhere around the world.
30
An excellent riposte, Jo. It must be so exhausting for you – seems every five minutes along comes another common purpose climate troll prepared to sling mud at anyone who dares dissent from the approved CAGW narrative. Keep it up, though; your good manners and your sourced responses must chafe them more than we’ll possibly ever know. The best ammunition we have, as you prove time and again, are the facts – just the facts, with none of the taxpayer-funded hyperbole so favoured of the warmist crowd.
316
Have you noticed the major technique of alarmists is not to offer any cohesive arguments in favor, but to actively discourage in every way possible people from checking a word they say. There are maybe many analogies that are more appropriate, but would be less civil. But the door-to-door salesman is most appropriate.
– Has had two days training in how to pretend to know everything, when they know nothing.
– Disparages the opposition, or pretends that they do not exist.
– Makes false or grossly exaggerated claims about the products (always careful never to say anything that can be contradicted).
– Gets endorsements, that are virtually worthless.
– Says the customer cannot do without the product, and their is an extreme risk that their very existence is in jeopardy if they do not sign up now.
– Given phoney massive discounts that are only available now and never to be repeated.
The best trades people are the ones who you have to persuade to quote (they are too busy), will honestly tell you where they stand, provide references and encourage you to seek alternatives.
212
Sounds like you’re describing Monckton there: spout nonsense and yell at people if they call you on it.
Science on the other hand, is written down and published.
Seeing as *you* don’t have any science, you resort to calling them “alarmists”. Bit of a giveaway that you haven’t a leg to stand on, really.
(Can you focus on the topic instead and leave off the complaining?) CTS
1371
This is not at all a “resort”. Its a factual description, whereas they, the alarmists resort to such nonsense as calling people “climate deniers”.
I am sure that Lord Monckton would be more than happy to take you up on anything you care to label as “nonsense”. We would be more than happy also, so rather than just coming here trolling, why don’t you open a discussion on whatever in particular you have difficulty with?
323
See there’s your problem Vince, Science is not about pieces of paper. It’s the process of predicting the world around us using observations to constantly improve our understanding.
I’m proud not to have any of your *science* – because you’ve been fooled into thinking some fake religious method of incantation via computer simulation is *science*. You don’t know what science is.
485
So your answer to Manicbeancounter is to launch a series of ad hominem statements and a non sequitur?
What a waste of bits and bandwidth!
Do you actually have some thoughts, some glimmering of an idea, some perspective on the discussion, that you could share with us?
Or do you just live an empty life, in the echo chamber of your own mind, without sense of purpose or direction, having to be content with regurgitating some of the non-statements you have seen or heard elsewhere?
If it is the latter, then I am truly sorry for you, because your life is unlikely to get any better than it is right now.
291
“Do you actually have some thoughts, some glimmering of an idea, some perspective on the discussion, that you could share with us? ”
Note of the three comments it has left that 10.1 was actually the last one (so far).
So the answer there is most likely No.
Whirlwind by name, whirlwind by nature!
A presence as ephemeral as its evidence.
51
Andrew, I think you’ll have to explain the meaning of ephemeral to Vince, he can’t quite grasp the intangibility of the concept! Mind you, I suspect that it is not the only thing his particular brand of intellectualism finds elusive.
30
Not always. That is the error people like you continually make, to claim that in order for something to be science it has to be published. It does not, in order for something to be science it has to follow the scientific method, something people like you continually avoid mentioning. Why is the scientific method so foreign and frightening to you? That is the only conclusion I can reach since you fail to mention it every single time you start with the “publish” crap as what defines science. Could it be that you avoid bringing up the scientific method because your “science” avoids using it? Seems to be the case the closer one looks at the “evidence” for CAGW.
Science is a matter of HOW things are done, not where, not by whom, no journals or publications required. Just an inquisitive mind, an understanding of the scientific method, and knowing when a hypothesis has been invalidated through testing it. Of course knowing the difference between a hypothesis and a theory is helpful too, a bit of knowledge that appears to have been overlooked in the education of many of the climate “scientists.”
290
Yes, like realizing that all the climate models have now been invalidated by actual temperature data… they have been measured and found wanting…..
220
Vince Whirlwind and Paul Syvret
Forget all this denouncing of your critics. You are only preaching to the converted, and strengthening the doubters. As climate science is very much about public relations, what you and others are doing is a public relations disaster. Telling untruths and misrepresenting opponents’ positions only gets their backs up. Creating prejudice and blocking them from the media creates a suppressed group that gives reason for their existence.
To put it colloquially, you are in a hole, so stop digging. Public relations works best when it presents positive images. I will help you out here. Assuming that you are on the side of true science, and we are heading for some sort of climate catastrophe, then there are three very positive ways that you can start winning the waverers over, and quieten the likes of Jo Nova once and for all.
First is by demonstrating past predictions have come true. The more visible and unambiguous the predictions, the greater the impact will be on the public. Things like
– Temperatures rising in line with predictions of twenty years ago.
– Snow now being a thing of the past in Britain and Germany.
– Upward trend in tropical storms since Hurricane Katrina.
– Arctic Ocean being ice-free in the summer of 2012.
– Some African countries on their way to a 50% reduction in crop yields by 2020.
Second is to counter the claims climate scientists practice pseudo-science. This may include
– Show that the methods are in the tradition of the greatest scientists like Newton, Pasteur, Einstein and Feynman. Where different, explain why climate science’s methods are superior, or more appropriate.
– Define clearly the boundaries of climate science, and the different skills and specialisms within it. People might then start appreciating what a complex and diverse the subject actually is.
– Demonstrate how climate science learns from the different philosophies of science.
– Climate science needs to draw upon a number of areas. Try demonstrating how the science draws upon specialists in statistics, forecasting and other disciplines.
– Show how proper controls are being implemented and adhered to in order to prevent any conflicts of interest from, for instance, the same people creating temperature sets who are also the trying to vigorously promote their theories.
Third is to demonstrate a clear social responsibility with respect to policy. As the UNIPCC AR4 stated mid-point of studies on the social cost of CO2 to be $12 per tonne (range -$3 to $95). Climate scientists should encourage socially responsibility in these fields by advocating the auditing of policy and the implementation of policy by the relevant experts in the fields. It is a bit like pharmaceutical companies clearly stating the dangers of their products if inappropriately used, or the army showing they have sufficient control of their weaponry to prevent rogue elements taking control of it to mount an insurrection.
I would encourage debate on this issue, and have made a longer posting here.
82
With this single statement you have shown that you don’t have the slightest idea of what science is.
I sincerely hope that you continue to comment here and as widely as possible, especially in letters to the editors of the various news journals; in doing so you could be one of the most effective voices for climate realism.
00
Science can be written down and published, but it does NOT require publishing in a “peer-reviewed” journal, which is what climate change advocates seem to thrive on. Nothing in science requires publishing in any kind of journal–these were just convenient ways to exclude all opposing views to climate science. Originally, the journals may have been high quality, but current journal studies often resemble comic book studies (one on farting on airplanes comes to mind). They mean little to science.
We generally write science down and publish it. In the 21st century, that includes internet publishing. This opens the theories to even more scrutiny, which is a good thing in real science.
20
I think we would be all better off if you had not drawn attention to this eco-twit. I get it that he personally dissed you but when you read his drivel it is about as weighty a critique as being called a poo face by a two year old. He seems to have some sort of eco- A.D.D [snip]
172
Sounds like another person that could use an anti-defamation letter from his Lordship. Bet he wouldn’t debate him either.
Baseless insults are all I saw in a cursory glance at his bile dump. I see the press are becoming increasingly feral, perhaps to compete with the blogosphere.
Aren’t people interested in reading rational news and articles?
145
Yeah, because all of…um…er…zero of Monckton’s ludicrous threats have resulted in a win for him.
747
Oh, so in the weird world of Whirlwind, a confidential out of court settlement does not constitute a win? A weird world indeed – naivety rules, OK.
262
Are you referring to Monckton’s imaginary $60,000 “win” against George Monbiot?
714
Now how could I possibly comment on something that would have been, and therefore remains, confidential? Do try to catch up with the rest of us, Margot.
142
So you *are* referring to the settlement that only ever existed in somebody’s imagination.
716
That is entirely a figment of your imagination, as is much of what you spout here. Your naivety is astounding.
What I am saying, first to Wince Vilewind, and then to yourself, is that it is quite normal, in slander cases (and many commercial cases) for one or both parties to request the confidentiality of the court in regard to the judgement and the details of any costs and compensation handed down. Justice is done, but public reputations are maintained, by such a means.
So the answer is that we do not know, nor can we know, how many cases may have been brought and won or lost. And even if I could find out, I would not mention it on a public forum, because I would be in contempt of court if I did.
You really have no idea how the world works, do you?
125
Addendum: When I say “slander”, I also mean “libel”. I point this out to prevent the “must-win-at-all-costs” nit-pickers from starting another meaningless thread.
112
As Oddball said in “Kelly’s Heros”
Instead of doing people down, trying saying something positive about climate science. Stuff like
Or
I have even helped you out with a few suggestions of my own.
10
This article is much appreciated.
I long since ceased to look for anything which has any serious thought attached to it regarding the matter of climate science, or politics, in Syvret’s articles, or, for that matter, in the Courier Mail!
201
Isn’t it nice that people who loathe the idea of protecting the environment are suddenly so concerned about birds and bats?
1159
Who are these people who loathe the idea of protecting the environment?
Are you referring to the people who want to despoil the environment by covering the uplands with hundreds, or even thousands. of windmills?
And what has that to do with a third-rate journalist?
434
Strawman. Most here are as passionate about the environment as the next person. I for one stated years ago that Abbott should steal Labor’s thunder by rejecting a ‘carbon’ tax or ETS in favour of directly fixing real environmental problems.
But then you aren’t here for real debate are you? Gish away troll.
264
You mean those people who label the essential gas CO2 as a pollutant? Those who wish to cover the planet with windmills? Have you ever researched how much pollution is created in their manufacture? Have you ever researched their inefficiency?
The biosphere LOVES CO2 !!!!! Suck on that buster…. “OH! The truth! The truth!! Oh my!!!”
232
Can you please clarify for us Backslider, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right?
528
Margot, I repeat: What business do you have asking this question here when you haven’t even admitted that the term is fundamentally wrong in the previous thread?
101
Mark, are you saying that the Greenhouse Effect is a non-existent natural process?
518
Foul: You ignore his question, by substitution of a different question. You really need to lift your game.
190
[SNIP. Get it? Stop thread bombing with irrelevant points. – Jo]
69
Margot, what could ever be a “non-existent natural process”?
61
You tell us Mark.
The rest of the world accepts the Greenhouse Effect as a known, natural process.
What’s your take on this?
315
Oh look everyone. Margot tries on kindy-kid tricks to shift the conversation.
All the major skeptics accept the Greenhouse physics, and Margot knows that. But she (or he?) can’t afford to let us discuss the feedbacks, the paleohistory, the scientific method or the economics because she hasn’t got a leg to stand on.
Not here Margot. That topic is too boring to dilute this thread with. Done to death.
220
Mark… here is your chance. I’ll do it for you.
Jo, isn’t, “All the major skeptics”, an argument from authority/most vocal (take your pick)? it is also arrogance, unless you are excluding yourself from the list.
515
Gee Aye
Saying “all the major skeptics”, is not an argument from authority, because Jo is not attempting to use it to prove a point. It is simply a statement. It is like saying, “all of the cows are lying down in the sun”.
71
Gee Aye, If I said the theory of GHG was right because all the major skeptics say so, that would be argument from authority. But I used it to show that Margot was tossing up a transparent strawman — a pointless inane topic that is irrelevant to the central argument of this blog and all the major skeptics.
Arrogant? In political-public-science debate. Hardly.
182
Gee Aye,
You know full well that Jo was not arguing from authority but stating that she and major skeptics were being misrepresented as not believing in GHG theory, rather than positive feedback and amplification. Even though I disagree with you on most things, when you actually give a glimmer of what you believe behind the cone of silence you live beneath, I nevertheless thought you had a shred of integrity.
That belief on my part was clearly in error since you’ve proven by that comment to be deceptive, manipulative and dishonest.
As the CAGW meme devolves, this is where people such as yourself prove whether you are innocently in error, or conmen trying to deceive for personal gain. So, which one are you?
100
I’m only a minor sceptic level IV. I say that CO2 appears to cause mild warming in the empirical data, less than the laboratory or Arrhenius theoretical amount. I suspect the hydrocycle and cloud coverage correlation with solar activity are the reason sensitivity is less than the Arrhenius 1.3 C/doubling.
I can give dozens of papers supporting this hypothesis, including this one and this one. These are just a couple of recent ones, but they illustrate the issue: CO2 is responsible for 0.1-0.2 C out of the 0.74 C of warming last century. Not harmful.
Margot – over to you. If you think global warming isn’t small, as these papers show, then you can say why. With links.
100
My chief beef with Margot started on a different thread. It was an argument about the word “greenhouse” not about what skeptics think or don’t think. (more on that later).
Margot seems to believe that co2 in the atmosphere acts like the glass ceiling of a greenhouse. My opinion is that the term “greenhouse” is propaganda. I believe skeptics should not use the word. (but yes I have too) and true scientists should NEVER use the word (or phrase) because it is simply false! Greenhouses operate i.e. get warm by stopping convection. That is NOT how co2 is claimed to cause warming.
Now as for what I think co2 does in the atmosphere? Well it doesn’t matter what I THINK, it matters what can be measured empirically. Margot doesn’t get that. Right now She’s just busy trying to make skeptics look bad.
That’s just more propaganda and warmists are full of it.
If anyone still want’s to know what I “think” it is this:
I do not deny the optical effects of co2 in the atmosphere. I do not deny that colder objects radiate. I question whether or not “backradiation” actually functions in a way that overcomes the effects of the far greater volumes of water (in all forms) in the atmosphere. This is my personal simple AGW killer. Water makes up the majority of global surface and is the principal thermal transport mechanism in the atmosphere. No one in the world of warmist experts has convinced me that they can measure that co2 does in fact overwhelm h20 cycles.
Beyond the above I am extremely skeptical of the data gathered and processing of said data whereby claims of surface temperature trends, ocean temperature trends (especially the deep ocean) are “KNOWN” to the resolution claimed. This is certainly true for data extracted from proxies and becomes even less reliable (rapidly so) as one attempts to look back in time.
The theory is not proven, the data claimed to support the theory is weak and suspect. So what does Margot have to justify pushing a “decarbonized” world? What insanity (like apparently Syvret is afflicted) continues to claim that wind and other expensive “renewables” will ever replace our baseload energy requirements? What world political forces are behind the unjustified, untenable, UNSUSTAINABLE
usewaste of our treasure to force us down a path to less comfort, less good health, less wealth?Go ahead Gee, Margot tell me……
120
So is water vapor…. and? Are you saying that greenhouse gases are pollutants?
160
Is a flood not a problem on account of the fact that a certain quantity of water is a good thing?
I’d say you need to reassess your logic there, Backslider.
328
Foul! You did not answer his question Margot, or more to the point, you dissembled because you did not like the implications of his question. You really do need to lift your game, you know.
190
[SNIP – OT and officially too boring. – Jo]
29
Floods are a natural phenomenon and good for the environment. Its unfortunate that so many people choose to live on flood plains, so yes, for them its a problem.
What has that to do with the fact that water vapor is a GHG? You imply that it also is “pollution”.
130
[SNIP. Waste of time. OT. – J]
28
Vince
This is how your mates are looking after the environment
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/28/environmentalism-brings-you-forest-clear-cutting.html
170
Yes, that’s why I joined the Greens years ago and helped them fundraise. *Sure*. I left when I realize the environment would do better without them.
Vince, if the cognitive dissonance is too much for you and you have to invent reasons to hate us, isn’t it time to see your therapist?
It explodes your head when we have better reasoning, more evidence, higher ethics, and superior manners than your team. I guess if you don’t join us, your only option is to demonize us with concocted lies. But you are lying to yourself.
If it’s alright with you, we’re quite enjoying watching the contortions. Thanks for visiting.
283
Hmmm, Vince, I have 8 species of native birds that will take food from my hand at my house in suburban Newcastle. Yesterday I had a new one turn up, a pied butcherbird. Nearly species number nine but the grey butcherbirds spotted him and weren’t happy.
Handfeeding the local birds may not be all that good for them nutritionally, but its a whole lot better than mashing them to bits with wind turbines. Greens are not environmentalists, they are hypocrites.
Do try to be a bit less brain-dead. Please.
150
geez I’d be careful hand feeding a butcherbird.
41
The grey butcherbirds are only the size of noisy miners. The one who’ll accept food is a male and very brave – he’ll sometimes even climb the front steps to take food, even though a human must look like a tyrannosaur from ground level.
Kookaburras are a worry – they aren’t especially bright and sometimes have trouble telling the difference between mincemeat and fingers, especially the young ones.
90
At the end of the day, it is all the same to them.
Also off-topic: We have an (endangered) parrot in New Zealand, called the Kea. If you leave your car unattended near where they live, you will come back to find that they have not only removed your hubcaps, but also the windscreen wipers and the rubber seal around the windscreen. Nobody can explain why they do this.
70
Because….. IT’S FUN!!!!!
50
Pretty much nailed it , They`re feathery hooligans with very active brains and no respect for the law
40
The sound of a Kea sliding down the sheet metal roof of an alpine shack, in the grey predawn time of slumber, is just their way of saying hi.
30
Bruce off topic but
Yes it is a good feeling to feed wild birds, but you are not doing the birds any favours when they become reliant on your feeding.
Feeding wild fauna in the long term is harmful to them.
30
Shhhh!…. Vince Whirlwind might realize that people around here care about the environment!
60
Where I live north of Newcastle Magpies have been supplementary hand fed here since the early 1900s, they are so used to humans and a large dog that they will pluck a worm from the ground right at our feet, or dogs feet
20
Sure, Graham, I pretty much said that. But the ones I feed are all natives which are extremely common and non-endangered. I figure that a few well fed ones wouldn’t hurt the universe all that much. So it seems also from their breeding success this season, which was considerable.
30
Well Bruce, a bird in the hand is worth two in the turbines, so called environmentalists defy logic.
There is an endangered bird in the Canberra region called the “Red hooded Fabian mole” should be extinct around September.
90
Isn’t that “Red hooded Fabian moll”…?
10
While feeding critters like deer, coyotes, bears and alligators is generally a bad idea, feeding birds is pretty much harmless. Birds cover large distances in search of food. If Bruce is off on vacation or moves away, the birds merely go elsewhere for food. They can become somewhat aggressive if you stop feeding them, but it’s not the problem that other animals can cause. Plus, birds that become accustomed to people usually pose no threat, while a bear that does not fear people is destined for relocation or a shorten life.
30
Who are these people who loathe the idea of protecting the environment?
Do you mean those people who would rather cut down and burn the boreal forests to feed Europe’s largest power stations with, rather than burn coal from under the ground ?
Do you mean those people who would call virgin forests ‘biomass’ to obscure and to legitimise their destruction ?
Do you mean those people who would rather turn W. Europe’s largest power station into Drax the Destroyer of Forests ?
110
Or clear large swathes of Scottish forest to put aup a wind farm !!
Wind farms first, environment last.. that is the “Green” way.
30
In fairness to Paul, he usually writes to get a reaction. Although it’s disappointing no comments were allowed in this instance.
61
The mark of a true gutless wonder….
130
The Courier Mail aka the Brisbane Bird Cage liner.
Got his email address Jo? I’d like to send him a little missive. And BTW, where the hell is my cheque from Big Oil?
110
Seems the guy is quite infamous … read the comments
http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/02/paul-syvret-lets-loose-on-people-who-care-enough-about-their-country-to-go-to-canberra-and-make-thei.html
Clearly Syvert is a Labor loving bile merchant. No rhyme nor reason whatsoever. Amusing that the same rag houses Bolt.
110
I see we have another drive by troll. He probably won’t last long.
Hi Troll, we actually care about the environment and want it protected. It is difficult to do as it requires lots of knowledge, work and study to do it properly, unlike the lazy greens who don’t have a clue and usually do more damage than they are trying to prevent.
Tell us your qualifications/study history/life experience that makes you so knowledgeable. You may even get someone to listen to you.
See how polite we are here? Rereke has even been very generous to Syvret by calling him “third rate”.
223
I am in a good mood today.
112
A back handed compliment to Trolls born of having slightly too much time on my hands today.
To be honest, I am inclined to find the passing Troll a potentially fascinating experience. Perhaps their trollish presence might somehow be akin to a thrilling clandestine activity, or perhaps a sneak peek at the dark side from a position of safety. One waits excitedly for ‘the’ something of challenge and substance that has been overlooked. I occasionally fret that somehow I missed the key piece of evidence that those in the know (pointedly, this excludes the climate and life realists of our august group) have come to understand as the deal clincher and one thing which somehow we here (excluding the trolls of course) have missed while we wallow merrily in our trough of confirmation bias, which dangerously separates us from the sanity of the steaming herds of believers
Not so. The Trolls rarely disappoint. Au contraire, their service is often reinvigorating and always affirming as they strive in time honoured ways to shovel their beliefs and politics down the throats of others. They never fail to remind me of the intrinsic solidity of our position, one that in every sense represents an evidence based analysis starkly contrasted to the ever labile beliefs of the consensus.
Thank you again Jo for providing the tapestry upon which this can take place.
102
A back handed compliment to Trolls, born of having slightly too much time on my hands today.
To be honest, I am inclined to find the passing Troll a potentially fascinating experience. Perhaps their trollish presence might somehow be akin to a thrilling clandestine activity, or perhaps a sneak peek at the dark side from a position of safety. One waits excitedly for ‘the’ something of challenge and substance that has been overlooked. I occasionally fret that somehow I missed the key piece of evidence that those in the know (pointedly, this excludes the climate and life realists of our august group) have come to understand as the deal clincher and one thing which somehow we here (excluding the trolls of course) have missed while we wallow merrily in our trough of confirmation bias, which dangerously separates us from the sanity of the steaming herds of believers
Not so. The Trolls rarely disappoint. Au contraire, their service is often reinvigorating and always affirming as they strive in time honoured ways to shovel their beliefs and politics down the throats of others. They never fail to remind me of the intrinsic solidity of our position, one that in every sense represents an evidence based analysis starkly contrasted to the ever labile beliefs of the consensus.
Thank you again Jo for providing the tapestry upon which this can take place.
51
missed an important comma!
21
Where?
21
Can’t say I missed it much either.
Perhaps he wanted a comma between the words “analysis starkly”, since that would more clearly employ “starkly” to contrast “labile beliefs” with “solidity of our position” instead of the “analysis”. I still got the gist of it so it was not important.
10
…to Trolls, born…
a reasonable place to locate the comma given the embarrassing change in meaning by its absence.
As I mentioned, a little too much time on one’s hands to day.
Andrew, thank you for your comment 17.3.1.1.1 – goes to illustrate the benefit of proof reading.
20
Wait a second. Were there two copies of Manfred’s comment there before? I never noticed two copies of it before. Maybe I ignored the first one because it had no comments. Very strange. A glitch in my Matrix.
Anyhow, the extra comma was in the first line, where Manfred wished to make it very clear that he does not procreate with she-trolls specifically to produce troll offspring as a hobby in his spare time.
I had no idea the gestation period for trollbabys was less than 24 hours, but this is consistent with the sudden appearance of troll swarms.
20
And only now I see Manfred has replied between when I refreshed the page and when I posted the above comment.
Really having no luck today.
20
Trolls are actually very useful as a gauge for the warmist mindset.
“The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.”
Sun Tzu
10
I am pretty sure there was an exploration geologist in his immediate family.
30
$CAGW$ Bot mark 4
sigh…
Many of us actually do care about the environment thats why we prefer..real science to be used.
What part of any of the statement dont you understand $CAGW$ Bot.?
Cue for you to now use an appeal to authority..standard $CAGW$ Bot riposte.
Do you think a few ad hominems and hand waving..makes you more environmentally aware than anyone else here $CAGW$ Bot.?????
The writer of your code would be connected to the same evil power grid we all use..and most probably own a car..but likes to pretend that they are green by writing $CAGW$ Bots and letting them loose..
If the writer of your code is not bright enough to answer Jo`s points…then off ya go tiger..go make a fool of yourself somewhere else while your evil life is powered by evil fossil fuels you scientifically illiterate hypocrite.
61
Your friend Tony from Oz has covered this wind farm nonsense in some depth over at my place, as well;
http://grumpydenier.wordpress.com/guest-posts/tony-from-oz/
61
When it comes to wind power, all Mr. Syvret or any other proponent of wind power has to do is answer one simple question: will the installation in its lifetime produce more power than was required to design, fabricate, erect, operate, maintain and decommission it?
The answer is: It will not! Wind power has an Energy Returned On Energy Invested ratio of less than unity. By my embodied energy calculations the EROEI is less than 0.29. Wind power is unsustainable.
End of discussion.
BTW, I am a self-employed consulting engineer who derives no compensation from energy companies.
261
Charles, is there a good link for EROEI? That is rather a killer point.
91
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
10
Here’s a good graphic:
http://solar.concord-trustingtheprocess.org/images/EROI.gif
And here’s why people talk about getting off oil:
http://deepresource.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/0712oder.jpg
310
Margot
.
Here’s a list of the articles for Paul Syvret to use in future comments.
Please note, there is no science nor love of the environment in any of them, just the same as your comments. No surprise there?
Your link doesn’t work either, is it this the same page as Paul’s, MARGOT?
21
Well well well, Margo actually posts something worth discussion! Good one Margot.
So Margot, how much of the diminishing EROI for oil, is the result of regulations by government? Break down the cause of this EROI trend for me will you?
20
I’m guessing the reason you were downvoted was because of this delightful comment embedded in the completely unbiased graph:
Nuclear may be closer to 15:1 by other estimates [1,2] so it is very suspicious that the graph has only a single minimum figure of 5 for nuclear. Wind does seem to have an EROEI of greater than 5:1 so it passes the EROEI test. But this quantitative measure completely misses the quality of the power supply.
Nuclear power will be available at over 1000MW per station, at stable voltage output, reliably, running 24/7, fuelled on Uranium for at least the next 20 years and with new Thorium or Fast Breeder reactors there’s enough fuel for hundreds of years of electricity.
But variable and unreliable wind power is a “bargain” by comparison? 😀 ROFLcopter!
21
“Getting off oil”?
Are you a shill for KY jelly ?
31
Far too technical Charles, renewable energy does not need to be cost effective, consumers cannot avoid the charges unless they switch off the electricity, no cost benefit analysis applicable, apparently.
31
According to this 2011 article,
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8625
Wind EROI was then twice as good as nuclear and fast overtaking imported oil.
It is now about 20:1.
So Charles’ figure was only about 1.5% of reality.
Oops, Charles!
310
Uh,oh! This doesn’t look good. Especially so if it is on US talk radio.
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/blog/2013/05/australia-labors-nightmare-without-end
70
Jo,
Enjoy you work and open approach I tried posting a reply to Vince 10.1 above but not sure it went through!
Anyway I will be looking forward to your comments on this in the next few days:-
“It has been widely claimed that the increase in global temperatures since the late 1800s is too large to be reasonably attributed to natural random variation. Moreover, that claim is arguably the biggest reason for concern about global warming. The basis for the claim has recently been discussed in the UK Parliament. It turns out that the claim has no basis, and scientists at the Met Office have been trying to cover that up.”
I wish we had a politician here who had the balls to challenge Julia Dillard, Greg Cumbet and fry the a*se of Tim (flim-flam) Flannery and find out if the BOM is as arrogant and manipulative as the MET.
[I cannot see your previous attempt to comment on this thread -Fly]
——————————————————————————–
70
What’s all the fuss? There’s really nothing wrong with wind turbines, except maybe:
they cost billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies, have high maintenance and installation costs, high rates of failure, are expensive and inefficient, cause the elderly to die of hypothermia, ruin views, kill birds and bats, drive up electricity bills, destroy property values, create maddening strobing and noise pollution, overburden the power grid and create huge amounts of post-industrial junk when abandoned.
Apart from that, I recon they’re great.
90
Unfortunately Mr Syvret is a pure example of the believers’ fallacy.
People worried about CAGW desperately want virtuous things to use and push for.
The enviros have said wind turbines are virtuous.
Mr Syvret desperately wants to believe this so it must be true. But the problem is wind turbines are basically crap. Millions of birds and bats are killed by them. And they actually cost more in emitted CO2 per kWh than a coal fired plant when you look at life cycle analysis and the spinning reserve issue.
You can overcome the spinning reserve problem by adding pumped storage – except enviros hate dams and the cost would triple. Then there’s the CO2 emissions from the cement produced for the dam.
None of this logic makes any impact on the believer, since they still desperately want it to be true. Not least that the only alternatives are nuclear and hydro, which the enviros both hate.
Unfortunately this is the whole CAGW story. Here is a list of things they desperately want to believe are virtuous but in actuality are dirtier than the stuff they’re supposed to replace:
Wind turbines
Solar panels
Plastic bags
Electric cars
Bicycles and bike lanes
Intelligent power meters
Marine parks
Low flush toilets
Low flow shower heads
I could add links to articles and even primary studies which show each of these is an environmental disaster with the exact opposite effect they’re supposed to have (possible exception of bike lanes – I don’t think a study has been done, but analysis will show they too are environmental disasters). I won’t add links, but if someone wants some let me know.
Where this gets to is this: until enviros and CAGW advocates get their heads straight and start being honest then they will lose everything they want. Even if CAGW was a real threat, which it is not. Hypocrisy will not sell your ideology. Walk the talk or get lost.
130
Slight correction: I meant cloth bags, which are dirtier than plastic bags.
90
Come on Jo, you’re being a wee bit unkind on a bloke who is clearly missing a fork when he sups his soup!
Let’s not judge him solely on his painful deficiency of logical thought, his surplus of infantile
posturing or even his ‘You’re a Poo-Poo’ reflex when threatened by helpfully-meant, but misinterpreted, adult-advice!
That he, despite his considerable shortcomings, is able to articulate his beliefs so well should be a cause for celebration; not denigration.
I would like to nominate Paul as a deserving candidate for a 5-star, JoNova fridge-magnet award and am sure, that when he’s a big grown-up, will live up to his promise.
71
“Syvret is convinced that money drives skeptics”
Yeah I have had every poorly thought through, vile and vitriolic, baseless slur thrown at me you can think of over the last 5 years because of my views. Combine it with the utter nonsense of people like this (Naomi Oreskes)
http://youtu.be/7ZQNiDIBxO4
And Im basically just a stupid, scared old white guy who cant think for himself and has too much to lose in having to change my life.
Couple of small issues for Paul and Naomi to consider.
1. I WORK IN THE WIND INDUSTRY!! and have done for 5 years you dopes
2. I have everything to lose and nothing to gain from being a skeptic as my views are basically shooting myself in the financial foot
3. I have shares in several renewable energy companies, because even though Im a skeptic Im still a shrewd money manager and hedge my bets financially (on the basis other idiots will win and make me money, sadly that’s not going to well)
4. I have been formally hushed in several emails and disciplinary meetings by my employer because of my views, I was close to being dismissed at one stage. Happy to show these to anyone.
5. I am interested in one thing and one thing only THE TRUTH! and the split second someone shows me convincing evidence (not dodgy models) that CO2 drives climate, I will switch my position accordingly as every genuinely scientifically minded person will when confronted by indisputable facts on any topic
6. It is the baseless, insulting ravings of these people that make me think they have NOTHING, or they would stick to the evidence
7. It is the actions of governments that further convinces me there is no issue, what responsible administration would allow its populace to perish while implementing a tax FFS, if the danger was a looming as we are told. They would do something meaningful and put their money where their fat mouths are.
8. I am 47 years old (not old) and a MASSIVE fan of technology, my toy room looks like Stephen Hawking’s mad lab of computers, cameras, RC equipment and the like and I am always buying new gadgets and downloading new software for things (my wife loves it of course…. NOT lol). Not only am I not afraid of the new I love the new!
9. Im more than willing to change, I have a solar system on my house that is making a freaking profit FFS. I do it not because its “greeeeeen maaaaan heeeeeey” but because in Tassie we still get a good return on pumping power into the grid so it just makes sense. So the sooner we stop trying to scare people into changing their habits and provide incentives for them to do so the more intelligent people will get on board rather than just being terrorised sheeple and doing it because they think they have to.
10. Finally my views CAN NOT be bought as my employer well knows and my previous employer (Gas drilling rigs) also knew because I was not a big fan of fracking, although Im more ok with it now because the science is better and I have more confidence in the management of the projects. So evidence will ALWAYS sway my view.
So to Paul and people like him who think they know me or that they can lump me in with anyone else. Get your facts straight or shut the hell up, Im over it!
332
With regards to your point #7. I can say here in the US that when it comes to their power our government invests in generators powered by diesels and other internal combustion engines. You see when it comes to their power they want something that delivers on demand 24/7 regardless of the weather. Mobility of the generators is in many cases also part of the criteria.
As to the rest of your comment, nicely stated.
30
Sure thing and in my opinion we (all nations) should be focussing on the power solutions that provide the best balance of affordability, efficiency and environmental sensitivity. The fact that we dont even do those things well in Australia, is to me clear evidence that that the Government does not swallow it’s own rhetoric. Its about a cash grab in a time when money is tight. With our current government, if it wasnt AGW it would be a terrorism tax, despite more Australians commiting suicide than being killed by terrorism in any given year.
Its dishonest, economic trickery designed to keep the populace fearful and slow personal freedom and growth. Nothing more.
60
Safety, I remember you telling us about your situation and I hope it gets better for you.
Imagine if all those billions wasted on CAGW were channeled into real technologies and inventions where could we be now?
50
@safetyguy66
Can I re-use this comment on my site?
10
reality:
German coal demand rises 4 pct in Q1
LONDON, May 28 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Coal consumption in Germany rose 4 percent and natural gas demand jumped 8.7 percent in January-March versus a year ago, according to preliminary data from energy sector lobby groups, suggesting rising carbon dioxide output in the EU’s biggest emitter nation…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2391955
reality:
UPDATE 1-Reality gap widens on EU car fuel efficiency claims -study
BRUSSELS, May 28 (Reuters) – The gap has widened between the fuel-efficiency that carmakers declare for their models and the reality for drivers, with luxury German vehicles showing the biggest divergence, a study has found…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2391376?&ref=searchlist
30
UN registers largest ever renewable CDM scheme
LONDON, May 24 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A hydropower plant in Brazil has become the largest ever renewable scheme registered under a U.N. programme to channel climate finance to developing countries, project owner GDF Suez said late Thursday, increasing carbon permit supply as prices trade near record lows…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2387158?&
23 May: GDF Suez: Jirau : The world’s largest renewable CDM project obtains registration at the United Nations
GDF SUEZ has been a pioneer of CDM since its participation as a founding member of the Prototype Carbon Fund in 2001 and is actively using the program to promote clean energy investments. To date, the Group has registered a portfolio of 15 CDM projects in Asia, Africa and Latin America, using wind, water, geothermal and biomass as sustainable sources of renewable energy. The CDM registration is effective as of December 26, 2012, which enables the project to sell its credits to the European emission trading scheme (EU ETS)…
http://www.gdfsuez.com/en/journalists/press-releases/jirau-the-worlds-largest-renewable-cdm-project-obtains-registration-at-the-united-nations/
00
EU carbon to trade below 10 euros to 2020: survey
LONDON, May 29 (Reuters Point Carbon) – EU carbon prices won’t climb above 10 euros ($12.8) for the rest of the decade, a survey of banks, manufacturers and power generators found Wednesday, well below the global level thought necessary to wean nations off using fossil fuels to power their economies…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2392182?&ref=searchlist
29 May: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: EU Carbon Price Expectations Plunge 47% in a Year, IETA (International Emissions Trading Association) Says
Four out of five respondents said that domestic or regional policy initiatives will probably be more important than international negotiations over the next five years, according to IETA. Fifty-six percent of respondents expected EU prices from 5 to 10 euros a ton, IETA said.
EU businesses face a patchwork of taxes, regulations and the carbon market, raising concern that the bloc may struggle to compete against other regions as emitters are confronted with high administrative costs, Jonathan Grant, director in London of the sustainability and climate change unit at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an IETA member, said in the statement…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-28/eu-carbon-price-expectations-plunge-47-in-a-year-ieta-says.html
10
28 May: West Australian: Ken Utting: Carbon project under fire
A $500 million cut to the carbon capture and storage project in the recently announced Federal Budget has added to the uncertainty of a controversial venture which has been dogged by criticism that it is an unproven science, highly expensive and not a viable option when compared to other methods of carbon emissions amelioration.
Mrs Marino said the Budget cuts were just the latest round which had seen the overall budget for the program halved in three years.
“Given the huge financial cost of carbon and capture storage projects it is unlikely that the remaining funding would fund the construction and operation of even one CCS project,” she said.
“I understand the research phase of the project, including the seismic studies, will continue under the auspices of the WA State Government.
“A future Liberal (Federal) Government will get rid of the carbon tax, which will change the financial imperatives of the project and impact on its feasibility.
“It has not been demonstrated that carbon capture and storage is physically possible in Harvey and it is not an economic proposition.
“The Liberal Direct Action Plan will fund carbon reduction programs across Australia in a commercial manner by supporting the most cost-effective carbon reduction programs.
“Carbon storage deep underground under Harvey would have to stack up as a cost-effective option.
“Given current estimates of the cost of CCS it is hard to believe this project will stack up.”
Dr Gaynor said while the CCS program had received a $500 million cut in the Federal budget, the remaining $1 billion would still ensure all four projects were able to complete feasibility studies and one project would continue beyond the feasibility stage…
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/wa/17355868/carbon-project-under-fire/
20
with charts:
28 May: Forbes: Bruce Upbin: Tesla’s Carbon Footprint Is No Better Than A Honda Civic’s
This is the eye-opening conclusion tucked into this week’s newsletter from Michael Cembalest, global head of investment strategy at JPMorgan…
Cembalest pulled together some charts to illustrate his points. The one below shows where Tesla sits on the price and production curve, net of the $7,500 credit that buyers receive, and after Tesla benefits from zero-emission vehicle and greenhouse-gas credits paid to it by its competitors…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2013/05/28/teslas-carbon-footprint-is-no-better-than-a-honda-civics/
20
I’ve got a PDF that shows that there are one or two large SUVs that have slightly higher carbon footprints than a tesla sedan. I think it was from WUWT recently.
00
Without government loans Tesla would cost twice the retail price, Tesla is an excellent electric car but without subsidies it could not compete on the open market
30
shocking:
29 May: Australian: Sid Maher: Green funding rush fires loans row as $800M push defies Tony Abbott
THE Clean Energy Finance Corporation is planning to write up to $800 million in green loans before the election, defying the Coalition’s call for the agency not to sign contracts before September 14 because Tony Abbott has vowed to scrap it.
The CEFC has revealed it is in “active discussions” with 50 projects seeking $2 billion and that an additional 119 project proponents have presented proposals that are seeking finance worth $3.3bn. The figures are contained in an email from the CEFC to the opposition pleading its case not to be scrapped if the Coalition wins the election…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/green-funding-rush-fires-loans-row-as-800m-push-defies-tony-abbott/story-e6frg6xf-1226652618213
20
Government for the people, no, government dysfunctional, chaotic and deceitful, self serving and arrogant
50
And at the same time claiming the recipients will be able to sue a new Government if they dont honour the contracts. Despite Greg Hunt saying publically that they would NOT honour them under any circumstances well ahead of almost (and probably all) actual signing of contracts. I doubt any court is going to listen to a case where someone enters into a contract after being told in the public media it would not be honoured. Lets hope the coalition have the gonads to follow this through and shut this sham down.
30
Be careful what you wish for.
I find it puzzling that people, (not just Paul Syvret, but all wind power supporters) can’t seem to put two and two together.
South Australia is in fact a wonderful indicator here, so look again at this chart of electricity costs, and these are the wholesale costs, the costs that the retailers purchase their electricity at (Wholesale) and then they have to add their charges etc and then sell it to consumers at retail.
AEMO Average Price Tables
Look at South Australia in general, look at Friday 17th May in particular, and then the last couple of weeks.
Note the (wholesale) cost for generated electricity.
Now, over at the ABC site (thanks for linking that Post there Sceptical Sam) I’ve been accused of cherry picking that one day to indicate high costs.
Hmm! Almost as if days like that don’t really exist, and we should take the average instead.
Now, bear with me here.
That overall cost per MWH is made up of a mix of power plants, some pretty expensive and some cheap.
If you have a huge plant like say in NSW, Bayswater, (and check out the cost for power in NSW by comparison) providing humungous amounts of power at its traditionally cheap price, then overall costs are cheaper, and for other expensive plants providing small amounts, then that expensive price only raises the lower amount (Bayswater) by a little to give a new slightly higher cost. See the point.
So then, what has happened in South Australia then to make the cost spike so high.
Well, you see, the Playford coal fired plant, (50 years old) has closed down, and the Northern coal fired plant is winding back also. (it being more than 30 odd years old now too)
So now, instead of those large amounts of power, (keeping in mind the smaller consumption of the smaller State, S.A.) are not there to be called upon, large amounts of power at a cheap price.
All there is left now are the expensive to operate plants, and when there’s little wind, then the price spikes, and even when there is wind power, the price is still more than double most other States.
Keep in mind also that those other States have the artificially added cost of the CO2 Tax which has almost doubled their cost per MWH. Some may say this is a fabrication on my part, but hey, at that same site I linked to, see the next chart under the current one there, check out the cost for June and July 2012, knowing that the CO2 Tax started on July 1st.
So now, it seems the removal of coal fired power, and the reliance on wind power has led to costs for power in S.A. to be at those high levels.
This is an indicator for exactly what will happen if those large scale coal fired power providers are forced to close down.
Oh, and when the ETS comes in, with its Cap and Trade, the cap will be set on those smaller Natural Gas fired plants at their expected emissions rate, for their average, four or so hours a day, so instead of S.A. (now) calling on them to run for 16+ hours a day will actually be out of the question, so when the wind isn’t providing, then they can’t call on these guys to take up the slack. Oh dear!
Look again at that cost chart, because I’m sure nearly all of you can see the downright obvious.
But be aware ….. I’m a noted cherry picker. (/sarc)
Note to Paul Syvret and other wind power supporters. Be (very) careful what you wish for.
Tony.
183
The inference from that Comment across at the ABC site was that I was cherry picking just one day of huge costs and hiding the fact that perhaps I should be using the average, so let’s look at that then shall we.
Here I am using this same chart I linked to above for the Month of May, now 28 days of data shown there. I’ll use the Peak RRP, which is the cost of power from 7AM until 10PM, you know, hours when everyone is at school or work and, umm, actually awake. They don’t use this time for weekends because, umm, peak is classified as the period of most consumption, err, when people are actually awake, so for weekends, they just revert to the full 24 hour RRP, so for the weekend, signified on that chart as N/A, then for those days I just used that to determine the average.
The average cost for NSW (basically all coal fired power) – $57.32 per MWH
The average cost for Qld (basically all coal fired power) – $59.17 per MWH
The average cost for Tasmania (basically all Hydro power) – $46.68 per MWH
The average for Victoria (basically all coal fired power) – $57.78 per MWH
The average for South Australia (44% total Nameplate Capacity from Wind) – $117.60 per MWH
So, the cost for electricity in South Australia is double the next highest.
South Australia was trying to rationalise its power costs to cover the possible 10 days per year of, umm, that dreaded phrase, Peak Power.
Hey, there’s been 10 days of huge costs ….. THIS MONTH, and there’s still 3 days left in the Month.
But hey, wind power is cheap.
Yeah! Right!
Tony.
141
Tony, I happened to look at AEMO prices last week and saw SA paying over $400/MWh on one particular day (17/5/2013).
It was the day a big high pressure system was sitting over Port Lincoln. I thought: Aha.
I suspect if you graphed SA daily power price against barometric pressure over Spencers Gulf you’d get a very nice correlation. Also a nice correlation with the profit per day of the eastern states generators/distributors.
50
As a Queenslander I often read Paul’s opinion pieces and as usuall he has been successful in making me want to punch him. He is either so ideologically lost or so well paid as to sooth the guilt of writing such utter rubbish.
51
“Those who have no evidence, just make things up and toss insults.”
Pssst! No commas with defining relative clauses.
—-
Ta! – Jo
71
Joanne, no doubt you have seen this on Bishop Hill, but in case you haven’t take a peek.
The Met office has had to admit that any change in temperature since 1850 has a 1 in 1000 chance of being anything other than natural variation. That may not be news to us, but the fact of the matter is that this means the UK minister of Energy and Climate Change has misled parliament. This is grounds to demand the minister’s resignation. This is the same data that the IPCC has used is untenable. “To conclude, the primary basis for global-warming alarmism is unfounded. The Met Office has been making false claims about the significance of climatic changes to Parliament—as well as to the government, the media, and others — claims which have seriously affected both policies and opinions. When questioned about those claims in Parliament, the Met Office did everything feasible to avoid telling the truth.” If I interpret this correctly, this is HUGE. If the entire foundation for the alarmism is officially unfounded, that should be the torpedo that sinks the CAGW destroyer, I would have thought.
103
Rod, The key word that is missing is “knowingly”. If the Minister knowingly misled parliament then he should go. If he has knowingly been lied to by his officials, then they should go, rather than him.
Of course the latter rarely happens, because of the problems in showing what somebody knew at the time, and because of the trouble and expense of replacing a senior official, but you will probably find that salary rises might become a thing of rarity in the upper echelons of the Met Office. In the next Cabinet reshuffle, the minister my be given the portfolio of supplying the tea-and-biscuits for caucus meetings, but probably not.
70
What I see is attempts to deflect the questions and provide excuses for not answering them. That is evasion but not deception.
30
I agree. There are infinite shades of grey in the way that words are used, and things are artfully not said, in politics. The “Yes Minister” TV series showed that for all to see.
But Rod used the word misled, so I was commenting that it has to be knowable.
40
Thanks Rereke
I guess I was a bit over exuberant.
It does say “knowingly” in the discussion about misleading Parliament.
Still, it seems to me this is something big.
If the MET office is the source and repository of temperature information, then surely an admission on their part that it is not significant means that there is no ‘global warming’. If that is the case, then how can CO2 be responsible for something that does not exist? Should that not mean that its ‘over’?
I realise that those of us on this blog have known that all along, but it must be pretty significant information if the MET office tried so hard to cover it up. I am wrongly interpreting this to mean that the MET office now admits that the probability that temperature variations are anthropogenic is 1/10 of 1%?
50
Rod- let’s not mince words. They lied in return for generous funding. I await the same admission from the BOM and CSIRO.
20
I have a proof that skeptics can not possibly be funded by special interest groups (big oil lobby). Probably not as persuasive as Safetyguy66, but here it goes.
The Obama administration has sent out agents of the government to harass tea party groups, to harass private individuals with the temerity to contribute money to Republican candidates, to harass businesses with the temerity to contribute to Republican candidates, has closed down dealerships of formerly publicly traded corporations which have been subsumed by government which were run by owner/operators who contributed to Republicans… and on and on and on.
If there were some sugar daddy like Exxon funding climate skeptics, at least here in the USA, the Obama admin would have dealt harshly with them already.
They would have been BPeed (as in British Petroleum).
Rest assured no special funding for skeptics will penetrate Obama’s picket line of civil servant abuses.
Somebody tell Cook for me.
71
A little off topic, I hadn’t seen this before and I thought it might be of interest to some here. Apologies if it’s old hat.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
Also commented on (predictably) at:
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html
20
For only $200 million, I will study ways to harness those gigawatts!
30
An interesting posting – thanks.
20
.
Windmills also kill off native plant species.
I’m going to talk about the Musselroe Windmill mess. The VIDEO may interest those in the testing and completion of the project.
The original video from Hydro Tasmania has deleted the section where the bird expert states – “birds at risk will be removed”. Amazing stuff, just remove birds in danger to reduce the kill rate. The birds and bats etc play an integral role in the health of an locality.
Plant Life Observations on this windmill mess.
* Reductions in the pollination of native plant species
* Alterations in the dispersal ability of plant species
* Reductions in the consumption of insect prey
* Reductions in the pollination = consequences for agricultural productivity
* The decline and extinction of affected species
* Increase in numbers of crows etc & other bird pests
* Increase in fox & feral animal numbers
* Increase in invasive weeds (especially wind seed dispersal species)
* Change in temperature cycles at ground level, the wind is mixing higher & lower air currents
* Reduction of frost occurrences are increasing invasive weed germination
These instances above are currently being recorded, but unfortunately no funding is available to research further. In fact all money has stopped for any adverse research findings on the effects of windmills on native plant populations in Australia. It is verging on criminal.
The comments by Margot & Vince above highlight the ignorance they display in understanding true love of the environment. They are quite willing to sacrifice an area of land for a GREEN WINDMILL MONEY dream and destroy virtually all the plant and animal life there, without blinking an eyelid, while pocketing the BLOOD money they receive for this scam.
That is why they are so angry and bitter that the truth is gaining momentum.
Paul Syvret is just another greedy little writer that wants to get in with the ABC so he can retire and do nothing. He’s already a little bit bitter he hasn’t already been asked to join their GREEN VANDAL CLUB.
51
There you go again, using facts to fight the oh so good intentions of the green advocates. They intend that what they do will have good results. It isn’t their fault if reality doesn’t listen to them. It is reality’s fault. They meant well so don’t they get a pass for destroying the environment, crippling the economies of the globe, and contributing to the deaths of millions due to starvation and disease? Reality is simply going to have to learn to follow their lead and make sure everything works as planned.
Oh wait. Maybe, just maybe things are working as planned and we were fooled by their claims of good intentions. After all, they keep doing the same things and getting the same results so their claims of good intentions are more than likely smokescreens. Way down deep where it really counts, it looks like they intend to destroy anything that makes being alive worth staying alive.
32
Does the Global Warming Blunder have a sibling called the Crack Baby Non-Epidemic?
How Science Got The ‘Crack Baby’ Epidemic So Wrong
The primary study on global warming involved just one planet. Ice cores and Mannian reconstructions included only natural atmospheric compositions, temporally insensitive CO2 and temperature reconstructions, uptick-biased tree rings, and focussed on a period of increasing solar activity that culminated in a grand maximum that has not been equalled for 11000 years [Fig 17]. These studies did not involve atmospheres that had been exposed to large amounts of anthropogenic CO2 in their formative years during a period of normal solar activity. The observational regime was prevented from falsifying the CO2 hypothesis.
Later studies included a 15 year period of record high CO2 emissions and showed no detectable changes in temperature from CO2, rather than the sweeping hothouse predicted by the science of the 1980s. Until the current grand maximum has ended it would not be possible to test the CO2 hypothesis on Earth. A completely different astronomical mechanism shows much more influence over recent temperatures.
It’s a lesson in what happens when a misreading of the data leads to a publicly accepted narrative, especially one that feeds on society’s collective fears about the future.
41
Nice shopping list of whos who in the coolest side of things. Might have been trying for a nibble or two
This is crackers Totally
Cut Tree
Make Pellets
Ship USA Europe
Burn For Power
30
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/greenies-destroying-us-forests-to-save-the-environment/
no need for an explanation is there?
21
Oh oh still cold as a witches tit in europe
http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/27/germany-now-recording-coldest-spring-in-40-years-climate-experts-running-out-of-arguments/
22
Any minute now…………….any minute now……………://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htme
21
crakar at 10:08pm. I see that notrickszone.com is now reporting that the French Pyrenees will have (snow)ski slopes open in June for the first time, ever.
10
Dont worry. its not the Next Ice Age. Its just being caused by Warming in the Arctic 😉
20
OT .
Are we over sensitive to fuhrring kettles ?
20
I can’t understand these people – it’s now perfectly clear that global warming is a myth and should be put to rest and we should move on and face the real problems like Monsanto. The Met office has finally been forced to admit their statements of unprecedented warming is not true, it’s within natural variation. An authoritative team of IPCC researchers have found that a 1.3C rise in temp since the 19th century through to 2050 is real science and we’ve already experienced half of it. How anyone can claim the gloom and doom predictions after those two shattering pieces of SCIENCE baffles me.
31
Janama,
This has never been about science and a genuine quest for the truth.
No amount of new information and research will release us from the shackles of “the big lie”.
The climate change agenda has been a people control agenda from day 1.
Jo nova does an exemplary job pointing out the woefully unconvincing and unsatisfactory evidence for man made climate change and the incredibly counter productive remedy espoused by our government controlled media. But this is as far as she goes. You need to understand the inhuman agendas at play here to really get a grip of what is going on and who is controlling the unrelenting stream of propoganda which extends far beyond climate science.
52
Good point Sonny.
Once you understand how the Warming scam works you can apply the template to all sorts of human scenarios involving power and money.
KK 🙂
10
What part of lust for power over others, by any and all means available, escapes your attention?
The UN orchestration and bureaucratic enabling of the scam seem to be the key.
Science was just a device to cloak this foul ideology, next it will be the destruction of water.
I keep hearing people claim that tracking destroys water.
This is so stupid; “Save our water, ban DiHydrogen Monoxide.”
31
Did you mean
“tucking”?
KK 🙂
00
At the Western Plains Zoo in Dubbo, there is, or was, a horse bred through selective breeding to represent an ancient horse. The name was something like Pteristawlski but I can’t locate it now. The point is, through selective breeding it is possible, with time, to develop something like the Belgian Blue ‘Supercow‘ or by selectively breeding the undesirable characteristics, to devolve an animal to this ancient horse.
It sometimes seems to me that homo sapiens, by denying nature the ability to take its course through natural selection, is devolving into some sort of green leftist sheeple thing that abhors freedom and is completely incapable of thinking for itself.
20
Magic.
And the concept of selective breeding to “devolve” a life form is “tres crazi”
KK 🙂
00
Today I turned off the television for good.
I’ve only been watching once in a blue moon but watching the news recently it became apparent that nearly everything is agenda driven misinformation and lies.
Personally, I would rather be uninformed than misinformed.
31
Welcome! Farmerbraun successfully “quit” over 30 years ago. There’s a whole world out there , and it’s real!
31
Sonny, We haven’t watched free-to-air since Fox arrived on our doorstep many summers ago. Now only watch sports and selected entertainment … no news except for a bit of Fox News and Al Jazeera when I need to know what is really happening in the World. The Blogs provide a much more exact reporting of what is going on anyway with far more intelligent opinion.
31
[…] Click here to read the full article _____________________________________________ […]
00
janama #48 ‘global warming is a myth and should be put to rest…’
Say, myths are too useful ter be put ter rest. Bring them out
at times opportune when the serfs are askin’ questions, dust
them off, recycle. Take Plato’s myth of metals in men, f’r
instance, gold, silver, bronze with only the gold capable of
and ter be educated fer leadership,… that’s come down the
ages, along with those other myths of U -top -ia, none of
which turned out well.
One – of – the – serfs.
00
[…] comments and questioning of motives. A recent example of is Paul Syvrets’ attack on Jo Nova, a Vince Whirlwind’s follow up to my […]
10
On the related topic of solar PV comes this today in the NYT:
So 80% of solar PV installations are underperforming their promised ratings. They are degrading much faster than promised. High defect rates. Fires.
The green energy industry makes used car salesmen look good.
31
Bruce a recent review of our solar systems found similar results except it was 19% (1 in 5) were improperly installed and not functioning and 5% were dangerous had to be shut down until they were repaired.
It’s the ceiling batts all over again.
42
Most people do not realize just how dangerous DC voltage is…. from a fire perspective, far more dangerous than AC.
42
Now who the heck would down vote an innocuous comment such as that…. without even posting a reply?
OK dumbo… let me explain:
Cross two regular AC wires together (household voltage) and you will get a sharp crack and sparks and the wires will be cut there and then, melting right through at the point of contact.
Cross two DC wires together (12 or 24 volt) and you may get a bit of a fizzle…. but no break in the wires… which will then slowly heat up until they are red hot along their length. A far more dangerous situation.
21
Yes, wind farms are ridiculous. Expensive, inefficient, ugly.
But I think opponents of wind farms should be careful about jumping on the ‘wind farms damage your health’ bandwagon. There’s no evidence. It looks crazy and conspiratorial.
And it’s a free kick to the environmental lobby – the ABC loves running stories on this!
10
James
I think you are making a statement that is your personal opinion.
This is not a free kick to the environmental lobby it is another case of science being given no credibility because people don’t understand.
If you take the time to sort this out you will find the usual “Experts” saying that low frequency pulsing is not in any way bad for you.
Well, you might like to check that out.
It is contrary to the facts.
How about we not worry about their ABC and just stick to reality.
LFV is dangerous and shortens lifespan
It is one of NASA’s biggest worries about long distance space flight but at a more mundane level it concerns truck and train drivers and not surprisingly residents who live near Giant Wind Powered Turbines.
They wont kill you straight out but your life will be hell and you will die ten years before your time.
KK
11
Keith: Do you have any references for this (this don’t have to be peer-reviewed! :)) I am familiar with Pierpont’s work (hopefully I spelled that right). I am very skeptical concerning this claim and would like more information if you can provide any.
PS I don’t listen to ABC or the MSM for my information, so it would just be my very skeptical, scientific nature asking about this!
11
Infrasound…. definitely has an effect on people. That it doesn’t is yet more greenie/alarmist denial.
21
This site seems to consider VLF pulsing to be a problem.
Look at the Walt Disney anecdote.
http://www.lowertheboom.org/trice/infrasound.htm
On the other side of the coin I felt almost guilty thinking of noise as a problem with this site:
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/the-truth-about-health-impacts-of-wind-farms-and-infrasound/
It is an exemplar of the Global Warming problem. Sounds so sincere and convincing. But then it has advertising from a reneewavble energy group so?
We are suffering Information Dysphoria.
KK 🙂
00
I recall years ago that the Russian KGB were working on a system for riot control. Tests of the prototype were hugely successful.
It involved huge speakers mounted on a truck and driven by a powerful amplifier.
but the sound generated was below the range of human hearing, if I recall as low as 2.5 Hz at huge dB. The idea was supposed to be that the human rectum is resonant at this low frequency. You get the picture.
As in the famous poem ‘Twas the night of the King’s castration” when the King cried “Oh, S**T! And then ten thousand loyal subjects stooped and strained to the uttermost, for in those days, the King’s word was that law”.
That must have been about 1962. I never heard much about it afterward. Probably every rectum resonates at a slightly different pitch. Or Hard Rock made everybody immune.
10
Rod
Rod. What can I say after that?
Sounds like they wrecked-em all right!
An earlier poem that has a resonance to the Kings Unfortunate event, from an earlier period, the 40s or 50s:
Twas on the Good Ship Venus
By Flannery you shoulda seen us
The Captains name was Julah,
She was a deceitful Mullah
On the floor of the house
Behind the table of the Speaker
She was a shrieking Preacher
And chased the Greens from
One deck to another
KK 🙂
10
Hi Sheri
I completed a degree back in 2003 which had majors in Psychobiology, Abnormal Psychology and various topics in Neuroscience.
One of the main assignments involved assessment of mechanisms that allow us to sense speech through moving sound impulses to the brain via the ear. That’s the obvious focus but damage from abnormal sound stimulus was also examined eg Tinnitus.
We studied damage from high volume noise and high and low frequency inputs.
Loss of hearing from excess stimulation of the hearing apparatus is also one of the better known problems but not one that attracts a lot of research money.
Maybe you can figure that out for yourself. Could have something to do with the fact that factories and mining companies would be overwhelmed with compensation cases if the details ever became to familiar to the public and lawyers.
As I researched the issue of noise damage and VLF pulsing it became very obvious that most of the research was coming from 3rd world and iron curtain countries and again you can draw some obvious conclusions; No employer is going to sponsor research that will see his factory closed down. No employee in a 3rd world company can sue his boss.
NASA was the only place I could find in the west which acknowledged the problem of VLF damage from situations such as Wind Turbine Blade Pulsing.
The pulsing moves air into the body via the lungs where it has very close proximity to the heart and the heart suffers.
It is not a joke and is quite serious but as I said earlier it is not something that transport companies or railroad companies want trumpeted from the roof tops.
In the current idiom we have the Green Monsters denying a very real medical issue that is being hidden. Perhaps it’s the way of the world that the few people caught near someone elses wind farm, or even their own, are seen as expendable or acceptable collateral damage.
If you really want to follow it up then a psychiatrist or psychologist may be able to help but it must be someone who is involved in that field otherwise you might as well ask Obama.
I no longer have access to current research papers.
KK 🙂
20
Forgot this but it is probably so obvious; the skin is a major receptor for VLF pulsing and it transmits to the brain stem.
Nothing of finite daily capacity works well when overstimulated by degree or by extent.
10
I have read a lot of studies on VLF and wind turbine syndrome. It is almost impossible with VLF studies to eliminate the psychosomatic effects of both the study and the noise itself. That is especially true with wind turbines. You can’t “fake” living next to one–there is no way to do a double-blind study on wind turbine syndrome. Measuring VLF seems very difficult, also.
This reminds me of the EMF protests in the 70’s and 80’s. No power lines were safe–at any distance, it seemed. This was pretty much discredited. Again, it’s hard to fake a power line to see if the reactions are real or imagined.
Much like climate change rhetoric, the low frequency vibrations and sound problems are all tied to modern society. In the pre-industrial age, the problem did not seem to known.
Some people are undoubtedly more sensitive to certain phenomena than others. As are some people more sensitive to chemicals, audible sound, perfumes, dyes, etc. There is a limit to how much these things can be accommodated.
10
Hi Sheri
Yes it is confusing.
When I was younger I lived less than half a mile as the crow flies from the waves crashing on the shore.
I loved the rumble and dull roar and still find it very pleasant.
I have no actual experience of wind turbine pulsing so can’t compare the two but the ocean would have to be more constant.
Turbine pulsing can vary with design of blades speed of wind , ground topography and so on.
My comment was based on studies 13 years ago which I have not refreshed but cannot easily dismiss claims of illness from the mills.
cases may vary from one point to the next.
I do suspect that looking at windmills spoiling the view would tend to make me sick.
KK 🙂
10
Definitely looking at windmills spoiling the view does make one both angry and sad. I can see turbines both from my house and from my cabin. Groups of a hundred of the turbines can be seen from various locations on my cabin site, and a wind plant with over 200 turbines is visible from the road leading out from my subdivision. These turbines are anywhere from 5 to 10 miles away. I drive past 11 of them going to town (quarter of a mile off the road). I drive by 50 (again, right next to the road) or more if I can’t take the back road into my cabin. It is very, very annoying.
The reason I asked on the vibrations and pulsing is I live in a high wind area. Today, we are at 25 to 30 mph sustained winds. Yesterday, at my cabin, the winds were 35 mph. The vibration and shaking is fairly intense at that level of wind. It is nerve-racking, but people do live with these high winds. Other people leave Wyoming often because of the wind. So I have a hard time seeing turbine vibration and noise as significant. The wind and the rattling it makes drowns out the turbine noise as far as I can see in my area. This is probably not true in areas with less wind.
One of the reasons I have not included wind turbine “syndrome” in my reasons for opposing turbines is it’s just such shakey science. The fact that turbines produce little useful energy, cause much environmental damage and are completely political in purpose seems enough reasons to oppose them.
20
Hi Sheri
It occurred to me after reading a few of the other comments about fitness and the need for regularity and familiarity of stressor that there might be something in this for the Turbine Sickness thing.
We are accustomed to gusting winds and crashing waves on the shore. This is our neurological system’s “normal”.
The very unusual, in nature, regular beat of the blades in wind turbines is another matter.
It is very regular. The main issue I would suspect is how your residence is aligned to prevailing winds and distance from the source.
I really cannot say with any certainty that wind turbines are dangerous but I can say that there is enough doubt in my mind that the idea of turbine sickness should not be discarded without a great deal of assessment.
KK 🙂
10
I understand your wanting to study it, but I don’t use this as a reason to oppose turbines. If we are studying something, it will take years and many studies to prove something (assuming there is any way to prove it). Meanwhile, the turbines keep going up. Once up, it’s nigh unto impossible to get them taken down, even if the noise is a proven to be a problem. I suppose the data could be used to oppose other wrong ideas presented by companies in the future.
20
Here is some reference to it: The American Defense news in 1993 describes “acoustic psycho-correction” experiments carried out by the Russians from the mid 1970’s which “could be used to suppress riots, control dissidents, demoralize or disable opposing forces”. The device which operated by the “transmission of specific commands via static or white noise” showed “encouraging results after exposure of less than one minute” and operated without the upsetting of other intellectual functions.Operating as an infrasound device the acoustic psycho-correction message is transmitted via bone conduction. Due to this insidious facet, earplugs prove fruitless in protecting the individual, as whole body protection is needed. Further developments of such devices utilizing sonic communication directly to the temporal lobe may produce the most striking and profound acoustic attack. Literature by Silent Sounds, Inc. indicates that it is now possible to analyze human emotional EEG patterns and replicate them, then store these “emotion signal clusters” and, at will, “silently induce and change the emotional state in a human being”.
Loads of information.
10
Yeah Rod
Ear plugs are useless for windmill frequencies.
The major receptors are the skin and heart lung system.
KK 🙂
00
[…] are dominated by men, the most prominent climate bloggers women are sceptical. This includes Joanne Nova, Donna Laframboise, Judith Curry and Lucia. Before someone points out some women alarmists blogs, […]
[Hmmm, I hadn’t thought about that…..] ED
00