There has never been a book quite like this. Please join us and make this happen.
The IPA is raising funds to make the ultimate climate book. I’m delighted to be involved, and I’m humbled and honored to be part of this extraordinary line up. Now Ross McKitrick joins us too. It’s a who’s who of the climate world, and as well as the names in the header, it also includes Donna LaFramboise, Jennifer Marohasy, Bill Kinninmonth, Ian Plimer, Alan Moran, Nigel Lawson, Pat Michaels, John Roskam, Rupert Darwall, Stewart Franks, John Abbot and Bernard Lewin.
If you only buy one book on the climate this would have to be it. It will have something for everyone.
Donations are tax deductible. This book will make waves.
(Click the book to be a part of it)
I’ve got some great news for you. Already 512 IPA members and supporters have donated a total of $144,544 to support the publication of a new book – Climate Change: The Facts 2014. Confirmed contributors include Mark Steyn, Andrew Bolt, Richard Lindzen, Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, James Delingpole, Bob Carter, and Ian Plimer.
I’m delighted to share some new developments about Climate Change: The Facts 2014. We’ve now been able to include Professor Ross McKitrick, from the University of Guelph in Canada as a contributor. Professor McKitrick was one of the key academics who exposed the mistakes of the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph which has been used to justify so much bad climate change policy. A few years ago McKitrick said about Earth Hour: “I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity.”
If you’ve already made a donation – thank you! Our fundraising target is $175,000. If we raise $175,000 we can publish Climate Change: The Facts 2014 and get copies of it to those who need it most – politicians and journalists in Canberra.
To make your tax-deductible donation go to: http://thefacts2014.ipa.org.au/ or you can ring Sarah Wilson at the IPA on 03 9600 4744
03 9600 4744.
Regards
John
PS – remember if you make a tax-deductible donation of $400 or more to support Climate Change: The Facts 2014 you can choose to be named as a supporter on the outside back cover of the book.
John Roskam
Executive Director
Good stuff, Jo!!
113
Bolt and facts on the same page, surely an oxymoron.
22
Very timely Jo.
Especially in light of this little gem.
https://theconversation.com/facts-wont-beat-the-climate-deniers-using-their-tactics-will-24074
Rod Lamberts argues that there needs to be less science in the climate change debate!
“If there’s one thing decades of advertising, public relations, psychology research and science communication have taught us, it’s that throwing facts at opposing opinions with the hope of changing people’s minds is like playing golf with a pineapple: it’s not just useless, it’s actively counterproductive.”
The thing most of use would find amusing about this position is, we probably regard it as almost impossible to have less science in the debate from warmists than we do now. Alarmists are called that because they communicate almost purely on emotive nonsense. Yesterday’s “we could become extinct from AGW” was a classic piece of unsubstantiated, emotive nonsense and when the populace went about their daily routines in response, the Deputy Director, of the Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science at Australian National University decides we need to just ramp up the emotive alarmism in order to get people’s attention. A perspective which indicates both the utter sense of defeat they must be feeling combined with the realisation that their understanding of the word “fact” is probably as flawed as their communication strategy.
So as I said, the book is timely because if I have learned one thing by engaging in this debate, its that skeptics love facts and they love debating the science. We are not moved by emotion or alarmism, except where it is substantiated by facts or at the very least the balance of probability. I trust the book maintains this position because we certainly do not need or want to get away from the facts, in fact, we need to focus on them even more strongly.
512
There is a tendency, on the great unwashed media carrousel, to believe that if something is not working, then you should do it harder; and if people don’t understand “the message”, then it needs to be shouted louder; and if they still don’t get it, then there is a need to call in experts, to deliver the same flawed message in three part harmony.
Sceptics like to think of themselves as being more sophisticated than that. Although I have to admit that I have often found myself shouting at the screen, as I hit the characters on my keyboard, as hard as I can.
But the big difference between the two camps, is that one group has “common sense”, tinged with emotion, and with the backing of like minded people who yearn to belong to the group, and who will believe anything that is expressed with, or by, authority figures. Sceptics, on the other hand, have “the scientific method”, supported by curiosity and a desire to know how and why things work, in the way they do, and who do not care if others in their peer group disagree with their current ideas, or not.
I suspect, and sincerely hope, that this will be a book for the latter, although I fear that it will not be understood by the former.
I had a Physics lecturer, in my final year, who asked for a show of hands, of all those people who had ever taken something apart to see how it worked. The result was almost unanimous. Somebody needs to ask students studying the impacts of climate variation, the same question. I would bet that few hands would go up.
Sceptics have the scientific method, alarmists have the herd mentality. It will be interesting to observe how this plays out.
271
Rereke
I must admit my bias. I have been a member of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) for a long time.
In my opinion the IPA does a first class job and people such as Tim Wilson, John Roskam, and Chris Berg are straight as an arrow.
I have no doubt that this book will be first class as well. That is why my name will be on the back cover.
231
What, no Steve McIntyre? There is probably no one more important in destroying the statistics and other mathematical abuses of AGW proponents.
242
And no one more private.
20
Already signed up. Judith Curry can’t find the time to contribute (Boo) but hopefully may write a Forward. A good chance to publicly light the Candle of Reason in opposition to the Darkness of Ignorant Fear.
222
She may even write a foreword.
20
My bad. It was first coffee time.
10
Tell me about it. I ran out of coffee yesterday.
00
A friend once asked me if there was a book on cosmology that first had facts, and then a section which had the theories, to clearly separate the two. He wanted to know which was which, as too often the layman can’t tell.
I think the book would have been better by having a section at the end about theories and unknowns, perhaps it does, but then it doesn’t say so in the title. Also, since they have said, ‘facts’ they are going to have be careful now what they say, it leaves out any conjecture.
92
What a cast! Jo will this book be for sale and if so what forms? paperback, E book etc..
I also think a copy signed by all contributors would go well in an auction of sorts to raise extra money.
212
good luck with the book, jo. it will be a great read.
2 April: Australian: Staff Reporter: Carbon price ‘the same’ under 19%
The Climate Institute says a 15 per cent emissions reduction target would not require a bigger carbon price if the scheme were linked to international carbon markets.
The Abbott government says lifting the 2020 target to 15 per cent, as recommended by the Climate Change Authority and which would effectively be 19 per cent due to carried over Kyoto credits, would increase the existing price on carbon.
But institute chief John Connor said that would only be the case if the scheme remain “quarantined”, which economists and industry bodies oppose.
“The government’s suggestion that Australia implementing more credible pollution limits will increase our price on carbon is uninformed at best and deliberating(?) misleading at worst,” Connor said…
Mr Connor said the global carbon market involved the trade of billions of tonnes of emission reductions and a few extra million tonnes of demand for emission reductions will have “next to zero impact” on global carbon prices.
“It is these that determine Australian carbon prices — not our emission reduction ambitions,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/carbon-price-the-same-under-19/story-e6frg90f-1226872224856
2 April: Business Spectator: Bloomberg: Offshore wind turbulence; EU carbon collapse
Not everyone is as convinced in the industry: on the following day, SSE announced it had abandoned plans to invest $US33 billion in four UK offshore wind projects due to the “limited” support for the technology from the government and high costs. The global levelised cost of offshore wind power is $US189/MWh, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s central estimate, compared with $US85/MWh for onshore wind and $US82/MWh for coal. SSE will continue to invest in the Beatrice offshore wind farm in partnership with Repsol Nuevas Energias and submitted the final investment contract application to the UK government on 25 March.
The UK has seen several worrying headlines about offshore wind projects in the last six months…
European Union allowances (EUAs) for delivery in December 2014 ended last Friday’s session 29.3 per cent down at €4.42/t on ICE Futures Europe exchange in London, compared with €6.25/t at the close of the previous week…
Prices dropped to a low of €3.71/t before rebounding on Friday as more permits exchanged hands…
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/4/2/wind-power/offshore-wind-turbulence-eu-carbon-collapse
72
Read this carefully: (my Bolding)
More than $8 BILLION per plant. And still renewable power urgers say that if you build more of them, they’ll get cheaper.
Imagine how expensive the power would have to be sold just to recover the Capital cost alone, and not over 50 years like for coal fired power, but 25 years at best, and not at continuous generation but at only 30% of the available time.
Cheaper! Yeah! Right!
Tony.
221
Let me show you something here, with respect to the article pat linked to where it says this:
As Sergeant Swell of The Mounties once said, “What The!”
This is the link for The Beatrice Wind
FarmPlant. (I hate the word farm applied to these things)Note the capital cost, UK3 Billion Pounds. ($US5 Billion)
Note the Nameplate of 750MW.
Note especially where they do not quote Capacity Factor, just hide it in plain sight with historical wind data indicating 6 hours per day, which equates to 25%.
Note the life span, 25 years.
So, for this Beatrice wind plant, the total generated power is 41TWH
Now, let’s pretend they instead used the same money for, just saying, a new tech coal fired power plant. The new one in Germany, cost the same $5 Billion. It has 2 generators rated at 1150MW, so 2300MW total Nameplate. At the front end the CF will be as expected 92.5%, but over the years will drop, so that for the life of the plant it might actually go down to 75%, so, overall, the CF averaged will be around 80%. It has a lifetime of 50 years.
So, for this equivalent cost new tech coal fired plant, the total generated power is 806TWH.
That’s 20 times the total for the Wind Plant.
See now how they can spread that capital cost over 20 times more power, making coal fired power considerably cheaper.
Maintenance is cheaper at ground level for the coal fired plant because you don’t need to lower the tradesman from a helicopter to service the wind tower.
You’ll need to purchase coal, but there’s no way that cost will even approach negating that 20 times the total power.
Bayswater went into full operation in 1985. The total power that will be delivered from this wind plant was delivered by Bayswater in its first 25 Months of operation.
If Wind Power is supposed to be the answer, somebody’s asking the wrong question.
Tony.
270
Not only that Tony, but a new tech coal plant doesn’t need need the same output on standby to supply when the wind doesn’t blow, or blows too hard. In addition, the nice steady output of the new tech coal plant doesn’t drive the dispatchers to pulling their hair out.
140
I cannot think of one thing which any makes sense about wind farms, unless you are in a very remote part of the world and have some way of storing energy, such as in massed banks of batteries or a high elevation dam.
However, there are some who think differently.
I understand there are some very rich people like to make lots more money from the ill considered subsidies of left wing governments.
I understand upland sheep farmers might not mind a few of the larger raptors being shredded by the windmills’ blades.
I understand there are some really goofy people who genuinely prefer expensive, unreliable electricity to the cheap reliable sort.
I understand there are some really strange people who find the windmills to be pretty.
I understand there are some politicians who will perform the equivalent of economic castration for the green/goofy vote.
But for the other 90% of us, who can look at wind farms in an objective manner, they are one of the greatest follies of our generation.
Also Tony, you omitted to include the capital and operating cost of providing back up conventional generators for when the wind: i) doesn’t blow, ii) doesn’t blow strong enough, or iii) blows too strong – that is 60-90% of the time depending on location.
150
Tony from Oz
I was just reading a 3 year old article from the UK that might interest you.
What strikes me is the conclusion reached regarding the electricity market in Denmark. Denmark has significant hydro electric production, augmented with about 30% wind using nameplate capacity, and demand in winter for heating than demand in summer. i.e. quite similar to Tasmania.
The result is that the Denmark consumer subsidises wind power twice. Once to generate it and sell it to Norway and Sweden at a loss, and again to import electricity when it is most expensive to augment the lack of wind. I suspect the result would be similar in Tassie if the market were not so severely distorted by the tax on air and REC’s.
60
Rod Stuart:
Denmark has been doing that for years. When 20% of the electricity GENERATED in Denmark came from wind, they exported between 50 & 75%. Gradually as they got more expertise the latter figure reduced a bit. (That from the Wind Energy Producers Org.)
Then, after a pause in construction they rushed into off-shore wind farms and now nearly 35% of the electricity generated comes from wind. NOTE that at no time has Denmark ever gotten 20% of its electricity from wind (except for an hour or two ) as claimed by the greenies. When a think tank said in a report that 55% went elsewhere there was the usual reaction, they were abused as right wingers and a cohort of academics rushed out a report claiming only 1% of wind power was exported. When you read the fine print it was 50% used locally, 1% exported and 49% which they couldn’t say where it went. Same place as the missing heat???
The Norwegians have been less and less enthusiastic about surges in wind electricity in the last few years, especially after the Germans started dumping their excess, so now when the wind blows strongly the price of electricity plunges, and can even be negative, i.e. the wind farmers have to pay to have their electricity used. This has upset things somewhat and ironically it has increased emissions as the CHP plants in Denmark have to stop making electricity but still supply heat. Naturally the greenies are waffling about wind cutting electricity prices because it is cheaper, and avoiding the logical consequence of wind turbines going out of service. There are said to be 1500-2000 mostly older turbines shut down (sorry no link and no reliable confirmation, but it follows).
30
Tony.
Maybe you have caught up with this already which is right down your alley as it has some pretty horrifying data re the miserable reductions in CO2 emissions if any, and at a horrifying cost both finacial and societal from the installations of vast fields of wind farms in the UK. Ireland, Denmark and Texas and Colorado.
The same wind farms which Cameron, the current UK PM is now being reported as wanting out of [ via GWPF & The Telegraph ] as a policy for the next British general elections.
David Cameron could make manifesto pledge to get ‘rid’ of wind farms
Meanwhile Via the Bishop Hill blog; and for Tony and all who are interested in energy production and in keeping the lights on and the cost of doing so as low as practicable Dealing with the DECC
Wind – Whitehall’s pointless profligacy
_____________________________________
Ross Mc Kitrick’s quote as below from Jo’s headline post is the full blown outline of the concept that has been totally central to all my skepticsm over the decade that I have been following the now catastrophic warming climate “debacle” [ as now distinct from ” debate”. ]
A debacle that is getting larger by the day and to which it’s adherents are steadily appearing to becoming ever more mentally unhinged as the tide of public opinion turns ever more against them and their cultist offerings of nothing but a future of suffering, hardship, impoverishment, hunger, ill health and a harshness of a poverty stricken miserable shorterned existence for the entire human race.
All this as the green water melon dictatorial eco -emo’s try to turn off that greatest of gifts to mankind, one of of cheap energy which is to be denied to mankind for no other reasons than the quasi religious flagellants of the catastrophic global warming faith believe that is what is demanded and needed to save the world from the predictions of an whole compost heap of unverified, unvalidated, unproven climate models and modellers and their predictions of the end of life as we know it unless “Somebody Does Something “.
“
There has only been one way and one way only for the water melon eco-emo’s aka. “Alarmists” to get at the politicals re the so called and still to be proven but the now a quietly but studiously avoided nomenclature of late, the dreaded stomach churning “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” [ /sarc ] and that is through just one channel only, that of limiting energy production to the entire citizenery of this planet and the hell with the consequences for human life and civilisation.
To achieve that the water melon eco-emo’s have to gain unchallenged and unchallengeable power over all of mankind, a contemplated green dictatorship which would be just as evil, just as merciless and just as abhorrent as any of the worst dictatorships this world has ever seen.
Like Vietnam as an American general is reputed to have said. “We had to destroy the village to save it”
That in a few words sums up perfectly the entire rationale of the proposed draconian energy limiting policies of the climate alarmists eco- emo greens and their outright hatred and increasingly clear unhinging of their mentalities as they face increasing opposition against their draconian and life destroying policies.
50
ROM:
the greenies DON’T want anything done about their crisis. That’s why they have ignored anything that would supply electricity and reduce emissions. Wind turbines and solar won’t work as a reliable supply, and they require high emission back up methods, hence their very low rate of emission reduction.
They don’t approve of CCGT’s (despite the success they’ve had in the USA) nuclear nor hydroelectric plants, despite no CO2 emissions.
They WANT to have a permanent state of emergency, so they can gain power.
40
It has happened before. Seems to run in sixty year cycles.
20
You forgot one important point – these nutbags actually enjoy limiting humans and their lives. They see humans as parasites on their goddess, gaia.
This is a religious war in the truest of terms.
Like all pathalogical lunatics that have gone before them, genocide is always a modus operandii – in this case its slower through people dying of cold ( high energy costs ), disease ( limited sanitation ), or lack of nutrition or food storage ( lack of refridgeration ), or lack of reliable transport ( ambulances ) or lack of operationa hospitals ( due to flaky power ).
The energy limiting is a silent war against the most vulnerable of society – as such the Eugenics compenent of the eco-nazism also rears its ugly head . Research Hitlers infamous “T4” program that deliberately killed off the mentally ill, the disabled and aged becasue they were “useless eaters”.
There seems to be not a lot of difference in the thinking behind it and the eco-nazism of indirect energy rationing.
60
Anyone who believes economy of scale applies to wind farms (they involve a lot of fertilizer, so they’re FARMS) is clearly not in touch with reality.
30
jorgekafkazar:
The older smaller models got cheaper when the makers started going broke, and dumped stock. The new bigger machines have been getting more expensive for 10 years, and will continue to do so if people keep making them. The bigger the blade the greater the stress and the more exotic (more expensive) materials have to be used, and the manufacturing methods become more costly too.
10
2 April: Guardian: Kelly Rigg/Wael Hmaidan: Seeking the political will to secure a carbon-free future
Global leaders must see the IPCC report for what it is: one last chance to stop catastrophic climate change
Don’t believe anyone who tells you that a 100% renewable energy-powered future is unrealistic…
(Kelly Rigg is the executive director of the Global Call to Climate Action, a network of more than 400 non-profit organisations. Follow @kellyrigg on Twitter.
Wael Hmaidan is director of Climate Action Network International. CAN is a network of more than 850 NGOs from 100 countries working together to fight the climate crisis. Follow @whmaidan on Twitter)
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/apr/02/ipcc-report-climate-change-carbon
1 April: Brookings Institute: Adele Morris: An EPA-Sanctioned State-Based Carbon Tax Could Reduce Emissions and Improve State Finances
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing a proposed rule due out in June that could allow states to use carbon excise taxes or fees to limit the one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that come from power plants…
A national price on carbon currently has little traction in Washington, but EPA’s power plant rule could open the door for a straightforward state-based tax…
Here are some potential benefits to such a system: … (LIST OF TWELVE)
(Adele Morris, Fellow, Economic Studies, Climate and Energy Economics Project
Policy Director, Climate and Energy Economics Project)
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/04/01-epa-carbon-tax-can-help-environment-state-finances-morris
912
Pat, whatever are you talking about?! Carbon free future?!
The issue is with Carbon Dioxide silly. so please get it right!
And note that Carbon Dioxide is a chemical compond essential to life on this planet earth.
Now go away and blogg on some other site where you belong and where your ignorant ideas will accepted.
Geoff W – Sydney
96
Geoff,
Go easy mate. Pat is quoting from the The Guardian newspaper.
Pat provides some insights to the rest of us, regarding what the media are up to on an almost day by day basis. It saves the rest of us having to scrub our eyeballs several times a day. 🙂
230
Oops guys I made a bob boo!
So sorry Pat and thanks Rereke
Take it all back, I feel bad too
Geoff W – Sydney
190
cross posting.. but nice response, Geoff 🙂
70
Hi Geoffrey,
Yep, Pat provides a great and INVALUABLE service.
He somehow finds time to find all the nonsense in the MSM and bring it to our attention.
He is VERY MUCH on the anti-CAGW side.
You are new here, I think, so I hope you have just mis-understood what he does. 🙂
160
I do hope there is some science in the book. Some simple explanations about CO2 in the atmosphere between the surface and the troposphere that is radiating like billy-o over some 3,800 lines covering the 13 to 17 micron bands and how this radiation CANNOT WARM ANYTHING WARMER THAN MINUS 50C!!! Also how H2O, water vapour also radiates over these same bands and more and water vapour volume can change hugely in just hours, like 1% to 4%, yet if CO2 changes from 0.04% to 0.08% this will lead to the extinction of humanity??
There is no such thing as a ‘greenhouse effect’ in the open atmosphere. ANY ATMOSPHERE WILL EXHIBIT A LAPSE RATE IN A GRAVITY FIELD AND WILL BE WARMEST AT THE SURFACE.
232
Hello Richard 111
been reading about this but would like to understand this in more detail, perhaps JO if she has not covered it could do a piece and make it for the Layman- myself, I get the gist but just want more details.
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html
extract
Another important point from the above discussion is that all greenhouse gases are not equally efficient at trapping terrestrial radiation. Consider a greenhouse gas absorbing at 11 mm, in the atmospheric window ( Figure 7-8 ). Injecting such a gas into the atmosphere would decrease the radiation emitted to space at 11 mm (since this radiation would now be emitted by the cold atmosphere rather than by the warm surface). In order to maintain a constant terrestrial blackbody emission integrated over all wavelengths, it would be necessary to increase the emission flux in other regions of the spectrum and thus warm the Earth. Contrast this situation to a greenhouse gas absorbing solely at 15 mm, in the CO2 absorption band ( Figure 7-8 ). At that wavelength the atmospheric column is already opaque ( Figure 7-13 ), and injecting an additional atmospheric absorber has no significant greenhouse effect.
00
I am a layman on this subject as well. I rely on common sense and real world observation. A lot of waffle in that book link and too much reliance on GCMs. Not a single explanation as to how a gas molecule can ‘trap heat’. The ‘blackbody’ theory is good and the rules derived apply to all IR active molecules. The so called average global atmospheric temperature is 288K or 15C which is quite cool. CO2 molecules CAN absorb high energy photons from sunlight, within the defined radiation fingerprint, which raises the vibrational level of the molecule such that some energy can be passed to other air molecules by collision. This means the original molecule is unable to emit a similar high energy photon. Some heat energy has been passed to the air. Is this heat trapping? Warm rises. Also that absorbed energy never reached the surface. Is this a gain or loss in energy transfer?
Our CO2 molecule will still have some internal translational energy being lost through collisions until it reaches a state where it can emit a number of low energy photons over the 13 to 17 micron range until it reaches local thermal equilibrium, half of which could reach the surface. But those low energy photons will only be absorbed by bodies with temperatures below -50C. The global surface is much warmer than that and already radiating over that band. There is no such thing as ‘back radiation’ from a gas molecule.
Very simplified but I haven’t the patience or desire to write a book 🙂
00
What about the direct observation that at 04:00 am sleeping under the wing of a Cessna on a cattle station at Hillston NSW is a damn lot colder without cloud cover.
50
Do clouds help keep the Earth surface warmer at night time? Sometimes. When cold Antartic winds drive clouds over Southern Victoria bearing snow it does not seem warmer on the ground.
What has that got to do with the Green House Gas Effect Theory? Well it is often held up a some kind of proof.
However it should be noted that:
1. Clouds are not gas. Water droplets in a cloud have a surface which can be radiated from.
2. Clouds are the result of water condensing, hence giving out latent heat of condensation.
3. If the cloud is warmer than the ground, which may well be the case, then It can help warm the ground. At least that is how I understand it.
4. The process of evaporation, by which moisture enters the atmosphere, causes cooling of the ground at that place. The cloud might form somewhere else and causing some warming at another place.
The process is quite different from the GHGE as described, which should have water molecules in a clear sky warming the Earth, which is not what we notice on clear nights.
00
I can confirm James and Peter. I have spent many nights looking at the stars from both the Arabian and Namibian deserts. Never under the wing of a Cessna though I was licensed to fly one. Clear nights in the desert could get VERY cold even if day temperatures reached 40C and above.
Now retired in Pembrokeshire, Wales, and again have observed night time temperature increase many times as clouds move over after a warm clear sunny day and evening. Temperature drops in the evening rapidly after sunset but levels off as clouds move over and can then increase if not too much wind. I think this is due to the slow heat transfer through soil and concrete etc. Those surfaces can cool fairly quickly via radiation which effectively stops if temperature of cloud is close to ground temperature. As radiation loss reduces, stored heat rises, and temperature rises. NOTE: I have NEVER seen that night time temperature rise exceed day time maximum temperature. But if there is a lot of wind non of the above is observable.
20
Thanks Richard111,
I will look out for suitable conditions. If the cloud is warmer than the Earth the cloud could either prevent radiative heat loss or cause radiative warming at the surface. I have an infrared thermometer so I could try to take a measurement.
By the way, I have been reading about ancient astronomy in Mesopotamia. Can you tell me if observing conditions are particularly good there.
00
Peter, please remember the LAPSE RATE. The bottom of the cloud is unlikely to exceed surface temperature. But the bottom of the cloud, all those little droplets of water, are effectively a ‘black body radiator’. Radiation from cloud to surface, my guess, is more efficient than radiation from surface to cloud.
I worked near Abadan for a year but too much distraction so can’t remember what viewing was like. Only started stargazing when there was nothing else to do. 🙂
00
Remember, clouds also slow down convective heat loss.. until the energy is released.
Think of it as being behind a semi trailer up a steep hill.
But what happens when the semi reaches the crest. !
00
Peter C and others, I’d like to hear your comments about the concept of “thermal mass” with respect to clouds and their ability to slow cooling.
The thermal mass of the water droplets would radiate their own heat and also be able to slow down heat loss, retain it and radiate it back. Clouds will behave just like the thermal mass of heated water in a water bottle (hottie).
The thermal mass of the atmospheric gasses is much much lower in comparison, yet I’ve never heard this discussed in climate science. Instead it is water vapor that is compared to CO2. Why is this?
10
That is a new idea for me Mark D.
00
Humid nights are warmer (LWIR travels less before being absorbed nearer to the surface) and the heat from condensation above the clouds hinders convection of air below. The latter is probably the biggest factor.
00
In response to your first post:
I agree with you about the GHGE. However with respect to the second statement:
There is a problem known as an atmospheric inversion. Sometimes the atmosphere is warmer at altitude than it is at the surface. I do not have an explanation for that at present.
00
Peter,
An inversion is chilled from below because the surface has lost more energy as the air heats from conduction and radiation for the upcoming sun,
but the density remains, as do the slightly heavier molecules ie CO2 concentration can be quite high under an inversion..
until shifted by surface heat or a breeze.
00
the Griss, quite so. I remember the early morning inversions over the grass landing field when I was learning to fly in the 1960s. Never extended more than 20 feet or so up – but no flying allowed! The sun usually burnt it off fairly quickly.
00
Jo,
There needs to be a chapter on unintended consequences, and on the impracticality of renewables – to do that you need some electricty specialists like myself or Tony.
I think it’s important to address the policy failures of mitigation. Can you put this to the Editor?
142
Unintended (perhaps), but not unpredictable
Not challenging sleazy spin phrases like “unintended consequences” or “a price on carbon” (whatever that actually means) allows the AGW activists to grease out of responsibility, accountability
101
Hmm, that’s as I know it, however it describes the problem accurately, the injurious outcomes were not intended by the policy. Like insulation installers being electrocuted by reflective foil Insulation in combination with faulty wiring. Forseeable but unintended nevertheless, the failure is in not being capable of forseeing the unintendwd outcome.
However, I would not agree that the perpetrators of a scheme that had injurious and forseeable side effects should not be held accountable for those side effects. I’m an engineer, I run the risk of this almost every day.
Respectfully, I must disagree, my language was accurate.
Besides, my point is that climate change to the “Useful Idiots” is a moral crusade and the science is a sideshow, the book focusses on the sideshow, and not the socio-political underpinnings… think about the little children… I think the book needs to take a stab at the moral truth, that far from “reducing CO2 emissions couldn’t hurt” we should expose the harm and damage that so-called climate action is doing right now. Such a chapter begins to delegitimise the moral basis of the cult, deprogramming that angelic belief that climate action is doing universal good.. that there is no downside.
10
There are thousands of Climate Change “GIGO Fictional Publications” out there so it is good to finally see something worth reading appear on the scene, ie a non-fictional 100% true and believable publication dealing with the “Science of Climate Change”. PM Tony Abbott should make sure that this publication becomes the main reference dealing with the “Science of Climate Change” in the Australian Secondary School Curriculum.
182
I’m going to buy heaps of books, nail them to a wooden cross and confront the next march demanding we wear hairshirts made in China.
Can see it now…warmists stampeding in the opposite direction. Think running of the fools.
112
Wearing “Screw Climate Change” T-shirts…
20
too funny – i can’t stop laughing & i’ve only read it:
(AUDIO)2 March: ABC The World Today: Fad not facts: call for new approach to climate change
ELEANOR HALL: An Australian National University science academic says it is time to call in the advertising industry to make sure that the warnings from climate scientists hit home…
Dr Rod Lamberts, says scientists have done all they can to alert governments to the need for action, but that professional marketing may be more effective..
SIMON LAUDER: The deputy director of the Australian Centre for Public Awareness of Science at the ANU, Dr Rod Lamberts, says the latest IPCC report has failed to make a difference to the debate.
ROD LAMBERTS: This looks to me to be unfortunately the case of the same thing happening over and over again, where people who support the science and are concerned about what the science is telling us believe that throwing more and more facts at the issue in the public space will make a difference, and I seriously doubt that it will.
SIMON LAUDER: He says it’s time for a less scientific appeal.
ROD LAMBERTS: If the goal is to affect change, then I believe we need to step more into the realms of advertising and marketing and so on, in terms of delivering messages that are supported by what the science is telling us, but don’t have the science in those messages.
That’s not what we need anymore.
SIMON LAUDER: And why do you think that would work?
ROD LAMBERTS: I think it would have a much better shot at working because we’ve seen evidence, there’s evidence to suggest appealing to people’s emotions will have a stronger effect than trying to appeal to their brains via some kind of, you know, fact channel…
***(LOL- SOOO ABC) SIMON LAUDER: And presumably, the target of an advertising campaign would be politicians?
ROD LAMBERTS: Probably not. I think many of those folks; their positions are not set by the science necessarily, but their positions are fairly set by the other forces. I think it’s more about the people in the middle; people who may or may not change, who aren’t really sure what to believe, aren’t sure what they can do.
SIMON LAUDER: Another question I have about using advertising and marketing which is, I guess, divorced to the science to some extent. Does that open up the opportunity for critics and sceptics to label it a scare campaign again?
ROD LAMBERTS: Yeah, they’re doing that anyway. I just don’t think that matters anymore…
SIMON LAUDER: It’s not a new idea; there are already ads which attempt to spread the word about climate change.
VOICEOVER (excerpt from climate change advertisement): This is the biggest threat humankind has ever faced. Humans have caused this…
SIMON LAUDER: Copywriter and creative director at Jara Consulting, Jane Caro, says advertising isn’t effective if it’s too shocking, but she doesn’t believe more scientific facts will be convincing on their own.
JANE CARO: Facts have never changed anyone’s mind about anything, sadly. It’s very hard for scientists to understand this, because they’re highly rational people, but in actual fact, no-one has ever been rationalised out of a belief…
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s3976695.htm
112
When I heard this on the radio today I thought, at first, that they had meant to broadcast it yesterday -:).
Then I realised they were serious.
These people are beyond parody.
But a number of phrases come to mind:
– Freudian slip
– self-licking ice-cream
– stupendous own goal (vying with the Ship of Fools)
I suspect we will see more such outpourings from the AGWers as they flail around desperately trying to keep their movement alive.
100
“He says it’s time for a less scientific appeal.”
Seriously ?????? How is that even possible with the CAGW meme ?????
100
The moment I heard of this book being written, I organised a group of climate rationalists here in Canberra (Capital Round Table Rationalists) to donate $500. Congratulations Jo.
121
” Donations are tax deductible. This book will make waves.
”
You’re havin’ a larf, aren’t you.
Which administrations would allow a work on the other side of Climate Change to benefit from the of the Public Purse, in even such a small way.
I mean if Jo’s chocolate can’t be tax deductible, then how this ?
72
Ha. I thought supporting JoNova for $250 was good value. Put me down for $1000 on this one, and through the business too
Can you imagine if ‘Malak Supermarket, NT’ makes the back cover!
—
Thanks Aaron! Do you have a website for the shop? -Jo
80
Hi Jo,
We don’t have a website, we are a little independent supermarket/convenience store in suburban Darwin. Also, if the publishers could just hold off a few more weeks until I con a few hundred thousand dollars out of the NT govt for my 150kw/h commercial solar panel setup, that would also be appreciated. They won’t cough up if carbon isn’t trendy anymore 🙂
-Aaron
00
I’d love to help but there have been so many calls on the donor’s purse lately that I am donored out. Best of luck with the book; printing is one thing but getting the pollies and their advisors to read it is quite another. I can’t imagine Greg Hunt or Malcolm Turnbull flicking a page and there certainly won’t be any ALP or Green ignoramuses lining up to read how they have been wrong all these years. As for the Dr. Rod lamberts of this world they can see their well paid rubbish research dollars drying up and the last thing they want aired are facts. After all they have been paid to write fantasy for so long they think its real.
91
Totally understand Lawrie, there will be lots of ways to help promote the book, not in the least, by buying a copy when it is finished.
Publishing a book is not just about actual physical copies in the hands of readers. Excerpts get published on sites and in news stories, people discuss it on the radio, they critique and review it. They might not buy the book, but they may read the Amazon reviews…
It becomes a talking point in its own right.
220
The book cover looks a bit flash Jo.
I reckon t shirts emblazoned front and back with the cover would look a treat.
The sort of an in your face statement the global warmists/alarmists seem to love.
20
Good idea. I like to wear my ‘How many Prius drivers does it take to offset a volcano?’ (Available at Australian Climate Madness) T-Shirt into Fremantle. As yet, not one hippy has had the comprehension skills to be offended. A T-Shirt with Andrew Bolt’s name on it is bound to get a rise out of them.
20
Don’t sell the Prius short – you do realize that 98% of all Prius’s manufactured are still on the road today…
…the other 2% actually made it home.
160
LOL!
10
Hi Jo,
For the benefit of those of us on the wrong side of the “Big Pond”, can you make it possible for us to purchase it via electronic delivery? I doubt if I could cover the cost of international shipping for a 2 or 3 kg package.
Alternatively, any plans to sell flash drives with the book on it? That’s something I could cover the cost of shipping for.
(Sorry to end the sentence with a preposition — — nasty habit it is mine of … … … )
Apologies to Yoda,
Mark H.
20
Although I am a network engineer, and have worked on PCs since the early 80s (i set up my first network using Novell Netware 86), I prefer real books. I will bite the bullet and pay for shipping when it publishes. I like something I can dog ear and put on a shelf.
00
Jo. this is a great initiative and a great idea by you and all the other contributors. Well done!
We, your supporters know you to be an honest and true person and that you have the ability to present the facts clearly for everyone to understand. That’s all we want. Ordinary people will read it and be able to judge and think for themselves about the greatest political / scientific scam of our age. This will be will a book that the IPCC, world governments and the alarmists all over the world will have to reckon with. Can’t wait for it to happen!
Geoff W – Sydney
71
The credit card option didn’t work for me so I did an EFT instead.
I’ll be on the back cover! What an opportunity to prove to my descendants that I was a sceptic. 🙂
121
Moi aussi.
50
Jo, it is start-up money that is needed, so the problem would be greatly eased if people were willing to pay now and receive the book later, when it comes out. I think that many people would assist on that basis. Could such an arrangement be set up? There are also crowdfunding websites that could help.
Are you going to do a post on the IPCC’s latest apocalyptic rubbish, ie the report from which Tol dissented by resigning? It was lead story on the BBC for 2 days and the word is that the British government actually asked for it to be more apocalyptic:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2592992/Britains-secret-bid-fix-UN-climate-report-Impact-economy-ramped-up.html
Lies, damned lies and climate change lies…
81
Anton,
I agree. I give very seldom to Jo, the odd $20 or $50, but only as much as I can afford.
Tax, Electricity, Water, Telstra, Rates, Rego, Food, Fuel it seems never ending and ever increasing. Enough whining from me.
But I will give when I can.
But the book I would pay for in advance for say $40 (or whatever) if this was possible. I really do want this book with the authors listed above. I’d even pay $60 if it was signed by Jo or Jennifer both being the at the forefront of this struggle in advance.
Can we do this shortly for say $60 per signed copy here at http://www.joannenova.com.au and you collect chocolates for the signature. I don’t give a hoot about tax deduction.
Can hardly wait.
30
I did… 🙂
51
Dave / Joanne: I too would like a copy of this book when it is available and being from Canada the tax deduction is of no value to me and I really wouldn’t care if I got one or not. Do I understand the process correctly, I go to the ‘tip jar’ and make a donation (for how much?) and at some point down the road I will get a copy of the book?
Thanks
20
Could I suggest that it is simpler if you email Hugh Tobin at the IPA and have Hugh reserve a copy for you?
10
What a shame our lone dissenter hasn’t got the courage to explain his/her dissent. Are alarmists so uncertain of their position that they can only bully isolated sceptics in packs?
71
I suspect they are fed-up of the pseudo-facts being ripped to shreds. 🙂
51
Its nice to see Stewart Franks still involved. 🙂
20
ps. I half thought he might sort of disappear once he moved to UTas.
10
pps, Once my new contract starts, some funds your way.. 😉
10
I would soooooo buy that book
Let’s make it happen peeps
20
How about AVERTING electro-celestially induced volcanic ice-ages? http://www.global-providence.info
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks Gifford H. Miller et al,
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L02708, 2012 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050168.shtml
Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays: Volcano as a bubble chamber
Toshikazu Ebisuzaki, Hiroko Miyahara, Ryuho Kataoka, Tatsuhiko Sato, Yasuhiro Ishimine
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X10001966
muons can contribute to nucleation in supersaturated magma, as documented by many authors studying a bubble chamber, via ionization loss. This radiation-induced nucleation can lead to the pre-eruptive exsolution of H2O in the silica-rich magma. We note the possibility that the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption was triggered by the same mechanism: an increase in cosmic-ray flux triggered by Typhoon Yunya, as a decrease in atmospheric pressure results in an increase in cosmic-ray flux. We also speculate that the snowball Earth event was triggered by successive large-scale volcanic eruptions triggered by increased cosmic-ray flux due to nearby supernova explosions.
30
Forgive me for sounding dense or, perhaps, stating the obvious, but what exactly is “Climate Change”. The point is raised in the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report publicized by Bishop Hill; there seems to be no real definition of “Climate Change”; indeed, one of the MPs (Greg Barker) summed it up nicely, saying the he did not believe that it was a technical term.
This got me thinking: “Climate” is a pretty amorphous concept, and is used to describe a wide range of conditions, all or none of which could actually exist in an area over some time. Also there can be many variations within the same “climate area”, even within the British Isles; which could is specifically be called “British Climate”? Can we actually tell that the British climate is changing? Certainly, the Indian climate seems not to be, nor the Australian one, nor much of Africa, or the Americas. I suspect that the term “Climate Change” was adopted because it is not really possible to define “Climate”, let alone any change in it.
How is “Climate Change” measured? Are there such instruments as climatometers or climatascopes? No; now that the original “measure” of climate change (average global surface air temperature) has stubbornly refused to co-operate, the general way of “identifying” climate change is not to rely upon instruments at all (I mean, they can be so-o-o misleading, by not agreeing with models) but to point to a weather event that supports the idea, and declare that as evidence (e.g. your few hot days in January); any weather event that does NOT support the claim can then be summarily dismissed as “Weather” (e.g. the recent cold months in North America, or the snow you had in, when? 2011?). In spite of being categorically informed by the UKMO that the models indicated that this winter in the UK was going to be unusually dry, the flooding was almost instantly more “proof” of “Climate Change” (as if it never rains in the UK winter, and flooding never occurs… yeah, right. Just a brief search through history will nail that myth down).
Might it be an idea to start your book with that idea; try to pin down what is actually meant by “Climate” and by “Climate Change” and how both are ascertained, and, more importantly, measured?
40
‘Climate Change’ is a word combination from a language game by spin doctors who discovered before 2009 that surface temperatures did not increase any more. The words were invented in order to prepare the populace for the new spin that CO2 would cause everything from (extreme) warming to cooling. Analysed outside this context, the words bear no meaning because everything changes with time. Try to imagine what its denial would mean. We should not play this language game but give people real information about the world. Hopefully, it will not be in the title of the new book.
40
One of the “definitions” the IPCC uses for climate is average weather (what ever that means) over a period of say 30 years.
For those of us in more rigorous disciples like engineering that is a naive definition of climate.
It would seem that a scientific definition of climate should come from a consideration of the many variables that interact to produce weather. The reality is that climate scientists, or anyone else for that matter, know very little of the why, when and how those many variables interact.
Thirty years? In your dreams “climate change” fraudsters.
To discover the why, when and how of all those variables, given the long term cyclical nature of some of the variables, it surely will require centuries, at least, of data to gain a scientific understanding of climate.
Obviously when a little bit extra CO2, which is but one of the many input variables, can produce, for example, more snow, less snow or even the certainty of no more snow in the future the fraudsters have not got a clue why and how just that one, of a multiplicity of variables acts in the climate.
10
I will definitely buy a copy, and have donated to make sure there are copies to buy!
20
Jo, a small edit suggestion that you spell out the full name of the IPA and link to their main web site? Some of us from the rest of the world may not be as up on them and what they have done.
Otherwise the book is a great idea I’ll wish for great success!
10
Good idea. IPA is an Ale over here.
“The term IPA is common in the United Kingdom for low-gravity beers, for example Greene King IPA and Charles Wells Eagle IPA. IPAs with an abv of 4% or lower have been brewed in Britain since the First World War,[17] when taxes on beer ingredients greatly increased and brewers responded by lowering the strength of their beers.”
(Nothing like the gnatt’s p€€ we get sent over from Aus 🙂
10
IPA stands for India Pale Ale, originally a low gravity beer, well hopped for preservation in the Indian climate where it was sent to keep the troops happy.
20
Good. Glad Im not the only one who thought home-brewers were going to be writing a scientific book. Because, as a home brewer, sentences are not always easy to construct. Especially during IPA testing.
10
Aaron, do you make mead? 🙂
IPA is a favorite style of mine and I don’t mind that it is “session” strength. Bitter (as in Boddington’s or Tetley’s) is what I make for filling the fridge. It is a style that can keep most beer palates happy. I’ve been able to clone Boddington’s up to 6% strength keeping the flavor pretty close. That is no gnat’s pee 🙂
00
Gawd! They got 3.2 beer in the UK? I thought the US was the only idiot place that brewed the crap. At least the UK seems to have a better justification for their low beer. Now if they would just learn how to keep it cold! 😉
00
A lot of wavering Warmists might rehabilitate their flagging reputations with a listable, tax deductible, donation 😉
10
Sadly even a wavering warmist is still a warmist and will have already donated the money, put aside for their next green-surcharged energy bill, to the Australian Climate Council.
The last mill was only enough to cover salaries for the five members and the president – they must be screaming for donat…
oh yeah that’ll be the reason for the renewed catastrophe vigour.
20
The IPA should poster this offer in Universities and other such paid up Temples of Climate conformism and see what develops.
10
the ***analysts referred to are, laughably, bloomberg & reuters point carbon! and their predictions as reliable as the IPCC’s:
2 April: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: EU Carbon Pares Gains as Analysts Revise 2013 Emissions Estimate
Carbon permits pared gains as ***analysts said European Union data showed emissions from factories and power stations probably fell more than their predictions made earlier today…
Emissions in the EU’s carbon market fell 3 percent to 4.2 percent last year on a like-for-like basis from 2012, according to analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which earlier estimated a drop of 1.6 percent. Point Carbon, a unit of Thomson Reuters Corp., revised its estimate to a 3.1 percent drop from a fall of 1.6 percent earlier today…
Last year’s fall in emissions is close to the median forecast for a 3.8 percent decline by seven analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News…
The European Commission data show “several installations increased their covered emissions scope between 2012 and 2013,” New Energy said in an e-mailed statement. “This is likely due to the inclusion of new sectors and gases, or an aggregation of previously separate installations into single ones. This appears to particularly affect steel, refining and combustion installations.” ….
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-01/eu-carbon-rises-after-2013-emissions-fell-slower-than-expected.html
00
vote now, don’t be fooled by the yellow tick trying to make it look like yes is the majority.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-see-climate-change-threat-your-life-or-well-being
20
Yes is the majority vote by far.
00
Sorry, NO is the majority vote.
00
I hate to be the dissenter here but unfortunately after a great deal of internal argument it’s a position in which I find myself.
So we get a new book written by all the people we know and love – what will it do to impress the great unwashed who still believe Al Gore and his vast band of supporters?
The wonderful Topher Field trudged across the globe with a video crew on a shoe string budget interviewing all these people and after weeks of sweating it out in an edit suite presented the 50:1 series available on Youtube.
What was the reaction?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgMZegvtXB0
Anthony Watts got the most views, just over 6,000.
An Inconvenient Truth is available in every school throughout the western world. That’s what we are up against.
After spending many years making popular music I’ve learnt that to get out into the market place you need the professionals in the field, in my case the major record companies, in this case the major publishers. The IPA is not one of them. The IPA is a think tank, not a publishing house. I hate to say it but I have no doubt this book will go the same way as the 50:1 project.
Even the Heartland Institute with its wide membership can’t get its NIPCC report into the hearts and minds of the general public.
We need an Al Gore, a frontline personality to present our case to the world. One that comes to mind is James Lovelock because he created the religion of the environmental movement – Gaia. They might listen to him.
As the recent bloggies demonstrated We are One yet we are Many, as the alternative Aussie anthem goes. Our donation power is prolific and extensive, as Joanne recently discovered.
Perhaps we should think higher and greater – perhaps the IPA could approach the major TV empires, and bring Lovelock on board along with others like David Bellamy, who we all grew up with and trust, and see if we can produce an alternative to an Inconvenient Truth – The Convenient Truth.
30
Same question in my mind, Janama.
On the other hand, it could be the thing that convinces those on the fence or those simply indoctrinated in climate change but never exposed to the other side of the debate. So let’s give it a chance. I know that seeing the real underlying argument against global warming changed me from a doubter to someone convinced of his position.
00
I 100% agree with this comment.
The problem is without the MSM on board you cannot get any traction.
The good news is that considering what Jo and others are battling it is astounding the ground they are covering.
Things are changing, when this scam first started 30 years ago the MSM had everything under their control, since the internet has come along people are shifting towards this as a first call medium. It will still take time but the newspapers are loosing readers, the Guardian in the UK is in a complete downward spiral.
It will take time but look how far things have come for skepticism in the last 6 years compared to 30 years of full on alarmism from the MSM.
Carry on everyone , there are lots of places on the internet to spread good science and counter this alarmist nonsense.
20
I have no doubt MSM will pick it up and bag it to hell and gone, but you know what, it’s true, there is no such thing as bad publicity, and as our Green/Labor Opposition here in Australia will shortly find – the more they want to censor something the more people will want to know about it.
The internet truly is the greatest weapon against tyranny.
60
James I to think the msm and the global warmists will bag it.
But unlike their flawed arguments to put it kindly.
The facts will be sound.
Any one who identifys as a global warmist/alarmist that wants to argue on the facts in the book,would want to make damn sure their “alternative” facts stack up.
Right at the minute, they don’t.
Flannery and his band of merry fraudsters critique will be gold.
20
And accordingly the socialists like former Minister Conroy and his control freak leader wanted NBNCo and an internet filter they controlled.
20
Absolutely, just like their attempt to muzzle the media with a Government appointed lacky to overseer the ACMA with no restrictions to the biased rubbish the ABC continues to promote.
20
Joanne: I’m sending an e-mail to Ezra Levant at Sun News Network here in Canada about promoting this book in Canada and would like to cc you on my note. Can you please give me an e-mail address for yourself or your webpage.
Thanks
40
Just the fact that someone commenting used the word “levelise” makes me think that the message is getting through to the right people! However, would someone like that read a whole book?
00
Jo
An electronic copy is a must, especially if you can get it onto Amazon or the like…..all the Gen Ys seem wedded to anything that beeps…
20
Jo the pay site will not accept a postal address, my bankers use my post office box so why reject payments on the basis of not being a street address?
00
The site is definitely making it hard. So I used paypal. I hate that service, but at times, it comes in handy.
00
This is a bone-chilling revelation of what is in store if the perpetrators of the CAGW scam succeed in their plans for a totalitarian police State. Support our freedoms, beginning with free speech.
20
You need to start another program to get this to school kids and libraries.
Why aren’t you using Lightning Source printing service, unless the $175Gs is going to the authors.
00
policycritic
Personally I’m worried by the many players in the electrical generation industry, starting with the Feds with their Energy Regulator office the going down, turtles all the way, through more regulators, controllers, enforcers, miners, generators, distributors, lines & poles, smart meter readers and probably a few more.
If you know the basic maths of compound interest accumulations in a hierarchy you will see cause for fear.
00
@Geoff Sherrington,
Lightning Source is the global commercial Print-On-Demand (POD) system used by mainstream publishers around the world. Now open to individual publishers. Cost-effective. Reduces costs. Automatically linked to distributors and Amazon.
00
AGL to handball $1b carbon bill to customers reported in the Herald Sun 23/8/2012.The article said “AGL is one of the biggest polluters in Australia including Victoria Loy Yang A power plant. “The photo has the caption Polluter AGL,s Loy Yang power station and is in colour and shows clear steam containing CO2 coming from the 5 chimneys at the plant. The recent fire in the open cut which covered the area in carbon monoxide and grit was real carbon pollution .The carbon tax must be removed because it is based on lies
10
Fine, so long as you keep hammering the two-liner.
Climate change is about delivering a message.
Good science is about delivering the goods.
02
Hi Jo,
Just another annoying request to have the book made available via Kindle as an e-book. I would much prefer to buy it in this format! Please, please, please!
00