Hell hath frozen over

Because for once I think Obama did a great job.

A lot of people are criticizing the president over the Syrian conflict and they state that he has no nerve and he will not do what “American needs to do” as if bombing some despot in a third world is what America should be doing.  Now granted, doing nothing like he has is sometimes the best course of action.  And in so doing nothing, the president has accomplished the following:

Continue reading

solar power’s environmental nightmare …

Good write up, thought I would pass this along.


Not just a blight on the landscape, but the materials used create their own environmental hazards. It could easily have been gas power, using much less land and materials, like the one we have in Broome.  An idyll blighted by 18,000 solar panels: Seen from the sky, the reality of alternative energy

Row after row, this astonishing array of solar panels has completely engulfed an enormous 30-acre field in the heart of the countryside.

As this aerial photograph reveals, acres of beautiful Hampshire countryside have been blighted as a result, by 18,000 solar panels.  The solar farm covers a staggering 30 acres of land creating a massive eyesore in the centre of an otherwise picturesque view.

The solar farm, Cadland Estate at Fawley in Hampshire, covers a staggering 30 acres of land creating a massive eyesore in the centre of an otherwise picturesque view

Photographer Tim Woodcock, 54, captured the…

View original post 652 more words

Obama’s science comes from a NAZI

H/T PhilinCalifornia for the idea

Yep, its proven that when Obama stated this in his climate change speech on June 23rd:

So the question is not whether we need to act.  The overwhelming judgment of science — of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements — has put all that to rest.  Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest.  They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.

That 97% number he used comes from the paper written by John Cook of Skeptical Science.  I guess I could point out how Cook is not a scientist, but rather a cartoonist, but why waste the fun in seeing who the president of the US listens to on science matters.  Recently, we found out that the owner of that blog, John Cook Photoshops himself and his friends into NAZI portraits for fun.  The first picture of Cook himself is here:


It’s not a bad picture I guess if you enjoy dressing yourself up as a NAZI.  But maybe photo-shopping your picture on top of an old nazi uniform does not make you a NAZI.  Perhaps in some bizarre creepy fashion show they thought it was funny.  Always a possibility, but as of yet we have not heard why they thought this was a good idea, or any justification for that matter,   I am not going to state flat-out that we know what Cook is,  but the picture HE had on his website originally does show him in a NAZI uniform.  What are we supposed to assume by this if he remains silent?

I am just baffled that anyone would take advice on science from someone like that I guess.  In other words, the leader of the free world takes his advice from a cartoonist from Australia who thinks its fun to photo-shop his picture on top of an old NAZI picture?  The more you read into the science of global warming, the more bizarre it gets.  I expect loads of more fun as the current stasis of our climate system continues.


Does Wind Actually Decrease CO2 Emissions?

This question was asked of the British Government recently and here is their reply:


RE: Empirical measurement of fossil fuel displacement by wind power


Thank you for your Freedom of Information requests received on 1 May 2011.

Your requests, received 1 May from Dr John R. Etherington

“Has any attempt been made to relate the short term variation of ACTUAL fuel-use by load-following plant to metered wind power feed-in? If so, can the figures be provided, expressed as tonnes of CO2 actually saved per MWh of wind generated electricity?

If no such attempt has been made why not, as carbon-fuel displacement is the only justification for deploying expensive, and covertly subsidised wind power?”

We have considered your request in accordance with the Environmental Regulations 2004 (EIRs) as the information you sought disclosure of, does in our view, fall within the definition of `environmental information’ as stated in the EIRs. We have now completed searching for the information you requested.

In order to determine the relation of the short term variation of actual fuel-use by load-following plant to metered wind power feed-in, we would need to know what fuel use would have occurred in the absence of wind power (i.e. the counterfactual).

This counterfactual (the fuel use in the absence of wind power) depends on the proportions of nuclear, CCGT or coal investment that are being displaced by wind power and the effects on their subsequent operation.  Such a counterfactual can only be calculated by modelling a world without wind power and by subsequently comparing it to the current data on emissions from the grid. No such analysis has been carried out by DECC.

HT: Phillip Bratby


And so we do not actually know the answer to that question.  I think this response by the DECC is important for everywhere to realize the truth.  No one actually knows the answer on whether wind turbines decrease CO2 emissions and likewise decrease other emissions from normal power plants.  In this insane zeal to decrease pollution of all types we have grabbed this delusional thought that we must build the industrial monsters and in the end its nothing but a waste of time and resources.   So why do people think they decrease CO2 emissions?  That belief comes from the belief that we should only count one side of the equation, namely the side that shows the benefit of Wind Turbines and not look at how it increases emissions as well due to its intermittent nature.  The numbers run at the above link indeed show that its likely that adding wind above a certain threshold actually INCREASES CO2 emissions and the best case scenario turns out to be 10% savings assuming everything works perfectly.   So somewhere between -10% savings and 10% savings is the probable result of adding wind to the grid in terms of CO2 emissions.  In other words, it’s just as likely that we save zero in CO2 emissions than we do not.

Until someone actually does the difficult job of figuring out the real result, adding more wind to the grid is a fool’s errand that only accomplishes higher power bills for the poor and tax breaks for the rich.  Other than the regressive tax that wind really brings, which is probably good for the rich who buy into these pork barrel products, there is not one good thing to their name.  I think its time to answer this question once and for all so that we stop enriching our rich land-owners at the cost of the poor for no reason.

Change is scary

The entire concept of being scared of change is what drives and motivates people to be fearful and even paranoid in the modern environmental movement.   The reason for this at its heart is that people are fearful of change.  And nowhere has society changed more than in modern society where we have gone from an agrarian society to a modern office worker society in just 100 years.  This dramatic change has left people without an outlet to discuss each change individually and so these people no longer promote such ideas as conservation and science when they advocate for change.  And so these people have turned into fear hustlers and fear promoters who spread their fears to everyone else under the guise of “the environment” or even homeland security.  These calls to change the world are based on the simple concepts of fear and paranoia.

Continue reading