Trump gets it right on ’60 Minutes’

The mainstream media once again attempted to challenge President Donald Trump on “climate change,” but Trump emerged unscathed by refuting typical climate claims with accurate and remarkably scientific comments in an October 14, 2018, 60 Minutes interview. (Even the mainstream media acknowledged Trump’s overall interview victory: See:  Variety: ’60 Minutes’ Was Outmatched by Trump – ‘He won every segment of the interview’)

A Climate Depot analysis finds that President Trump’s climate remarks were scientifically, politically and economically accurate. Finally, the United States has a president who understands “global warming”! See: Full climate transcript: Trump: Scientists who promote ‘climate’ fears ‘have a very big political agenda’ – [As Variety noted, Trump understands how to battle the mainstream media: Reporter Lesley Stahl asked Trump about “the scientists who say [the effects of climate change are] worse than ever,” but was [she] unprepared to cite one; knowing, now, that the human factor will not work on Trump, a broadcaster should be prepared to cite hard facts in a faceoff with the President.]

President Trump to 60 Minutes: “I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a hoax. I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade. I will say this: I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs.” … “I’m not denying climate change,” he said in the interview.

Reality Check: President Trump is frankly giving his assessment of man-made climate change and his understanding is in agreement with some very high profile scientists. Trump has been remarkably consistent with his climate views, demanding that “The Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore” in the wake of the Climategate revelations in 2010.

Trump is also correct on so-called climate “solutions” costing “trillions and trillions” of dollars. See: ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ ‘SOLUTIONS”  COULD COST $122 TRILLION  & Bjorn Lomborg on UN climate deal: ‘This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world’

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giever told the new book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” that “The Earth has existed for maybe 4.5 billion years, and now the alarmists will have us believe that because of the small rise in temperature for roughly 150 years (which, by the way, I believe you cannot really measure) we are doomed unless we stop using fossil fuels…You and I breathe out at least thirty tons of CO2 in a normal lifespan, but nevertheless, the Environmental Protection Agency decided to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health.”

The claim here is that carbon dioxide can have a warming impact on the atmosphere, but this does not mean CO2 is the control knob of the climate. As the University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has noted: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added. Even the global warming activists at RealClimate.org acknowledged this in a September 20, 2008 article, stating, “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors.”

Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, a pioneer in development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, has declared (as quoted in my book): “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached.”

Richard Lindzen, an MIT climate scientist, said that believing CO2 controls the climate “is pretty close to believing in magic.” Climate Depot revealed the real way they find the “fingerprint” of CO2.

“We are creating great anxiety without it being justified … there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic,” award-winning climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson said. “The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”

University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’ – An Obama supporter who describes himself as “100 per cent Democrat,” Dyson is disappointed that the President “chose the wrong side.” Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn’t face an existential crisis. ‘What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger.

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’ – Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ – ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’

‘Global warming really has become a new religion.’ – “I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in 2015…I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position.’

Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in ‘global warming’: Now says ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy’ – Condemns green movement: ‘It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific’ – Lovelock rips scientists attempting to predict temperatures as ‘idiots’: “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” – Lovelock Featured in Climate Hustle – Watch Lovelock transform from climate fear promoter to climate doubter!

Trump on 60 Minutes: Lesley Stahl tells Trump: “I wish you could go to Greenland, watch these huge chunks of ice just falling into the ocean, raising the sea levels.” – President Trump responds: “And you don’t know whether or not that would have happened with or without man. You don’t know.”

More HERE  (See the original for links)




"Weather cooking"



A presentation worth watching by Dr. Sally Baliunas drawing uncanny parallels between the 14th-15th Century witch hunt and prosecutions for "cooking the weather", and modern attempts to silence rational thought in #climate #science and blame humanity:




UK: Cuadrilla to resume fracking seven years after tremors

Fracking for shale gas is due to resume in the UK today seven years after being temporarily suspended for causing small earthquakes.

About 40 protesters this morning tried to block the entrance to Cuadrilla’s site in a field beside Preston New Road in Lancashire.

However, the company already had all the equipment on site and said the protest would not cause any further delay after Storm Callum had interrupted its plan to start fracking on Saturday.

Cuadrilla will force water, sand and chemicals down a well to hydraulically fracture rock about 1.5 miles below the surface.

The company plans to spend the next three months fracking two exploratory wells, performing the procedure on about 45 horizontal sections of each well.

It will then begin flow testing and should know by Easter whether shale gas will be as productive in the UK as geologists predict. British Geological Survey estimates that extracting only a tenth of the gas in shale rock beneath northern England would meet Britain’s gas needs for 40 years.

Gas production from the North Sea is expected to continue to decline over the next decade and the Oil and Gas Authority forecasts that the UK’s reliance on imported gas could rise from 50 per cent now to 66 per cent by 2030.

Cuadrilla said it hoped to have 100 sites in production in the north of England over the next 20 to 30 years.

The company caused small earthquakes in 2011 at its Preese Hall site in Lancashire 2011 which resulted in a temporary ban on fracking.

The government insists that the problems seen in the US, where communities have blamed fracking companies for contaminating water supplies, will not happen here. The Environment Agency is closely monitoring Cuadrilla’s site for any impacts on air and water quality.

A new early warning system for earthquakes has been introduced since the tremors in 2011. Cuadrilla will have to stop fracking for 18 hours and let the pressure in the well drop if it causes any tremor more than 0.5 in magnitude on the Richter Scale.

It is also forbidden from fracking on Sunday and its permitted hours are 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 1pm on Saturday.

The strongest of the earthquakes Cuadrilla caused in 2011 at its Preese Hall site in Lancashire was 2.3. Earthquakes start to be felt at the surface at about 1.5.

Huw Clarke, a Cuadrilla geoscientist, said the company would publish all its results from its seismic monitoring, with data uploaded to its website by 10am on the day after it was collected. The company has pledged to issue an immediate statement if it hits 0.5.

BGS has a separate array of seismometers within a few miles of the site to verify the results independently.

Eric Vaughan, Cuadrilla’s fracking manager, said the volume of water forced down the well during each frack would only be sixth of that used at Preese Hall, reducing the risk of triggering an earthquake.

The company has also taken three dimensional seismic surveys of the geology and has drilled around faults, unlike at Preese Hall where it hit an undetected one after conducting only two dimensional surveys.

The last of several unsuccessful legal challenges against fracking by environmental campaigners was dismissed by the High Court in London on Friday

Mr Justice Supperstone rejected Bob Dennett’s application for an injunction preventing Cuadrilla from fracking pending his proposed legal challenge.

Mr Dennett had claimed that Lancashire county council’s emergency response planning and procedures at the site are inadequate but the judge ruled that there was not a “serious issue” to be tried which would justify an interim order.

Francis Egan, Cuadrilla’s chief executive, said: “We are delighted to be starting our hydraulic fracturing operations as planned. We are now commencing the final operational phase to evaluate the commercial potential for a new source of indigenous natural gas in Lancashire.

“If commercially recoverable, this will displace costly imported gas, with lower emissions, significant economic benefit and better security of energy supply for the UK.”

Reclaim the Power, an anti-fracking group, blockaded the site with a van from 4.30am this morning. A scaffold structure was erected on top with a banner reading “Stop The Start. Don’t Frack the Climate”

The group said it was hypocritical of the government to be calling for more global action on climate change while overruling Lancashire county council, which had rejected Cuadrilla’s fracking application.

Charlie Edwards, from Reclaim the Power said: “Today the government have launched their ‘Green Great Britain’ week — a tokenistic attempt to hide a series of climate-wrecking decisions such as expanding Heathrow airport and forcing fracking on the local communities.”

Michael Bradshaw, professor of global energy at Warwick Business School, said: “Everyone in the industry, as well as the Conservative government, will now be holding their breath and hoping that nothing goes wrong as the pumps roar.”

SOURCE






British PM reveals bid to cut UK's Greenhouse gas emissions to ZERO following UN warning over 'environmental catastrophes'

She is the complete bureaucrat, with not an original thought in her head

Greenhouse gas emissions need to be slashed to zero across the economy, the Prime Minister signalled yesterday. If adopted, the new targets would mean more radical changes than the country’s existing commitments.

The need to reduce carbon will be across every single sector of the economy, with the Government pointing specifically to industry, homes, transport and agriculture.

For instance, it is likely to mean faster progress in switching to electric power for transport and an increase in planting trees.

Ministers will also set out proposals for new laws for ‘smart energy’ appliances, such as washing machines and electric heating, with the aim of making all new buildings ‘smart’ by 2030.

Prime Minister Theresa May said: ‘On the global stage, the UK is driving forward action on climate change through our work at the UN and with our Commonwealth partners.

‘To ensure that we continue to lead from the front, we are asking the experts to advise on targets for net zero emissions.’

Currently, the Government is committed under the 2008 Climate Change Act to cut emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels. But ‘net zero’ – the point at which emissions are balanced by the removal of greenhouse gases – would be even more stringent.

Yesterday, the Government said it wanted advice from the Committee on Climate Change, its advisory body, on how it could cut emissions even further.

Climate Change minister Claire Perry said it would give ‘advice on a roadmap to a net zero economy, including how emissions might be reduced and the expected costs and benefits of doing so’.

Pressure group Plan B has already started legal action against the Government to review its targets in line with the 2014 Paris Agreement.

This commits its 195 signatories to keep temperatures below 2C and try to cut them to 1.5C. Last week, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned a failure to cut to 1.5C would lead to environmental catastrophes, including rising sea levels, heatwaves and droughts.

Ed Matthew, of environment campaigners The Climate Coalition, said: ‘It is not just the target that matters, it’s how fast we get there. The CCC must ensure that this net-zero pathway is compliant with no more than 1.5C of warming.’

Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Tim Farron said the Tories had ‘lurched drastically away from supporting green technologies’.

The Labour Party has already indicated it also wants to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero.

SOURCE





Australia: Renewable investment boom tipped to slow

One of the world's biggest lenders to green electricity projects says rapid growth in Australia's renewable energy investment is likely to slow, as banks become more cautious about the financial impact of electricity grid congestion.

After a record $10 billion poured into renewable projects last year, Japan's Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) Bank, a global banking giant and a major lender to renewable energy in Australia, said it was becoming harder for green energy projects to get finance.

Geoff Daley, the bank's head of Australian structured finance, said one reason for this was because the sheer number of renewable projects built in some areas meant the grid lacked the necessary capacity.

This happens because wind farms or solar farms are often located in parts of the power grid that have not previously had large amounts of generation, such as far north Queensland.

One result of congestion, if the grid is not augmented, is that energy generated may not be able to reach the customers.

"There's greater uncertainty at the moment around that issue and that will mean the lenders are more cautious," Mr Daley said.

Earlier this year, a number of renewable projects also suffered big cuts in their revenue because of changes to ratios used by the regulator in an attempt to apportion how electricity is lost as it flows through the distribution network.

Mr Daley said some generators were likely to make less revenue than projected, which was causing banks to be more cautious in their lending decisions.

"What that means for projects now is that it's much, much harder to get finance unless there's a strong contract," he said.

MUFG Bank was the world's largest arranger of renewable energy finance in 2017, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Industry figures show 2017 was a record-breaking year for renewable energy investment in Australia, with more than $10 billion in projects reaching financial close. But Mr Daley said there would be a "slowdown in the speed of investment".

The director of energy finance studies at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, Tim Buckley, said some slowdown in renewable investment was inevitable, but it was likely to be a "pause." There had been "massive solar boom,"  he said, but little planning around where the projects would be located.

"There's no over-arching plan. If you don't have an over-arching plan, renewables will swamp parts of the grid," Mr Buckley said.

"The willingness of the investment community to invest in renewables in Australia is going to wind back, because we need to take a pause. We've had five years of energy policy chaos which means the grid isn't yet prepared to accommodate ever more renewables."

The government's energy policy was thrown into disarray with the change of prime minister in August. The government has dumped the National Energy Guarantee which aimed to address the problems of high  power prices, carbon emissions and grid reliability.

National Australia Bank's global head of energy, Andrew Smith, acknowledged the bank was monitoring issues raised by grid congestion closely, but he said this was not unique to Australia. "It's certainly an area of focus for banks," he said.

Mr Smith said the issue had not dented the availability of finance for renewable projects. "Certainly now there's significant demand for banks to participate in these projects," he said.

Speaking at the AFR National Energy Summit, AGL interim chief executive Brett Redman said renewable energy investors are concerned about the country’s changing policy landscape and the falling investment costs of renewable generation.

“If I talk about offshore investors, they get very worried over the stability of long-term targets,” Mr Redman told Fairfax Media

Mr Redman said the "biggest issue" for investing in renewables was that costs of developing projects were coming down rapidly.

“So the wind farms we built 10 years ago now look really expensive compared to what it would cost you to build wind now; the solar we built three to four years ago looks really expensive now.

SOURCE 

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************