Home/BlogHere is the article I was referring to in today’s post, Whose Supported Policies Kill More People: ISIS…or Greenpeace? It is by Dr. Patrick Moore.
Greenpeace has made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth
By Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace
Greenpeace, in furtherance of what is in effect its war against every species on the planet, has now turned to what, on the face of things, looks to me like outright breach of the RICO, wire-fraud, witness-tampering and obstruction-of-committee statutes. I have called in the FBI.
Greenpeace appears to have subjected Dr. Will Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, to a maladroit attempt at entrapment that has badly backfired on it.
Greenpeace used this dismal rent-by-the-hour office block in the Beirut souk for its entrapment scam.
The organization I founded has become a monster. When I was a member of its central committee in the early days, we campaigned usually with success on genuine environmental issues such as atmospheric nuclear tests, whaling and seal-clubbing.
When Greenpeace turned anti-science by campaigning against chlorine (imagine the sheer stupidity of campaigning against one of the elements in the periodic table), I decided that it had lost its purpose and that, having achieved its original objectives, had turned to extremism to try to justify its continued existence.
Now Greenpeace has knowingly made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth. By opposing capitalism, it stands against the one system of economics that has been most successful in regulating and restoring the environment.
By opposing the use of DDT inside the homes of children exposed to the anopheles mosquito that carries malaria, Greenpeace contributed to the deaths of 40 million people and counting, most of them children. It now pretends it did not oppose DDT, but the record shows otherwise. On this as on so many issues, it got the science wrong. It has the deaths of those children on what passes for its conscience.
By opposing fossil-fueled power, it not only contributes to the deaths of many tens of millions every year because they are among the 1.2 billion to whom its campaigns deny affordable, reliable, clean, continuous, low-tech, base-load, fossil-fueled electrical power: it also denies to all trees and plants on Earth the food they need.
Paradoxically, an organization that calls itself Green is against the harmless, beneficial, natural trace gas that nourishes and sustains all green things. Greenpeace is against greenery. Bizarrely, it is opposed to returning to the atmosphere a tiny fraction of the CO2 that was once present there.
In November 2015, out of the blue, Professor Happer received an email from Hamilton Ellis, a soi-disant business consultancy operating out of rent-by-the-hour offices in a crumbling concrete block in the Beirut souk.
The bucket-shop consultancys email said that a client, an energy and power company concerned about the impacts of the UN climate talks, wanted to commission Professor Happer to prepare a briefing to be released early in 2016 which highlights the crucial role that oil and gas have to play in the developing economies, such as our clients Middle East and North Africa region.
The email smarmed on: Given your influential work in this area and your position at Princeton we believe a very short paper authored or endorsed by yourself could work strongly in our clients favour. Does this sound like a project you would be interested in discussing further?
Will Happer replied enclosing a white paper written, with major input from him, by the CO2 Coalition, a new group that he had helped to establish earlier in 2015. He also sent a copy of testimony on the social cost of carbon that he had given at a regulatory hearing in St Paul, Minnesota. Crucially, he added: I would be glad to try to help if my views, outlined in the attachments, are in line with those of your client.
In short, he was not prepared to be bought. He would help the client of the business consultancy if and only if he was not asked to attest to anything that he did not already believe.
The consultancy replied: It certainly sounds like you and our client are on the same page. It went on to ask whether Professor Happers two papers had been part of the same initiative on CO2 reported on [by Matt Ridley] in the London Times recently, and added: The focus we envisage for this project comes from a slightly different angle. Our client wants to commission a short briefing paper that examines the benefits of fossil fuels to developing economies, as opposed to a switch to so-called clean energy.
The consultancy also wanted to know whether it would be able to reference you as Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University if this project were to go ahead?
It also tried to smoke out the identity of Professor Happers contacts in the U.S. media, and ended with a classical entrapment line: It would be useful to know, in your experience, whether you would need to declare the source funding when publishing research of this kind.
Professor Happer said: The article mentions Patrick Moore, like me a member of the CO2 Coalition, and my friend from Princeton, Freeman Dyson, who shares our views.
He confirmed that his official title is Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus. He also reinforced his earlier message indicating he could not be bought by stating, very clearly:
To be sure your client is not misled on my views, it is clear there are real pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen for most of them, fly ash and heavy metals for coal, volatile organics for gasoline, etc. I fully support regulations for cost-effective control of these real pollutants. But the Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.
Professor Happer added that he no longer had external funding following his retirement, and went on: My activities to push back against climate extremism are a labor of love, to defend the cherished ideals of science that have been so corrupted by the climate-change cult. If your client was considering reimbursing me for writing something, I would ask that whatever fee would have come to me would go directly to the CO2 Coalition. This was the arrangement I had with the attorneys representing the Peabody Coal Company in the regulatory hearings in Minnesota. The fee I would have received was sent instead to the CO2 Coalition, a 501(c)(3) tax exempt educational organization. The CO2 Coalition covers occasional travel expenses for me, but pays me no other fees or salary.
The consultancy replied that the client was completely comfortable with your views on fossil-fuel pollution. It asked whether Matt Ridley might help to disseminate our research when it is ready, and whether the briefing could be peer-reviewed. On the matter of reimbursement, we would of course remunerate you for your work and would be more than happy to pay the fee to the CO2 Coalition.
Then another classic entrapment line: Our client does not want their name associated with the research as they believe it will give the work more credibility. What provisions does the CO2 Coalition provide? Would this be an issue?
Professor Happer replied that he was sure Matt Ridley would be interested in the briefing and that Breitbart would be among blogs and syndicated columnists that could also be interested.
As for peer review, he explained that this normally refers to original work submitted to a scientific journal for publication, and not to the sort of articles that Ridley writes for the media, or what I think you are seeking to have written. If you like, I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly your client would also like.
He said his fees were $250 per hour, and that his Minnesota testimony had required four eight-hour days, so that the total cost was $8000. He said that, if he wrote the paper alone, he did not think there would be any problem stating that The author received no financial compensation for this essay. He added that he was pretty sure that the client’s donation to the CO2 Coalition would not need to be public according to US regulations of 503(c)(3) educational organizations, but that he could get some legal advice to confirm this if asked.
The consultancy replied: The hourly rate works for us and, as previously discussed, we are happy to make a direct donation to the CO2 Coalition, providing it is anonymous. We can look into the official disclosure regulations, but it would be useful to know whether the CO2 Coalition voluntarily discloses its funders? Presumably there are other donors in a similar position to us?
They added: With regards to peer review, I raised this issue because Matt Ridleys article on Dr Indur Goklanys recent CO2 report said that it had been thoroughly peer reviewed. Would it be possible to ask the same journal to peer review our paper given that it has a similar thrust to Goklanys? Its not a deal-breaker, but I felt that it helped strengthen that piece of work.
Professor Happer replied that early drafts of Goklanys paper had been reviewed by him and by many other scientists; that he had suggested changes to which the author had responded; and that, although some members of the academic advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation might have been too busy to respond to a request to comment on the first draft, The review of Golkanys paper was even more rigorous than the peer review for most journals. Professor Happer said he would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything he wrote for the client.
He said he would double-check on the regulations, but did not think the CO2 Coalition, a 501(3)c tax-exempt educational organization, was required to make public any donors, except in Internal Revenue Service returns.
He checked with the CO2 Coalition, which replied that the Coalition was not obliged to identify any donors, except to the IRS, who would redact the list of donors if it received a request for the Coalitions form 990.
On December 7 he received an email from one Maeve McClenaghan of Greenpeace, telling him that they had conducted what she grandiosely described as an undercover investigation actually a criminal entrapment scam contrary to the RICO and wire-fraud statutes, and a flagrant attempt both to tamper with a Congressional witness (he is due to testify today, 8 December) and to obstruct committee proceedings and that they intended to publish a news article regarding the funding of climate sceptic science.
She said: Our article explores how fossil fuel companies are able to pay academics to produce research which is of benefit to them and added that the story would be published on a Greenpeace website and promoted widely in the media. She gave Professor Happer only hours to respond.
Many of the points she said she proposed to include in the article were crafted in such a way as to distort what the above correspondence makes plain were wholly innocent and honest statements, so as to make them sound sinister. The libels Ms McClenaghan proposed to circulate will not be circulated here.
I shall, however pass on a comment made to me by Professor Happer: I was suspicious about the email exchange from the start, so I wrote every response assuming that it might be public someday. But what I wrote expressed exactly what I believed to be true.
That is the comment of one of the most transparently honest scientific colleagues I am honoured to know. I am, therefore, profoundly dismayed that the organization I founded an organization that once did good work addressing real environmental concerns has descended to what I consider to be criminality and now also proposes to descend to libel.
Accordingly, I have decided to inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation of Greenpeaces dishonest and disfiguring attempt at entrapment of Professor Happer, whom I know to be a first-rate scientist, colleague and friend, one of the worlds half-dozen most eminent and experienced physicists, and one who would never provide any scientific advice unless in his professional opinion that advice was correct.
The organizations timing was clearly intended to spring the trap on Professor Happer hours before he was due to appear in front of Congress. This misconduct constitutes a serious and on many counts criminal interference with the democratic process that America cherishes.
I have reported Greenpeace to the FBI under 18 USC 96 (RICO statute); 18 USC 1343 (wire fraud); 18 USC 1512 (attempting to intimidate a witness due to appear at a Congressional hearing); and 18 USC 1505 (obstruction of proceedings before committees).
I shall also be asking the Bureau to investigate Greenpeaces sources of funding. It is now an enemy of the State, an enemy of humanity and, indeed, an enemy of all species on Earth.
Thank you Dr. Spencer.
Ditto, thank you very much Dr. Spencer.
More to the point thank you Patrick Moore.
What this man and his organization did was an inspiration in my youth. Their direct action was courageous beyond belief and effective. For several years I was Greenpeace supporting ( ie subscribed to giving regular payments).
I got out some tine around 1984 when I received a big. fat. glossy catalog full of sweatshirts through he door and realized they were more into merchandising than ecology.
The point that they are responsible for more deaths than ISIS is a killer ( not pun ).
Many thanks Patrick, for what he did then and what he is doing now.
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
Dirty dirty Grenoeace.
Well done, Patrick Moore.
He is probably now top of the Greenpeace hit list. Perceived apostasy is met with more hate than ‘climate-infidels’ by extreme environmentalists.
Greenpeace, a synonym for Liar, Hater of humanity etc
Quite a quote!
Greenpeace will thug you.
Probably.
Very disturbing what lurks under the facade of altruism. A cynic would look at the EPA collaborations with these sinister groups (Mass vs. EPA) and fear for the worst.
Is there any honesty left in Washington to adjudicate on behalf of the people?
We shall see.
“I shall also be asking the Bureau to investigate Greenpeaces sources of funding. It is now an enemy of the State, an enemy of humanity and, indeed, an enemy of all species on Earth.”
You are confusing them with my club – SPECTRE.
Just after the World Health Organization released a study concluding that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, is probably carcinogenic, Patrick Moore told a French filmmaker that glyphosate is safe to drink. Upon being offered some glyphosate to try, Moore refused to take up his own suggestion, ending the interview and telling the filmmaker, I’m not an idiot.
This true. At the time he and I were having a drink in the SPECTRE club. Why would you mix whiskey with glysophate?
Years ago, someone did drink “Roundup” to no ill effect. I’m sure that was before the internet, so I only have a memory of it.
I’ve used the chemical since 1978, I think, and still do. It is one of the nicer chemicals to be around.
goes well with creme de menthe I hear.
Yeah! I hear it goes down smoothly and quietly, like a Silent Spring.
I believe it was DDT that was consumed by one of the lawyers in the DDT action. Don’t try this at home–pure DDT is one thing, the commercial product contains all kinds of byproducts and allomers.
Its also safe to drink a glass of your own urine.
Go ahead, Dr No.
(I’m not about to do it becauase, like Patrick Moore, I’m not an idiot)
But obviously you think its sensible to drink something just because its safe…… because you ARE an idiot.
(not good to do it continuously, as it concentrates stuff your body is trying to rid of)
Hi AndyG55,
“But obviously you think its sensible to drink something just because its safe because you ARE an idiot.”
I am not sure what you have been drinking but it appears you have the wrong end of the stick. I thought I was demonstrating why Patrick was correct not to drink the stuff.
No. You were implying that he was lying for not drinking it straight up.
I could provide you with some liquid chlorine to drink. (The gas under pressure.) If you’re concerned that it might freeze your wind pipe, go take good swig of Clorox.
I don’t know where you get your drinking water. If it’s a municipal supply that contains 0.0 mg/l Cl2, your local doctors and morticians must be doing a booming business.
It the dose that makes a compound harmless or poison.
Ever check out DHMO.org ?
This is a very disturbing article. Even more disturbing is the fact that it will never be mentioned in the mainstream media…
The media does not cover rants in a far corner of the blogosphere.
The main stream media absolutely does when it suites their narrative. This will get no coverage because it doesn’t further their cause.
I once was blind but now I see.
Roy, thanks for the post.
I have now written to Prof Happer and explained to him the relevant physics that I have researched extensively and know to be correct. Greenpeace is mistaken, of course, like most people without a correct understanding of thermodynamics, in thinking that greenhouse gases raise the surface temperature when in fact, as Josef Loschmidt (here), Drs Nicolov & Zeller (here), Dr Hans Jelbring (in this paper) and many others have explained, it is the force of gravity acting on molecules in motion between collisions which accelerates those molecules and creates a stable density gradient and, simultaneously, a stable temperature gradient – so the surface temperature is automatically higher than the planet’s (any planet’s) radiating temperature. The fact that force fields do this has now been confirmed with 21st century experiments and any attempts to disprove this are wrong as is explained on the “WUWT errors” page. It’s all based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and you won’t prove that wrong. What I have gone on to explain here is just how the required thermal energy transfers occur in accord with the laws of physics.
O’M’G D’J’C [LOL] Any open door, eh?
When you can prove wrong the physics I have explained here (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics) then reply with the details.
and Wiz Kid, this comment applies equally to yourself, as it does to David Appell. Obviously you are not qualified in physics, now are you? You acquired your wizardry from the rags of climatology I take it.
Doug, still afraid to submit your “work” to a peer reviewed journal?
What would a group of his peers look like?
People who do science. But they’d be good at it.
Have a spectacular day!
David Appell
Still totally unable to fault the physics I present pertaining to entropy maximization, still not submitting any attempted public refutation thereof, still likely to be very embarrassed when I expose the errors in his physics in any such submission, and still (as BigWaveDave said here) conveniently forgetting about the radial temperature gradient formed by gravity which “obviates the need for concern over GHG’s” – a fact “apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhDs.”
Dr. Spencer,
Is it true you were paid $4,000 by Peabody Energy to testify at the Minnesota hearing in September, as Greenpeace alleges?
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/
I asked you this last September, but you never answered:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/09/minnesota-hearing-addresses-the-social-cost-of-carbon/#comment-199419
Big deal funding is part of life. It is inappropriate to ask such questions. Why does funding bias the 3% against the consensus more than all the funding that supports the 97% consensus? CO2 research funding is absurdly out of balance to alternatives (like solar climate) and anthropogenic CO2 grants are an easy path to money… so alternative views are neglected and understudied. How much has James Hansen received promoting his interpretation of the data?
I am simply asking for disclosure, which most scientists do in all their papers.
Why would Roy NOT want to disclose his sources of funding, if he believes his testimony was worthwhile?
Because it is personal and probably part of a NDA that protects the other party. I wouldnt ask: how much did you make last year? Even if I had a good reason (say my future kid wanted to be a writer). What is in it for Roy or you to share that information? It changes nothing. Time is money… that was family time he traded away in preparation and delivery. If he was in it for the money he’d be better compensated taking the other side of the issue. If he flipped he’d be the hottest talk on the doomsday tour.
If Roy signed an NDA, he can state that.
Roy is paid hansomely, I”m sure, to do climate science. Why would he need extra payment to share his knowledge at the Minnesota hearing?
What are your sources of income? What are your dealings with Greenpeace? With the Sierra Club? With other thug types?
Freelancing, investments in a diversified portfolio, no club membership of any sort.
Now you…..
I asked about your affiliation with Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. Do you have any?
Hey Appell, Do you still beat your wife?
It has occurred to me that the left is being funded by the Russians or some such.
So what if Peabody or Koch or some such funded someone, what is David and ilk hiding? Where is their money coming from? Why do they fight so hard against capitalism and economic growth? I say, because they are paid to.
Lewis: I do not fight growth.
In fact, taking climate change seriously means recognizing the negative externalities of fossil fuels and how they are restrict economic growth.
And, as a freelance writer, I participate in capitalist markets every day, in ways that would make your head spin. So you don’t get to lecture me on markets or capitalism.
David,
Did we see you list your funding? You may participate in the capitalist economy, but your diatribes against those who don’t have the same religion as you, AGW, lead one to believe you are in the pay of some SPECTRE type organization. Typically those who have a difference of opinion, who are so very emotional about it, can argue with respect for the other. They offer facts supporting an alternative. Too often you resort to emotionalism.
And on capitalism; I own 3 businesses, 4 if you count the tree farm. Weather and climate are an interest, they affect how I make money. The decisions being made because of the great fear of change and the imaginary idea that man, by his actions or inactions can control the climate is of such import, I have taken to reading a lot.
At one time I was a believer. Over time I became a skeptic – why – because of the history of the ice ages. My fear is we, lucky us, are in between two. Further, why would you want more ice, instead of less.
The fact is, fighting AGW with the weapons we have chosen is a fight against mankind and his ability to survive.
Transport and accommodation covered, maybe..
Whoopy do.!!!!
Greenpeace Germany raises up to $100 million annually but has only forty voting members,whose identities are kept secret. Those forty wealthy people decide on political and economic strategies which are now prolonging the continued death of millions.
They are more secretive than SPECTRE!
At least we know that the SPECTRE cabinet has a total of 21 members, Blofeld is the chairman and leader because he founded the organisation, and Largo was elected by the cabinet to be second in command. A physicist named Kotze and an electronics expert named Maslov are also included in the group for their expertise on scientific and technical matters.
Maybe I am in the wrong organization.
David Appell
Is it true that you have no qualifications in physics? I asked you this last September, but you never answered.
Assuming that you don’t, how is it that you think you could prove wrong the physics explained by myself and those mentioned in my comment above?
I have proved Pierrehumbert made errors, and he did so because he does not understand the relevant entropy issues and associated thermodynamics. Those errors of his leave the greenhouse smashed – for lack of any correct physics.
What happens in regard to heat transfers in planetary systems is wholly within the realm of physics – and not what you might learn in a year of brain-washing with the fictitious, fiddled physics taught by climatologists, gleaned from pal- reviewed articles in rags whose Editors have no guts to publish the correct physics and wouldn’t have the understanding of physics to recognize such.
Whether it suits your agenda or not, David Appell, what I write is correct regarding atmospheric physics and no-one who has read what I actually explain has ever even attempted to refute it. See if you can find someone who has and link me to whatever they wrote, peer-reviewed or otherwise. Draw it to the attention of a physicist and get him to debate it with me openly, here or on my blog.
Dougie:
“David Appell
I have a PhD in theoretical physics.
http://www.davidappell.com/resume.html
Quite limited in your science, I see. Nuclear physics! 🙂 You should make a great climate scientist.
Creative writing. I’ll go along with that.
Anyone with a PhD in Physics ought to know about the radial temperature gradient formed by gravity. But, as “BigWaveDave” wrote here nearly four years ago …
“Because the import of the consequence of the radial temperature gradient created by pressurizing a spherical body of gas by gravity, from the inside only, is that it obviates the need for concern over GHGs. And, because this is based on long established fundamental principles that were apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhDs, it is not something that can be left as an acceptable disagreement.”
Shame on any such PhD in physics if he/she promulgates the false physics of radiative forcing supposedly doing what gravity has already done.
David Appell, question for you:
Do you approve the tactics of Greenpeace or do you condemn them?
mpainter says:
“David Appell, question for you:
Do you approve the tactics of Greenpeace or do you condemn them?”
Do you approve of the tactic of stealing emails, that spawned ClimateGate?
I see that you do not deny that you approve of the tactics by Greenpeace.
I would like to see all emails of NOAA scientists made public, and I am glad of climategate, where the truth came out. The world needs more, lots more. I applaud whoever accomplished it.
So you approve of crimes when they benefit you, but whine when the subterfuge does not go your way.
I’m not at all surprised to learn of your double standard.
You will see the day when the motives of your heroes and the truth come out. This process has started in Congress. There will be a mountain of climategate type emails made public. Adios junk science.
Since we still do not know who “stole” the climategate emails, we don’t know if a “whistleblower” was the source. In any case, it is water under the bridge and it has laid bare the “culture” of the innermost coterie of climate scientists. But it is a David vs Goliath (but you are not that David) confrontation, skeptics vs the warmist juggernaut(or as you would have it, “realist”). So being human, we do take some pleasure in the discomfiture of our warmist adversaries.
I see Roy hasn’t answered. He’d prefer to hide.
Funding disclosure is important, and routine in science. Except for Soon, Spencer, Happer and the like, it seems.
From junk science to smears and sneers is an easy step for you, David Appell. In fact, its all the same for you, is it not?
Why are you opposed to disclosure of funding?
What do you think needs to be hidden?
David Appell sez it’s all the same.
So a company that is being exterminated by a bunch of blue jean lawyers, tyrannical academics and government scientists can’t defend itself against a kangaroo court and a bunch of government tit suckling public interest parasites? Do you get your money from that crook George Soros Mr.Appell? or maybe Saudi Arabia? Indonesia? Lots of coal in Indonesia. Just ask Bill and Hillary Clinton.
a bunch of government tit suckling public interest parasites?
I call foul for redundancy…..
David … let’s say for arguments sake that the insinuation is true ….. it would pale in comparison to the MILLIONS being spent for a big party in Paris which required tons and tons of CO2 to pull off. Really, REALLY …. just crawl back downstairs into your mothers basement.
I think scientists should disclose who is paying them to do what.
It is pretty obvious, David, that you are not concerned about funding at all. What you want is to connect climate crisis skeptics with despised corporations, no matter how remotely, so that you do not have to try and refute their irrefutable science. You can just attack and libel them, and continue to pretend that your immoral actions somehow indicate that your science is correct.
If you were really concerned about funding influencing science, you would be exposing mainstream climate science, which is completely and obviously influenced to support the crisis meme by the granting process. It is the first rule in ‘Writing Grant Proposals 101’: “Tell the granting authority what they want to hear!”
Nail + Head. Well said. Greenpeace is not a force for good in the world, they could be caught bang to rights murdering puppies but you convince people like Appell. Ever they are too blinded by their ideology
I want scientists to disclose their funding. Period.
Most due. Roy tried to hide his. Happer lied about his own.
Well, now, David Appell calls Will Happer a liar. Bet that you cannot substantiate your accusation against Happer.
Jim Clarke wrote:
“If you were really concerned about funding influencing science, you would be exposing mainstream climate science, which is completely and obviously influenced to support the crisis meme by the granting process.”
Scientists get grants to do science.
You don’t like the conclusions of climate science, so you’d rather dismiss it by making up claims about funding and outcomes.
Whenever I see someone make a claim that funding influences outcomes, my immediate suspicion is that THEY are willing to sell their opinion for money, so naturally they assume everyone else would do the same.
Hi David Appell,
You state:
“Whenever I see someone make a claim that funding influences outcomes, my immediate suspicion is that THEY are willing to sell their opinion for money, so naturally they assume everyone else would do the same.”
If funding never influenced outcomes why do you care who funds scientists like Roy? Have you ever claimed that funding influenced outcomes? Have you ever implied as much?
Have a great day!
Because groups like Peabody Energy have a huge interest in denying the science of climate change.
That’s why they fund people like Roy.
Roy has already said “I wish” regarding getting funds by oil money.
Yet he did get funding from coal, but didn’t admit it.
What did Roy Spencer hide this funding, even when asked?
Show some manners.
Funding. So.
Carroll Quigley and President Eisenhower both had similar opinions about mankind – Eisenhower’s farewell speech about military-industrial complex went much farther to include science “The prospect of the domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.” (http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/farewell_address.html)
Quigley, in his magnum opus Tragedy and Hope, a history of world in our time – wrote about religion parading as science.
David having his PHD in physics is, none the less, a convert to the religion of AGW and, perhaps, CAGW. He now parades his religion as science, using his PHD to make his ad verecundiam arguments.
This report from Dr Spencer is indeed very disturbing. It reinforces the view that AGW alarmism really is of the nature of a religion, motivating believers to engage in harmful and deceitful activities, presumably in the belief that such activities will result in a greater good in the long run.
It’s difficult to explain the underlying cause of such attitudes, without getting too philosophical, but one thing seems quite obvious to me, is that bad news, or alarming news, tends to be more popular, or attention-grabbing, than good news, for the public at large. The media understand this of course and capitalizes on it, thus reinforcing a biased view of the world and certain significant issues such as climate change.
Perhaps the underlying problem is the perceived necessity for continual economic growth. People are encouraged to never be satisfied with what they already have, and to continually desire new things, usually for the sake of appearances, vanity and ego, rather than necessity.
As the whole world gradually adopts such a policy of continuous economic growth, always using the cheapest fuels to achieve such growth, such as coal, oil and gas, it’s not difficult to imagine a future catastrophe whereby thousands of coal, oil and gas-fired power plants around the globe, at some stage, will have to dramatically increase the price of electricity as a result of a crisis in the shortage of coal, oil and gas supplies, thus causing a global economic recession far worse than the 1930’s recession.
Now I understand there is an argument that is often made, and supported by Dr Spencer I believe, that we should wait until that future time of escalating energy prices before developing the more expensive, alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, battery back-up, electric cars and so on, because such alternative sources will then be more competitive.
The flaw in this argument is, if we wait until fossil fuel supplies rise dramatically in price before developing alternatives, the damage will have been done. Economies will be in a downward swing and it will be politically difficult to impose further hardships on the electorates by spending money on developing and manufacturing alternative energy supplies in a manner which would be more expensive in relation to those increased energy costs, and therefore less effective.
The sensible thing to do is to develop such alternative technologies whilst fossil fuels are cheap, as they currently are, and prepare for the future, rather than become victims of the future.
I imagine that the narrative of AGW has been created, and supported by certain individuals who one might think should know better, because it’s seen as the most effective way of alarming people into action and accepting the cost of developing alternative energy supplies.
If we were all more rational, we could simply accept that a portion of our current energy supplies should be set aside for research and development into more sustainable and renewable energy supplies, simply because that’s a sensible thing to do.
Unfortunately, too much of the world’s population is irrational and mainly motivated by religious matters and immediate economic gain. If a government policy were to set aside say 5% of GDP for research and development into alternative energy technology, on the grounds that in 50 years time, when India and Africa might have reached a stage of economic development on a par with China, resulting in fossil fuels becoming very expensive, and resulting in our grandchildren getting into dire straits, I suspect there would be many counter arguments claiming that more fossil fuel reserves would continue to be discovered and that there was no reason to be concerned about shortages of supply. Let’s spend that 5% of GDP on something else.
I’m merely suggesting here that the AGW narrative might be a necessary fiction as a result of our own selfishness and irrationality (excluding myself of course). As you know, I’m an AGW skeptic, but I also like the idea of clean, renewable energy and electric cars in place of those terribly noisy gasoline and diesel beasts.
Or you could let the market create the most efficient method to deliver low cost energy. The way you suggest creates value-less slush funds for governments and shadowy organizations (see Shukla) to gorge at the public trough.
That’s what the market is already doing. It’s called fossil fuels, but they’re not as efficient as we sometimes imagine when all the externalities are taken into consideration.
My suggestion is not for governments to provide unregulated handouts, but to organise and fund effective research projects to develop efficient and practical alternative energy systems, just like America did when it created NASA to conduct research into aeronautics which resulted in the landing of a man on the moon.
The funding of NASA takes up about 1% of the Federal budget, although it was higher during the Apollo program in the 1960’s. If we can successfully build rockets to carry men to the moon, we should be clever enough to devise efficient, alternative energy systems.
Vincent.. we already have an alternative:
It is called nuclear energy.
Just because the left wing demonizes it does not change the fact that it is the safest form of energy ever invented by man. And please do not respond with concern over the “waste”. That issue has been solved, but it also is being blocked by left wing politics. China will show the way, not the USA.
Nuclear is only as safe as human organisations are competent and corruption-free. We already have two major examples of the ongoing, dire consequences that can result from nuclear accidents, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Both of those accidents were in part due to human incompetence whereby safety was sacrificed in the interests of economic gain.
The Chernobyl accident was the result of an old-fashioned, flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained staff. The Fukushima reactor was built close to sea levels in an area that had been flooded by tsunamis on previous occasions. There are even stone monuments along that coast of Japan indicating the level of previous floods. One such monument even has an inscription, ‘Don’t build your house below this level’.
It seems fairly obvious that those who were involved in the decision-making processes regarding the construction and location of the Fukushima plant, had decided that the risk of another tsunami occuring within the lifetime of the plant was worth taking because of the economic benefits of locating the nuclear plant close to sea level.
This is the sort of mistake we make quite often in Australia, not with regard to building nuclear reactors in areas at risk of a flood from a tsunami, but with regard to building cities and suburbs in known flood plains. Despite the meterological record being clear that floods in a particular area have occurred on a fairly regular basis for the past couple of hundred years, since records began, the local authorities have continued to approve the construction of dwellings below the level of previous floods.
When the next flood arrives, which might be, say, the 3rd worst on record, it’s immediately described through the media as the worst on record, or unprecedented, and blamed on AGW.
Building houses in known flood plains, for the perceived immediate economic gain, is a much better and truer example of ‘denial’ than the accusation against the AGW skeptic.
The major flaw in the proposal to replace fossil fuels with nuclear power represents another form of denial. If people in general are so fearful and worried about the consequences of increases in miniscule percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere, why would they not also be fearful of the consequences of nuclear accidents? Why would they be interested in merely swapping one set of fears and worries for another?
I am not convinced that nuclear plants can be made fail safe. The human error factor can never be eliminated. Then there is the problem of waste disposal. Failsafe nuclear power is pie in the sky.
Chernobyl happened during an emergency drill: a simulation of a power failure and reactor shutdown. They drill followed the manual but the manual was faulty, according to my source which was a book written by a Russian physicist.
Three Mile Island was criminal recklessness, imo.
A little known fact -I actually wrote that manual for Chernobyl:
“Managing a nuclear reactor for dummies”.
Not a best seller.
There are close to 400 reactors operating in the world. They seem to be safer than automobiles. Which of you would give up your automobile because it is unsafe?
The decision is an emotional one, is it not.
Well, Lewis, go get yerself a nuclear reactor and drive it around.
Fossil fuels are nature’s highly condensed solar energy. Sunlight and CO2 worked together to support abundant plant life further supporting organic organisms. It is pretty hard to burn a dinosaur or farm a broad area for biofuels. But stick it under ground with pressure for awhile and you get a highly portable energy source that can be burned cleanly today.
Coal, oil, and natural gas are sequestered solar energy made highly transportable by nature.
I agree. I understand that perfectly, and have no objection in principle to the use of fossil fuels. It’s been a wonderful benefit to mankind. Unfortunately, it lends itself to pollution and environmental degradation in the interests of immediate economic gain. Ultra-supercritical power plants can solve the problem of pollution from coal, but they are more expensive to build and do not solve the imagined problem of CO2 emissions. There is also the environmental effects of the mining of coal to consider.
If there is a degree of uncertainty about the negative effects of CO2 and the possible negative effects of ocean acidification, then a few solar farms in various deserts, in widely separated locations, connected to cities via HVDC transmission lines, for example, might be viewed as a preferable option.
You’re probably aware that currently Beijing is experiencing a very hazardous atmosphere due to the pollution from lots of cheap, old-fashioned coal-fired plants, and lots of vehicles with inadequate emission controls. During the past couple of days the Air Quality Index has varied from 244 to 400.
An AQI of 201-300 is considered to be very unhealthy, and an AQI of 300+ is considered to be seriously hazardous with likely adverse health effects for everyone.
FTOP says:
“Coal, oil, and natural gas are sequestered solar energy made highly transportable by nature.”
And they sequester carbon, which, when fossil fuels are burned, becomes a strong greenhouse gas.
“When burned cause significant greening of the planet and fractionally move CO2 concentration away from its dangerously low level over the last 200 years”
There. Fixed it for you.
Vincent says:
“This report from Dr Spencer is indeed very disturbing. It reinforces the view that AGW alarmism really is of the nature of a religion….”
How ironic. Spencer is a charter member of the Cornwall Alliance, which believes:
“We believe Earth and its ecosystemscreated by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.”
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
Apparently Roy has made up his mind already based on his religious beliefs, without needing to consult the evidence.
I wonder how this bias affects his science.
IMHO-Oil companies dont fear non-nuclear alternative energy bc it is not a threat. Shifting away from coal to reduce CO2 is a good thing for their investors. Natural gas as lng is generally seen as a growth opportunity. Solar, biofuels and wind are not a threat bc they can not meet the needs of humanity. People are crazy to think the majors have not invested, built up assets, and researched alternative energy. Most even support and prioritize using them when it makes sense. The worlds oil reserves are mostly held by national oil companies, gas is a growth opportunity for non-national oil companies (called majors despite their small percentage of the global market).
The real bias is professors that see a huge pool of climate change funding (including summer salary, tenure, and promotion) for researching CO2. If u fund it, it will grow so of course many researchers agree and dont bite the hand that feeds them. That is the big bias. Healthy science keeps away from politics and consensus views…. climate change research is really biased towards the climate modelers perspective.
This type of intimidation and blackmail has been going on for over a decade now. But this time, they targeted someone who has a friend savvy enough to spot the criminality of the tactic and take action. Let’s hope that the FBI hasn’t been corrupted by the Obama administration to the point that they don’t enforce the law.
Greenpeace have a huge input into the IPCC.
Greenpeace should be made to divulge ALL its major funders.
They should also have any tax-free status removed.
AndyG55 says:
“Greenpeace have a huge input into the IPCC.”
How, exactly? What is your evidence for this claim?
Patrick Moores histrionic post is full of inaccuracies and hyperbole.
Patrick Moore did not found Greenpeace:
davidappell.blogspot*com/2014/02/who-is-patrick-moore.html
40 million people have not died from anyones opposition to DDT.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co*uk/magazine/rehabilitatingcarson
Patrick Moore has disclosure issues of his own to account for:
davidappell.blogspot*com/2014/09/patrick-moore-no-long-big-cheese-at-nei.html
In 2006 Patrick Moore warned about catastrophic climate change in the Washington Post:
davidappell.blogspot*com/2014/09/when-patrick-moore-warned-about.html
and advocated against fossil fuels as recently as 2009 in a (fake) interview:
davidappell.blogspot*com/2014/09/patrick-moore-concerned-about-fossil.html
Moores ideas above about CO2 are laughable, as they usually are:
davidappell.blogspot*com/2015/03/patrick-moore-bravely-comes-out-against.html
Will Happer is not one of the worlds half-dozen most eminent and experienced physicists, nor does Patrick Moore have the qualifications to make such a judgement.
I realize that Happer, Spencer and others dont like being burned like this. No one would. I wouldnt either. But then, Im not trying to hide my funding sources. Maybe they shouldnt either.
Lame insults about Greenpeace are not going to put this cat back in the bag.
In Patrick’s defence, he is:
Male,
68 years old,
a Canadian.
However, he once was (in 1986) president of the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association.
Patrick’s defense is that he’s an older man, 68 yo?
Is that a joke?
Sorry David A,
I forgot that all the posters on this site are over 68 !
Ha, I’m 63, hopefully going on 68.
Does all this mean to you that GP did the right thing?
“Patrick Moore did not found Greenpeace:
davidappell.blogspot*com/2014/02/who-is-patrick-moore.html”
David Appell has already been busted for this lie; Greenpeace’s webpage regarding its founding was on Wayback when it published this.
Link?
Greenpeace was founded in 1970, before the Internet existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Founders_and_founding_time_of_Greenpeace
So it would indeed be remarkable if the Wayback Machine recorded this foundation.
I look forward to the link you will provide to support your claim.
Archived version of Greenpeace.org – December 16, 2005:
The committee’s founders and first members included:
Paul Cote, a law student at the University of British Columbia
Jim Bohlen, a former deep-sea diver and radar operator in the US Navy
Irving Stowe, a Quaker and Yale-educated lawyer
Patrick Moore, ecology student at the University of British Columbia
Bill Darnell, a social worker
http://web.archive.org/web/20051216000251/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/history/founders
So if somebody is financed by a government hand out then they produce good science? If funded by anybody in the opposition of left wing politics they produce bad science? Appell, look at what transpired, Happer was not at all influenced by the phony energy company. He made it clear that this is what he understands as facts and that this is what they would get. Oh yeah, don’t send him money but make a contribution to an NGO that doesn’t pay him.
You are just trying to prove some tobacco industry type link to the science that doesn’t fit your progressive world view.
If you want to debate the science then give it a go, if you want to sling mud…just go away.
“Is no one humble anymore?
By David Appell, Quark Soup Blog
Ok, well, this time, it’s really clear it’s time to stop blogging.”
Appell, You should really take your own advice. Have a shower, shave, get out of the house, exercise, accomplish something that doesn’t involve a keyboard. Or perhaps just get outside and enjoy some of the weather you claim is so warm.
Hey, you could get a job! Then maybe you wouldn’t have the time to defend an absolute horror of an organization like Greenpeace.
Will Happer lied, on camera, about being funded by fossil fuel interests.
Another claim by Appell that Happer is a liar, without substantiation. Such an immoderate fellow you are David Appell.
@David Appell.
Why don’t you read the response of Roger Bate of Africa
Fighting Malaria at your link posted above about DDT?
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/ddtworks
(it was linked at the end of you own link against DDT)
Be unbiased, I don’t believe Patrick Moore is an idiot as you believe indeed.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Roger Bate, Roger Bate, where has Eli seen that name before. . .
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/05/original-sin-tobacco-denialism-is.html
Eli,
maybe you’ll ask yourself “why?”, but your point is not better than David’s one.
I would tell you, but I prefer leave you thinking about it for the rest of your life, sure that you never understand it.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Off-topic, but potentially far more devastating to the posters on this site than the activities of Greenpeace, is this latest piece of news:
“The last issue of Playboy to feature naked women went on sale on Friday, with the magazine stating it will now switch to being non-nude .
The January/February 2016 issue, which features Pamela Anderson on its cover, draws a close to 62 years of nudity. It is likely to become a collectors issue among fans and magazine aficionados.”
NEW DELHI, Nov 6 (Reuters) – India has cancelled Greenpeace International’s license to operate and gave the group 30 days to close down, citing financial fraud and falsification of data, the environment watchdog said on Friday.
Daily Mail Nov 6, 2015
It would be good to know the facts of this “financial fraud and falsification of data”. The details would surely give weight to any case that the DOJ could make against Greenpeace.
India has shown the way. Eject the miscreants.
This attack may be political:
“Last year, Modi government withdrew permission to Greenpeace to receive foreign funding, saying the money was used to block industrial projects.”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-india-greenpeace-idUKKCN0SV1OR20151106
“Greenpeace denied any wrongdoing and said the closure was a “clumsy tactic” to silence dissent.
“‘This is an extension of the deep intolerance for differing viewpoints that sections of this government seem to harbour,” Vinuta Gopal, the interim executive director of Greenpeace, said in a statement.'”
Sproing! Out goes Greenpeace.
Congress and then the FBI will investigate..sproing!
Then Interpol..sproing!…sproing!…sproing!.
Adios GreenThug.
This hit the NYT this morning:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/science/greenpeace-subterfuge-tests-climate-research.html
Just absurd. US media is simply seeking ratings from controversy. NYT is so left it is useless for information.
You conveniently avoided all consideration of the article’s content. Typical.
Why should anyone care about the content of the NYTimes. They’re a left wing organization so, by your logic, they should be dismissed by those on the right as automatically wrong.
But you should read closely – they’ll be telling you your talking points.
Seems like this should actually be a CIA/NSA and/or Interpol matter!
I have come to believe that the greatest risk to our well-being is the fear of global warming. If the politicians are persuaded to pass laws that severely restrict access to energy, the world’s economies could be significantly damaged, bringing on increases in poverty and misery. Before radical changes in our energy policy are made, three questions must be answered with a considerable degree of certainty:
(1) How much warming is occurring? (2)How much is due to CO2 increases? I.e. AGW. and (3) Is the increase in CO2 and/or temperature harmful or helpful to humanity as a whole?
I believe, and your articles support, that none of these three questions has been answered with much certainty, and that (1) in particular, is quite a bit less than the IPCC models predict.
(1) Warming stopped more than a decade ago.
(2) Over 500 million years of evolution on land, made possible because of substantial CO2 in the atmosphere, with no sustained temperature change, is compelling evidence CO2 has no effect on climate.
(3) Increased atmospheric CO2 enhances plant growth and therefore has increased the food supply.
Dan Pangburn says:
“(1) Warming stopped more than a decade ago.”
False:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
NOAA is guilty of science malpractice for changing measured data to corroborate an agenda. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/
Dan Pangburn says:
“(3) Increased atmospheric CO2 enhances plant growth and therefore has increased the food supply.”
Where is your evidence?
Here is some of mine:
For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.
— Global scale climatecrop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002
—
“We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
— “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/06/1415181112
—
General Mills CEO Ken Powell told the Associated Press:
We think that human-caused greenhouse gas causes climate change and climate volatility and thats going to stress the agricultural supply chain, which is very important to us.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-general-mills-greenhouse-gas-cuts-20150830-story.html
Here David provides links that prove that plant food is bad for plants.
We know that it’s true because 97% of the climate scientists say so.
David A writes “We think that human-caused greenhouse gas causes climate change”
The trouble is you don’t think in terms of correct physics.
Try studying for 10 minutes or so the real physics and submit you claim for the AU $10,000 reward requirements for which are outlined on the blog https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
I’m betting you that you can’t produce correct physics that demonstrates any reason as to why either water vapor or carbon dioxide should cause the Earth’s mean surface temperature to be warmer. Anything you are likely to throw at me from the fictitious, fiddled physics of AGW has already been refuted.
That reward is over US $7,000 by the way and funds are available through my PayPal account.
I am sick and tired of false physics being used to fool governments and people in general, and starve others to death.
Hi David,
Looked the Lobell and Field article to which you claimed to be your evidence. And I only got as far as their Figure 1 of historical trends in crop yields, temperature, and precipitation of the various crops growing regions. First, I read that these authors were not agricultural scientists. Second, if anyone can analyze the data illustrated in Figure 1 and conclude that For wheat, maize, and barley, there is a clearly negative response to increased temperatures., I must question their ability or honesty. I have been a farmer and my brother and nephew are still farmers. So, I know how farming has changed since 1962 which is entirely consistent with the dramatic, regular increase of yields, particularly that of maize, which have occurred since that time. Based on the precipitation figure, it is obvious that wheat and barley require significantly less precipitation than maize. Hence, these two crops are predominately grown in areas where precipitation is marginal. For in most crops, precipitation is the limiting factor. And relative to maize (corn to me), I know that given sufficient precipitation, the temperature can never be too hot. For given sufficient, the temperature will never rise to close to any record temperatures; for I know from a long experience with the temperatures in the Midwest of the USA, that extreme temperatures only occur during periods when the soil is extremely dry because of the lack of significant precipitation for too long a period.
And David, I have a doctorate in experimental physical chemistry and I know a little about the analysis of observational data. Hence, the data of Figure 1 clearly has the variation I would expect in experimental results; hence I immediately consider the analysis of Lobell and Field bogus.
Have a good day, Jerry
CO2 has no effect on temperature. http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
Richard – you should understand what I have written in my papers, websites, videos and book and summarized at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com so I’d be interested in your comments once you have understood what I’m saying about entropy maximization.
Now the New York Times has picked up the story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/science/greenpeace-subterfuge-tests-climate-research.html?_r=0
Can the Times be sued for this very misleading statement?:
“A sting operation by the environmental group Greenpeace suggests that some researchers who dispute mainstream scientific conclusions on climate change are willing to conceal the sources of payment for their research, even if the money is purported to come from overseas corporations producing oil, gas and coal.”
Mother Nature will eventually make it profoundly clear that CO2 has no effect on climate irrespective of who gets paid to do what.
Mother Nature has already made this crystal clear.
Wow! David Appell agrees CO2 has “…no effect on climate…”
Have a great day!
Nice try. Try again some other time.
David Appell cannot prove that carbon dioxide and water vapor warm the surface. My study showed more moist regions had lower temperatures. David Appell does nothing but call upon the assumed “authority” of pal-reviewed journal articles and (I guess) Pierrehumbert’s book which I’ve shown has critical errors.
Despite his knowledge of irrelevant nuclear physics, David Appell seems never to have correctly understood that changes in molecular gravitational potential energy (or similar potential energy due to some other force field) affect entropy. That’s why a vortex tube has a radial temperature gradient due to centrifugal force, and that simple device proves that gravity also forms a temperature gradient – a fact “apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhDs” as stated here.
Readers need to understand that the study of entropy and 21st century understandings in thermodynamics is not something covered by those who do PhD’s in other branches of physics. I have done far more post graduate study in this specialized field than most would do for a PhD, and written more than most would write in a PhD thesis in any field of physics.
Thanks, Patrick Moore, Dr. Spencer.
This are good news!
Can we begin by asking Patrick Moore why he said, in 2009
“Its clear to me that the big change that needs to be made is in clean electricity, which means reducing the use of fossil fuels and increasing nuclear energy.”
Richard Postma, Ph.D physics says:
December 9, 2015 at 12:45 PM
I have come to believe that the greatest risk to our well-being is the fear of global warming. If the politicians are persuaded to pass laws that severely restrict access to energy, the world’s economies could be significantly damaged, bringing on increases in poverty and misery. Before radical changes in our energy policy are made, three questions must be answered with a considerable degree of certainty:
(1) How much warming is occurring? (2)How much is due to CO2 increases? I.e. AGW. and (3) Is the increase in CO2 and/or temperature harmful or helpful to humanity as a whole?
I believe, and your articles support, that none of these three questions has been answered with much certainty, and that (1) in particular, is quite a bit less than the IPCC models predict.
———————————————————————————
Richard,
Your questions are of course very relevant and large research centres have been set up to answer such questions. However, the reality of the situation appears to be that such questions are currently unanswerable due to the enormous complexity of the issue.
In view of this fact, the next question is, ‘How do we manage the uncertainty?’
We don’t go through life with the attitude, I shall do nothing unless I am certain of the outcome. ‘Probability’ rules the day, all the way down to the fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics. There is no complete certainty in life. What we imagine as being completely certain is no more than a very high degree of probability.
One should understand that the exaggerated degree of certainty promoted, regarding the harmful effects of increased CO2 levels, is merely a psychological ploy to deal with the discomfort and worry associated with uncertainty, not only the uncertainty about the possible harmful consequences of rising CO2 levels, but the uncertainty of the consequences of a future scarcity of fossil fuels as third world countries develop along the lines of the American dream, and the uncertainty of the consequences of continued environmental damage due to coal mining, oil spills in the oceans, and the unavoidable pollution resulting from cheaply built coal-fired plants, and cars with poor emission controls.
One could argue that a better solution would be for governments around the world to insist on better emission controls on all coal-fired power plants, gasoline and diesel engines, and a restoration of all environmental damage resulting from mining activities, including a cessation of deforestation and burn-off activities for agricultural purposes.
Now that’s fine, except it’s not very practical. When an undeveloped country is striving to raise itself out of poverty, the consequences of a polluted atmosphere and environment are seen as preferable to the squalor and degradation of life in a ramshackle hut with no electricity, clean water or sewerage facilities.
The choices for such countries are basically, (1) raise a million people out of poverty by building the latest, cleanest and most expensive coal-fired power plant, or (2) raise 2 million people out of poverty by spending the same amount of money on cheaper but dirtier coal-fired power plants.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the fundamental causes of poverty are incompetence, corruption, ignorance and continual squabbling and internal military conflict. One can’t expect such societies to behave responsibly with regard to emission controls of fossil fuels. It’s not a priority for them.
I’m tempted to offer a $10,000 reward to anyone who can fault my rationality, logic and commonsense. (Wink).
India has embraced the logic of economic expansion, which means cheap and plentiful power, and this means a reliance on fossil fuels. Their ejection of Greenpeace at the beginning of COP21 was no coincidence. It was their signal to the other governments that they had no intention of entertaining the “financial fraud” of renewable energy schemes.
Financial fraud has always been a concern for all societies, and can encompass all activities. It’s not confined to the production of solar energy.
My impression from the COP21 talks is that many underdeveloped countries are expecting more foreign aid in the form of renewable energy. Their feeling seems to be that the industrialisation of the West is responsible for the current (imagined) crisis of high CO2 levels.
Since we (the developed countries) have been the main cause of the crisis and have become prosperous in the process, it is only fair that we share our prosperity with the undeveloped countries, in the form of renewable energy grants, if we don’t want them to go down the same path of fully exploiting fossil fuels in the cheapest manner possible that provides the greatest economic benefit for them, whilst simultaneously ignoring the externalities of a polluted environment as China seems to have done.
They make a good point. More aid in the form of renewable energy, such as solar panels, will have the effect of driving down the production cost of solar panels, and we will all benefit.
Rooftop PVPs are very popular in Australia. Currently one can buy (in Queensland) a 5.2 KW system for A$6,400 (which is about US$4,600). The price includes a 25 year guarantee for the panels, and with the help of a feed-in tariff it is estimated that the initial cost, which includes installation, would be recovered within 4 years.
But let’s assume that’s a sales exaggeration, at least partially because the interest one might otherwise earn by not spending that initial cost is probably not included in their calculations. Let’s say 5 or 6 years is more realistic. That still leaves 19 or 20 years of partially free, and often fully free electricity supply with possibly minor expenses of maintenance along the way. That sounds like an excellent investment to me.
The government subsidy on that initial cost of A$6,400 is claimed to be $3,700. In 10 years time I would expect the cost of a 5KW system to be no more than $6,400 without a government subsidy, and a feed-in tariff which is no greater than the wholesale price of electricity should still result in a sound investment.
Hi Vincent,
You assert:
“More aid in the form of renewable energy, such as solar panels, will have the effect of driving down the production cost of solar panels, and we will all benefit.
Rooftop PVPs are very popular in Australia. Currently one can buy (in Queensland) a 5.2 KW system for A$6,400 (which is about US$4,600). The price includes a 25 year guarantee for the panels, and with the help of a feed-in tariff it is estimated that the initial cost, which includes installation, would be recovered within 4 years.”
Subsidies will only misallocate resources from where they’re most needed. $4600 may seem cheap to you but not to the average Chinese. Market competition and pricing has brought down the price of solar panels, but a subsidy will only make it easier for some people to bid away solar panels from others, it can only serve to re-allocate resource expenditures. Simply removing legal restrictions on natural gas development in China would remove enormous quantities of pollution from he atmosphere, for the Al Gore types reduce CO2 and likely save many lives. It will also serve the round-the-clock needs of many people who need power wen ample sunlight isn’t available. The odds of getting expensive solar panels into the hands of the 1.3 billion Chinese seems much less likely in the short term, but here again the market can work. After all, the Chinese already manufacture them.
Have a great day!
“The odds of getting expensive solar panels into the hands of the 1.3 billion Chinese seems much less likely in the short term, but here again the market can work.”
China has a state-controlled economy. When they want something to happen — and, make no mistake, the leadership in China are not climate change deniers — they can make it happen faster than almost anyone.
Well, well, totalitarian methods and junk science both have great appeal for David.
Hi David Appell,
You state:
“When they want something to happen and, make no mistake, the leadership in China are not climate change deniers they can make it happen faster than almost anyone.”
Understood, so why haven’t they all these decades? Well, politics is warfare by other means and they have been massively building up there military with US assistance. It seems for climate believers in Beijing war and preparation for war always supersedes climate rhetoric. As you say, they can make things happen faster than almost anyone.
Btw, while the leadership may spout rhetoric, the common folk relying on coal to heat there winter times homes may not be as convinced.
Have a great day!
I fault your rationality, logic and commonsense. Send the money.
(See D. A. for how that is a reasonable reason to send me the money)
I wouldn’t be suprised at all if proper analysis revealed that most western environmental causes are largely influenced by Russian and OPEC interests. There’s probably a small amount of financing of particular actitivities, but it is probably easy to simply use subtle marketing and propaganda at very little cost.
Exactly.
A similar example was discovered in North Carolina with the Moral Monday protests – they pretended personal concern. Many were on payrolls of one sort or another – from leftist organizations.
I suspect David is one more of those.
I bet that the present DOJ-FBI conducts a sham investigation and that nothing comes of it. It could be a different story if a different party takes over the white house next year. The investigation can be reopened.
I predict that Greenpeace, fully cognizant of this, will pull out the stops and undertake more of these “black bag” type of operations in their frantic obsession to sway public opinion. They will hire outside operands to do their worst work. They have the money. Keep an eye out for tails, provocateurs, seductive types, etc. I do not put anything past these GP zealots. Have a care, because it’s going to get worse.
+1
Hi mpainter,
Agreed. However, the current administration seems under control of foreign powers interested in access to America’s resource bounty. The CAGW scam serves the purpose of those seeking to possess the God given bounty and resources given the American public. If the American public lets them do it without admonition and/or complaint, they have only themselves to blame.
Have a great day!
Agreed.
Sieg heil !
Hi Dr. No,
Shouldn’t that be Prothetische Heil! or Spectre Heil! or Blowfish, I mean Blofeld Heil!? When was the last time you had, what you might consider, a victory anyways? Bhopal or Minimata (were you behind the environmental disasters)? filching Ursula’s bikini? What have you done for Spectre lately? You know, that’s what they’ll ask. You seem to be just an old washed up psychopath under the delusion he can win the affection of his old, pin-up favorite Ursula from the arms of the cat-eating Oddjob! So sad.
Have a great day!
Hi James,
You would do well to show some respect to your arch foe.
My latest success is taking place right now. You see, Ursula did bear me a son all those years ago. We named him Donald and he has become enormously rich and powerful. Just watch and weep as he creates the havoc and chaos that his father dreams of!
Sig heil!
Hi Dr. No,
You state:
“You see, Ursula did bear me a son all those years ago. We named him Donald and he has become enormously rich and powerful. Just watch and weep as he creates the havoc and chaos that his father dreams of!”
Arguably, Donald Duck already caused havoc and chaos Walt Disney never dreamed of. If you mean Donald Trump, he doesn’t look oriental to me. Of course, it could be a clever disguise. The red-hair, while real, could be colored. Still he’s rather tall. Thank you for the tip, we’ll keep him under observation.
Have a great day!
Hi mpainter,
“They will hire outside operands to do their worst work. They have the money. Keep an eye out for tails, provocateurs, seductive types, etc.”
Thanks for the tip. Sounds like another lucrative job for Dr No.
Hi Dr. No,
You stated:
“Thanks for the tip. Sounds like another lucrative job for Dr No.”
Spectre now pays only minimum wage for centenarians. If they suffer from Alzheimer’s he refers them to the US CIA, or MI-5. They’re not picky these days! Although it helps if you speak Arabic.
Have a great day!
Hi James,
“Keep an eye out for tails, provocateurs, seductive types, etc.”
I am good at provocation and, I believe, you are good at seduction. Why not join me in a job at Greenpeace?
As ein team ve vould be unbeatable !
Sig heil!
Hi Dr. No,
You state:
“I am good at provocation and, I believe, you are good at seduction. Why not join me in a job at Greenpeace?”
All they want is a PIECE of the GREEN, i.e. cash and political power. They’re now small compared to the Soros operation and NWO, IPCC, Bilderberger, etc. global chaos operation. They might go the way of Earth First or the Sea Sheperd Society. Besides, the way things are going unfortunately they’ll all be begging recognition from the US sponsored ISIS. Watch out for when the servant becomes your master. No, adult organizations still exist that need assistance and so many women left to marvel (sounds better than seduce)!
Have a great day!
Hi James,
Georeg Soros is a philanthropist
NWO was a professional wrestling stable
IPCC aren’t hiring
the Bidergerger group are simply a poor man’s version of SPECTRE
No, I think Greenpeace would be a better fit for us as a team.
Hang on, would you really marvel rather than seduce? Don’t tell me you’ve lost your mojo. What a laugh ! Time to retire wouldn’t you say? I know of a good nursing home for ex-spies.
Obviously you would be of no assistance to me. Forget the Greenpeace job. As usual, if you want something done right better to do it yourself.
Hi Dr. No,
You stated:
“Georeg Soros is a philanthropist”
Philanthropy for Marxist terrorists:
“Entrusted with the task of defining the foregoing terms for the Open Society Institute, and for articulating the Institute’s agendas from the outset, was Aryeh Neier, whom Soros appointed to serve as president not only of OSI, but of the entire Soros Foundation Network. Thirty-four years earlier, Neier had created the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which became the largest and most important radical group of the 1960s. SDS aspired to overthrow America’s democratic institutions, remake its government in a Marxist image, and undermine the nation’s war efforts in Vietnam. (A particularly militant faction of SDS would later break away to form the Weather Underground, a notorious domestic terror organization with a Marxist-Leninist agenda.)”
You go on:
“Hang on, would you really marvel rather than seduce? Dont tell me youve lost your mojo. What a laugh ! Time to retire wouldnt you say? I know of a good nursing home for ex-spies.”
Seduce: “…to persuade to do evil or wrongdoing; led astray.”
That would appear to be a Dr. No specialty. However, Bond must eventually retire. The old guy can still be found fondling the new female cadets at MI5. Bambi and Thumper and other Bond conquests still spend time doing calisthenics and rough housing with him in Her Majesties olympic size swimming pool. Bond retains a hardy appetite for the opposite sex that unfortunately leads him astray. He married once ( Dianna Rigg character ) but her violent death, dissuaded him from future long-term commitments. A lustful old coot with a license to kill may be not such a great idea after all. Nevertheless, he’s still not quite the SEDUCER Dr. No strives to be. He still wants the women to MARVEL him. Kind of difficult for Dr. No, what with much of his body now replaced by mechanical parts.
Btw, Bond still finds time for target practice and his Walther PPK doesn’t fire blanks!
Times arrow drives everyone to there destination.
Have a great day!
Hi JohnKl,
Maybe George is not the namby pamby nice guy I took him for. Your intelligence on him makes him sound far more interesting. I look backwards with fondness on the good times I had with SDS and the Weather Undergroundsigh.
But, we are not here to talk about the weather. Ze Walther PPK was designed by ze Germans, jawaohl? Ein fakt: Adolf Hitler shot and killed himself with his PPK.
Maybe it is time for James Bond to do the same, nyet? He sounds so pathetic.
Finally, did you know that entanglement might explain the arrow of time first occurred to Seth Lloyd about 30 years ago, when he was a 23-year-old philosophy graduate student at Cambridge University with a Harvard physics degree. Lloyd realized that quantum uncertainty, and the way it spreads as particles become increasingly entangled, could replace human uncertainty in the old classical proofs as the true source of the arrow of time. I could go on but I think it would go over your alzheimer’s head.
Hi Dr. No,
You state:
“Finally, did you know that entanglement might explain the arrow of time first occurred to Seth Lloyd about 30 years ago, when he was a 23-year-old philosophy graduate student at Cambridge University with a Harvard physics degree.”
Please note you used the term “might” explain the arrow of time. As I’ve mentioned many times in previous posts, science refers to the FACTS and LAWS of nature, not speculation ( i.e., theories, hypothesis and such conjecture ). The concept of the arrow of time has been established by the 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS in that a finite universe closed from any outside inputs of matter and energy must experience increasing entropy. Since know one has established that matter and/or energy can be created or destroyed on a regular and consistent enough basis to convince most people. The universe sure appears closed. Do I personally believe the universe to be completely closed? No, unexplained phenomenon occur that cannot be explained without reference to some unknown additional source of matter and energy. If you don’t believe me just ask the scientists trying to explain tight galactic formations, unexplained by either Newtonian physics or relativity, why they imagine the existence of DARK MATTER or DARK ENERGY!
Btw, for the record Dr. No’s need to cling to someone else’s conjecture absent might be a sign of on-going dementia possibly brought on by syphilis obtained in part by abusing captive slave women in his subterranean lair. It’s been rumored ( I’m starting one now ) that your brain Dr. No looks may like Swiss Cheese. As to Seth Loyd and Moore’s Law the amount and/or number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. The observation is named after Gordon E. Moore. In your case, the number seems to be reversing you seem to be loosing synapses at the same pace ( iow, you seem to be loosing half your synapses every year ). Which is why as a desperate centenarian you attempt to explain away time’s arrow ( and the direction it appears to be heading ) and you throw in Seth Loyd and uncertainty. When he develops a marketable quantum computer, maybe he will laud you as an inspiration. Of course, it’s always possible Seth Loyd is pretending to be Dr. No and wants to plug his name and research in which case I can only say, clever move.
Have a great day!
Correction, my statement should have read:
“Btw, for the record Dr. Nos need to cling to someone elses conjecture might be a sign of on-going dementia, possibly brought on by syphilis obtained in part by abusing captive slave women in his subterranean lair.”
Hi Dr. Roy Spencer,
Patrick Murphy closed:
“I shall also be asking the Bureau to investigate Greenpeaces sources of funding. It is now an enemy of the State, an enemy of humanity and, indeed, an enemy of all species on Earth.”
Dr. No must be livid. He wanted such commentary.
Have a great day!
Correction: Patrick Moore
Hi JohnKl,
I think you were correct the first time.
Patrick Murphy is the much more famous Irish scientist who discovered that birthdays are good for youthe more you have the longer you live
Hi Dr. No,
You state:
“Patrick Murphy is the much more famous Irish scientist who discovered that birthdays are good for youthe more you have the longer you live”
In the “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” you will discover that the one way to learn to fly is to throw yourself at the ground and miss! Not that I recommend it, but some Centenarians may find it far too easy a way out if performed from a substantial height. It would likely interfere with Birthday plans, so I cannot recommend it. In short, I too agree with Patrick Murphy!
Have a great day, and happy birthday if that’s what your angling for!
Hi James,
“In short, I too agree with Patrick Murphy. Have a great day, and happy birthday if thats what your angling for!”
???????!!!!!!
First you agree with me, then you wish me a great day and then a happy birthday!!
What’s gotten into you man? What’s wrong? is it the onset of some ageing disease like Alzheimer’s? Pull yourself together – or else I will send you to the Twighlight Nursing Home where you can join Patrick Moore!
Off-topic, but potentially far more devastating to the posters on this site than the activities of Greenpeace, is this latest piece of news:
The last issue of Playboy to feature naked women went on sale on Friday, with the magazine stating it will now switch to being non-nude .
The January/February 2016 issue, which features Pamela Anderson on its cover, draws a close to 62 years of nudity. It is likely to become a collectors issue among fans and magazine aficionados.
Hi Dr. No,
Of course, Ursula did a 12 page nude spread for Playboy in 1965. If you two choose to another one now, we can only be thankful you cover up!
Have a great day!
JohnKl says:
December 10, 2015 at 8:58 PM
Hi Vincent,
You assert:
More aid in the form of renewable energy, such as solar panels, will have the effect of driving down the production cost of solar panels, and we will all benefit.”
Subsidies will only misallocate resources from where theyre most needed. $4600 may seem cheap to you but not to the average Chinese. Market competition and pricing has brought down the price of solar panels, but a subsidy will only make it easier for some people to bid away solar panels from others, it can only serve to re-allocate resource expenditures.
———————————————————-
Hi John KI,
This is another flawed argument. It’s not subsidies that misallocate resources but incompetent people and governments who may grant the subsidies without justification, without understanding the implications and without putting in place an effective method of monitoring the use of the subsidies.
Misallocation might also result from an understandable mistake (in retrospect) due to insufficient information being available. We learn from our mistakes (at least some of us do). (Wink)
Subsidies are essential for many activities which might otherwise never get off the ground. Space exploration and scientific research into theoretical matters which have no immediate practical value, are obvious examples.
I’ve recently been analyzing the figures relating to a 4kW solar panel system, in order to advise a friend who is considering the purchase of such a system. Out of curiosity, I wondered what the financial situation would be if I were to add back into my calculations all the known, or claimed subsidies, and assume the worst-case scenario of electricity prices never rising, even in line with normal inflation, during the 25-year period for which the panels are insured.
The solar subsidy also includes a generous feed-in tariff which is approximately equal to the retail price of the electricity from the grid. In my calculations I reduced this feed-in tariff to the current wholesale price for electricity because I think it’s inevitable that the feed-in tariff will gradually be revised downwards.
Without going into tedious detail, I’ll just mention a few general figures. According to my research, a 4kW solar system in Brisbane, Australia, produces on average, throughout the year, 16.6 kWh of electricity per day.
My friend’s current, maximum, average usage from the grid is 7.7 kWh per day, for any particular quarterly period, and often less. It seems a reasonable estimate, if half of that usage takes place when the sun doesn’t shine, then the 12 or 13 kWh per day, on average, that is fed back into the grid, even at a wholesale price which is 1/3rd of the retail price, would still be sufficient to offset the cost of electricity drawn directly from the grid.
Her highest bill during the past year is $182 for 90 days. That works out at $728 per year, or $18,200 over a 25-year period, assuming no electricity price-rises during that period. (Of course, the estimated electricity price-rises included in the supplier’s calculations, make that total cost much higher.)
Now the initial cost of the 4 kW system, including installation and insurance for 25 years, is $5,500. The government subsidy is claimed to be $3,700, so the total unsubsidised cost of installing the system is A$9,200.
Now the crucial question here is what sort of interest rate on a secure investment of $9,200 would be required to pay a $728 annual bill? It would be approximately 8%. Even in Australia where interest rates have been traditionaly quite high, no bank is offering anywhere near as high as 8% on a secure investment.
My conclusion is that roof-top solar power in Australia, even without subsidies, is already competitive with coal-produced electricity, and is probably even cheaper. Wow!
Your problem Vincent is that you believe that the energy produced by your rooftop panel is effectively shared on the grid and so the grid owner reduces its coal-originated energy, but it isn’t so.
Since your solar produced energy isn’t predictable until you are a little producer you are just tolerated on the grid, when many like you will run their panels together, then the grid owner ask you to stop your production when the panels produce “to much energy”, this because your stochastic production increased the grid voltage otherwise.
Here in Italy the government already imposed that limitation of maximum production to the plants above 3kW (they set it to +10% of nominal voltage measured at the inverter output).
You may haven’t get the point, but it just means that currently the solar generated energy is just paid by the grid users to the panels owners (4% of our bill), but the grid owner just dissipated it via joule effect on the grid and it still produces the whole energy required for our economy.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Vincent states:
“My conclusion is that roof-top solar power in Australia, even without subsidies, is already competitive with coal-produced electricity, and is probably even cheaper. Wow!”
So by your own words, a roof-top solar power system in Australia will benefit purchasers and the subsidy isn’t necessary! Sometimes I wonder if you follow your own logic. Personally, I own some solar equipment myself. Why should anyone else have to pay for my equipment? Why should I have to pay for theirs? You should read people’s responses before you reply. I never claimed that solar energy wasn’t economical I claimed the subsidy to be economically unjustified. One can always find someone who will benefit from the use of another person’s resources, you haven’t answered why one person should be forced to sacrifice for another. In any case, your example only proves that the market place provides eco-bargains including cheap solar power that the government need not subsidize. The Chinese already manufacture solar panels in large quantities. Overtime, more Chinese will buy them. You still haven’t answered why the government must subsidize any of it. If you wish to purchase additional solar panels for me I’m willing to acknowledge your sacrifice and accept the check. Why you would want to do so is anyone’s guess.
Have a great day!
John KI states:
“Personally, I own some solar equipment myself. Why should anyone else have to pay for my equipment? Why should I have to pay for theirs? You should read peoples responses before you reply. I never claimed that solar energy wasnt economical I claimed the subsidy to be economically unjustified. One can always find someone who will benefit from the use of another persons resources, you havent answered why one person should be forced to sacrifice for another.”
——————————————————–
Hi John KI,
You’re not making much sense. Subsidies are a necessary part of all modern societies, including even the United States, surprisingly.
What sort of society would we have if only the wealthy could afford to send their children to school because all schools were run as profitable businesses without government subsidy?
Of course, any subsidy which is found to have no long-term net benefit, in either economic terms or human welfare, should be scrapped.
An example of a subsidy in Australia, which makes complete economic sense, would be a subsidy on electricity charges to an aluminium smelter which, by design, has to use large quantities of electricity. Without the subsidy, the company might decide to build its smelter overseas, where both electricity and labour are cheaper, and ship its bauxite long distances across the ocean before the processing begins, which is an inefficient process in itself.
However, with a subsidised and therefore a cheap electricity supply, plus the lower cost of transporting the bauxite to the smelter, the company is willing to build its smelter in Australia.
In such circumstances, the additional revenue the government gets from tax on the profits made by the aluminium smelter, plus the income tax paid by all the employees at the smelter, plus the additional GST and other taxes on the goods and services that the employees buy with their salary, some of whom might be on unemployment benefits if the smelter had never been built, is far greater than the initial cost to the government of the subsidy on electricity.
I give this as an example because you seem so confused.
Have a great, unconfused day!
Hi Vincent,
Please know I’m not confused and your previous contradictory claims have now been surpassed by your further conjecture. You ask:
“What sort of society would we have if only the wealthy could afford to send their children to school because all schools were run as profitable businesses without government subsidy?”
In today’s government funded education system children and adults in this country are far often far less educated than in the past with private educational institutions. If schools were run as profitable businesses without subsidy I daresay education among the masses would be enormously improved. Note the market place and capitalist societies have provided an enormous bounty of food where prices are free to allocate food and distribute it. Capitalist industrialized societies have not faced famines like say the repeated mass deaths by famine found in the Soviet past. In the nineteenth and twentieth century when private educational institutions including private grade schools and colleges dominated the U.S. dominated in technological development and achievement. In today’s welfare system and subsidized educational system the US ranks low in world educational achievement and we no longer lead the world in technological development. For example, space development and many other advances are now moving off shore to Europe (Skylon) and other places. I will be happy to provide examples if you need them. The poor would have a much greater range of educational choices and at a cheaper cost if the private market place provided the service than when the government does, this has been historically proven and the record of private schools including homes schools over public ones is conclusively better. You claim with much speculation and without evidence that subsidies some how improve economic efficiency. Somehow politicians which now have a proven track record of massively deteriorating public education institutions, despite enormous amount of public expenditure, know more than millions of independent consumers how to spend their resources. You give as an example:
“An example of a subsidy in Australia, which makes complete economic sense, would be a subsidy on electricity charges to an aluminium smelter which, by design, has to use large quantities of electricity. Without the subsidy, the company might decide to build its smelter overseas, where both electricity and labour are cheaper, and ship its bauxite long distances across the ocean before the processing begins, which is an inefficient process in itself.”
If relocating a smelter overseas proves cheaper and probably environmentally friendlier to the people that would be forced to live near the smelter why not relocate? As to shipping bauxite long distances overseas that would likely be the case whether or not he located overseas. Why? We live in an international economy. He likely would not be selling the bauxite only in his small community. If he did he’d probably be soon out of business from larger more efficient producers and probably should go out of business. In any case, if it was so inefficient and costly to move overseas he wouldn’t do it. The subsidy only allows him to blow someone elses money on more costly options by moving costs to other taxpayers to pay his large over-inflated way.
“However, with a subsidised and therefore a cheap electricity supply, plus the lower cost of transporting the bauxite to the smelter, the company is willing to build its smelter in Australia.”
Why must everyone pay to have a smelter in your back-yard? Why not allow more efficient self-sustaining, market driven enterprises supply jobs demanded by consumers? Why must you tell everyone what kind of jobs should be in there community, especially dubious bauxite smelters? Btw, by subsidizing low-cost electricity to the smelter you will inevitably increase the price other un-subsidized market participants must pay for a shrunken supply of electricity now reallocated to your Australian friend with the bauxite smelter! Thanks, but no thanks.
Imo, if anyone is confused it’s you!
Have a great un-subsidized, and if possible un-confused day!
Correction:
Where I”ve stated bauxite smelter, replace with aluminum smelter.
To Vincent,
One point regarding subsidies should be added. In order to prove any subsidy to be efficient you need to prove that the benefits overcomes all opportunity costs. That is that the benefit would exceed all benefits obtainable with the assets had they not been reallocated by the subsidy and had been allowed to be exchange voluntarily by individuals. You have not even begun to do this.
Have a great day!
Hi JohnKL.
I agree with you.
Vincent is a good one, but he seems miss the point that if the subsidy give more revenue than the initial cost then it means that the government is sinking down the economy, because it is asking more taxes than required. While if it didn’t get more revenue than the initial cost then it’s the same because had spent money from taxes for a bad business.
Of course Vincent could argue that in the first case the government should reduces taxes, but it can’t since it has to pay all the bureaucrats who handles the subsidies.
In both cases the economy is loaded by unuseful taxes.
Here in Europe, the fundanomics (thanks to Dr. Spencer’s neologism) is highly used, so we experience the absurd behaviour of our politicians asking people to propose new “projects” to fund because otherwise “we lose the european funding”…
Do “we lose the european funding”???
What the heck are “european funding”, other than our own taxes paid before as a blank check?
So there are people funded to develop silly projects just extracted from the magic hat as they were rabbits.
IMHO, that’s the reason Europe is losing the market.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Massimo PORZIO,
Well said. You stated:
“So there are people funded to develop silly projects just extracted from the magic hat as they were rabbits.
IMHO, thats the reason Europe is losing the market.”
So goes the Western world. The US now follows much of the same ridiculous dynamics with the same failing results.
Have a great day!
Hi JohnKl,
sad to read that US is following the EC foolish.
When I was there in California I’ve been enthusiast of the way you live there.
Now it seems that the bad politics is doing there more or less what they do here. 🙁
Anyway have a great day in LA (it was a very nice place to me especially for the common people, hope it’s still the same).
Massimo
1ķӶô㣿
źҪĹؼʻӣɽ롰ԱġѡӦĶڡҪġֱڱҳн°µҪзϵͳὫйʣֱתС
2ٶӶſ֣
ƽ̨ӶһԪ
3ֺܵˣ
ֺ24СʱὫӶֵ˺С
4ַʽļ֣
Ŀǰƽֻ̨֧֧Ƹͨ֡
http://www.pugongcao.com/?t=1421
̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ӭλҵվseoerǰҵSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/
̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ӭλҵվseoerǰҵSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/
̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510
̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510
Magnificent site. A lot of helpful info here. I am sending it to
several buddies ans also sharing in delicious.
And naturally, thanks on your effort!