Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Dec 20 - julie
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing -
Dec 6 - sexdollpartner
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Bishop Hill
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (27)
Brilliant. Josh gets better with each one.
if he talks about 80% 'clean' energy, doesn't that mean he's pursuing the same policies? does it matter if he doesn't mention global climate warming?
The Reason Why
Obama is not the only one to abandon the politics of Climate Change, so too has Ban Ki-moon.
The UN Secretary General has decided to end his personal involvement in climate change talks, concentrating on clean energy instead.
We are witnessing not only a clear shift in language but a big change in political thinking where climate change is now deemed politically toxic and needs to be replaced by a less scary and more positive objective - clean energy - what's not to like.
Mark, I think the policies are changing.
See here.
And here and here too
Is sustainability going to become the new buzzword? I'm seeing a lot of grad school MBA programs with sustainability in the title.
Well the latest from the Institution of Electrical & Electronic Engineers suggests the answer to clean energy "...is not blowing in the wind".
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=012711
@ Mac "clean energy - what's not to like"
FIT's in countries where contributions from renewables are negligible (UK) inflate the electricity bill by a small amount. Probably, many consumers there see this increase as 'a small price to pay' for green energy. However, where renewables make a larger contribution (Spain) the effect has been a doubling of electricity bills. Spain has tried to hide this by issuing monthly bills instead of bi-monthly with the result that payments remain the same but the frequency (Hz?) has doubled. Beware, that little green item on your UK bill is a trojan horse.
WRT 'clean' energy and the spinning thereof:
The FIT is a stealth regressive tax that scales with the amount of renewables in the energy mix.
Regressive taxation is wrong.
The FIT is misconceived and should be abolished.
'Renewable' generation technologies are - at best - potentially capable of modest contributions to the UK energy mix.
The rest is propaganda and misdirection by those with vested interests or aligned goals.
Odd, where did the Guardian comments pages disappear to on these stories? Have their (allegedly) paid warmist trolls been made redundant? No astroturfing to do?
No one is opposed to clean energy, expensive energy yes.
Clean energy will mean in reality dirty great hikes in prices, but the phrase allows politicians more wiggle room to change their direction and so continue with their arguements and policies.
Phrases like "global warming" and "climate change" have shown to have limited shelf-lives. "Clean energy" will eventually go the same way, but it will be interesting to see how far politicians will go with this new mantra.
As for those eco-dinosaurs still banging on about the science they are becoming marginalised.
And the pundits are not happy about Obama's SOTU speech at all. Some interesting responses are quoted over at RP Jr's blog here:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/change-comes-fast.html
David Roberts posting on Grist gives the flavour:
I note that Obama called for 80% of US electricity generation from renewables by 2035. So the ahem, leader of the free world or his advisers are energy fantasists. Disturbing.
Clean energy is being redefined to include clean coal, clean gas, clean nuclear etc, etc. Thus when Obama states that the US will have 80% clean energy by 2030, (or whenever), all it will mean is that the current energy sources will have a " certified clean" sticker on them.
Everyone will congratulate themselves for saving the world, bank the money, and go on to the next scam.
Pielke Jr. seems to think Obama has the same goals, but this is an end run (American football talk.)
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/change-comes-fast.html
Obliquity, anyone?
Obama's core voters are not interested in AGW - it is a primarily middle class thing.
Carol
Can you translate 'middle class'? What do you mean?
Is there a pattern forming here ?
Mid atlantic cooling since 1998
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/26/atlantic_ocean_cooling/
Sun Causes more warming than previously thought as IPCC
http://climaterealists.com/?id=7090
Greenland ice sheet not melting as fast as thought
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/26/greenland-ice-sheet-climate-change?INTCMP=SRCH
Lets revisit climate events since 1871 in order to correct the models.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110124195615.htm
Himalayan Glaciers not melting
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html
Current 'warming' well below levels of past 3,000 years says peer reviewed paper.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/01/new-research-from-alaska-determines-that-modern-global-warming-is-well-below-past-warming-periods.html
All this within the past week.
middle class = white collar
Shale gas is the global game changer.
"Obama's core voters are not interested in AGW - it is a primarily middle class thing." --carol phillips
Interesting observation, possibly true. But Obama's first priority, before love of party, love of country, and love of blue collar labor, is love of power, as taught by his Marxist mentor. AGW panic is the shortest route to ultimate power. He's not abandoned global warming, merely moved on to its next logical step.
I don't think shale gas is the game changer, just another game piece. The real game changer is probably a realisation that the world isn't in it together. The EU and US can trash their economies chasing green shadows, but it makes little difference if China and India continue to industrialise at the rate they're doing. That's where most of the future emissions are going to come from and no rational government is going to cripple it's economy to create slack for the developing economies to pick up and outcompete. It would be electoral suicide, as some politicians are realising.
So play the quiet game, refocus on the economy and decouple energy policy from climate change, keep watching the data and if it starts to look bad, start the blame game and blame China and India for not doing their bit to solve the problem. Assuming any demonstrable AGW related problems ever appear. Most climate predictions are undershooting, so there's no rush to make the radical changes the greens want and there's time to evaluate the science properly.
Well said Atomic Hairdryer ! After this last winter in the northern hemisphere, I think anyone mouthing off about "Global Warming" or whatever they call it now appear to most average punters to be drunken dogs baying at the moon.
The show is basically over and has been for at least six months. Time to move on.
When is the last time you heard anything from Al Gore? He was the first to see the handwriting on the snow.
Don Pablo de la Sierra: .... drunken dogs baying at the moon.
Wonderful!
General knowledge at our local high school:
"Who's Al Gore?'
"Dunno. Does he have anything to do with Al Jazeera? Or Al Qaeda?"
@ Don Pablo
Not sure the show is over. Thinking more horror movie. We're into the final act, we think the monster is dead but it's just preparing for it's final assault. Or worse, sequel. I'm not sure what the finale will be. We've seen the charm offensive with the likes of BBC's Horizon but there's also been backpeddling from some of the political types. I'm hoping that's a sign that cooler, calmer heads are prevailing and the debate will become more rational. Worst case though is the debate moves from the public arena into more private lobbying by the NGO's and SIGs and we get more bad legislation. Too much political and financial capital has been invested for the carbon monster to die this easily.
As for Al, I'm betting he's dealing with some inconvenient truths, like explaining to his investors where the money has gone.
Atomic; others
Surely the big problem for the alarmists is that those evil bankers went and broke the global economy a couple of years ago. And now there's absolutely no money for funding extortionately expensive 'renewables' and all the other stuff they are demanding we all do.
'Tackling dangerous climate change' (oh how I loath that witless phrase) is going to cost big time, and nobody has the appetite for it any more. Note that Obama's goal of 80% 'clean' energy is a long way after he will have left office.
In other words, it's just talk (as well as being unachievable unless powered by fairy dust).