Climate concensus in free fall...

[Obvious Li]

The trenches of anthropogenic global warming are now mostly left populated by green ideologues, a left-dominated media, and bureaucrats who are usually the last to grasp reality

The myths of popular science have a nasty habit of running ahead of the real story by a decade or two. They are difficult to dislodge. It has always been thus.



Take the myth that global warming (GW) is today a feature of current global climate activity. Whatever the reason for it, GW hasn't been happening for 16 years – and not a single computer model predicted it. Then there is the breaking news that the global sea ice area is above normal – and that in the midst of the Antarctic summer. Not exactly been mainstream news has it? But then, as both stories run counter to the prevailing consensus and popular myth, that's not surprising.



As it turns out, even what we have been sold as a climate science "consensus" per se is a myth. In truth, public-money-grubbing researchers, green social engineers, politicized UN bureaucrats and corruThere's the myth peddled by David Attenborough that polar bears are threatened by extinction when it turns out they are actually thriving; along with stories that 'renewable' energy is an economically viable energy-generating concept; that windmills can provide reliable, regular and cost-effective power demanded by modern grids and energy users; that electric cars make sense at all, given they can only get you from London to Oxford before their batteries expire requiring 16 hours re-charging, and ... well, you get the picture.



The nexus between green myth and a pro-alarmist mass media committed to falling for, and publicizing, them is plain enough. Which brings us to the big daddy in our age: the myth of still attempting to proclaim a 'science consensus' when it comes to anthropogenic global warming (AGW).



Back in the 90s I was an early 'heretic' on global warming. For me the facts and data just didn't add up. But having spent years investigating the claims of huckster false prophets in the church for duping the gullible it increasingly became clear that today's false prophets had donned white coats, exchanged crystal balls for computer modelling and take the public 'shilling' to do planet-saving research. But their chief message is the same: the end-is-nigh – unless you listen to me and do what I tell you.



Science-writer Michael Crichton was the first to sum up this paradigm shift to wholesale faith in an environmental Grand Narrative that set the AGW prophetic belief-system rolling.



The fact is that history is littered with the prevailing wisdom of would-be 'gnostics' (those invested with secret knowledge) whose public scaremongering initially brings them notoriety, public attention and the ear of the prevailing authorities. The final stage is enjoying the high praise of public favour (and the public funds it attracts) before being exposed as frauds when, increasingly, real-life facts and empirical proof 'outs' them.



It has been a natural cycle in public affairs through every age. Postmodern man might like to think of himself as scientific and rational. But, having no spiritual anchor in life, he has never been more susceptible to the same kind of mass hysteria invoked by doomsayers in previous ages.



On that score, Michael Mann, Raj Pauchari (Chair of the UN IPCC), Al Gore, James Hansen take a bow – along with their bank managers. Fascinatingly, those who have stood outside the "prevailing consensus", almost never make money from their position. Public vilification is usually their lot.



The fact is, the 'modern romantic' in each of us is attracted by a 'quainter', less frenetic, less stressful way of life. Those most susceptible to trying to turn the clock back to a way of life that never existed are, first and foremost, idealists, social engineers and, out and out Luddites. All of which explains why most greens are predominantly left-leaning rather than right-leaning.



The right has a predilection to 'conserve' that which is proven, while the left has a predilection for 'progression' and change. Neither need be inherently wrong.



But, quite perversely, never has a 'progressive' movement ever been so backward looking. Its idea of 'progression' rests on a key premise: the demand to return to a 'quaint', pre-industrial way of life; an existence that meant high infant mortality, sickness, disease, poverty and, oh yes, early death.



Today green policies are pushing hundreds of thousands into fuel poverty. Mostly only the relatively rich can afford to buy electric cars, private wind turbines or solar panels. Yet they have no compunction in claiming tax breaks and public grants – paid for by society's poorest through their energy bills. How many pious green moralists grasp who is being burdened to pay for their 'quaint' life accessories?



Such is the moral wickedness inherent in bureaucratic green policies that underwrite this modern day 'Robin-Hood-in-reverse' arrangement that even the Governor of the Bank of England has lately spoken out against its impact. All of which brings us full circle: to the field of "consensus" or allegedly "settled" science in which popular myths abound.



pt data fiddlers apart, it has always been thus. Just as the 28-Gate scandal eventually revealed the 28 'experts' that advised the BBC to pin its AGW colours to the alarmist mast was nothing but a green lobby group, so the alleged climate consensus looks increasingly, er...'fracked'.



Real climate-linked scientists, including numerous meteorologists, actual climate scientists, empiricists and data observers, have always been more circumspect in their public assessments. But they are increasingly becoming downright skeptical.



A new peer-reviewed paper surveying over 1,037 engineers and geoscientists that are actually categorized under the "Comply with Kyoto" banner, confirms that while most believe global climate change is happening, only 36 percent believe the alarmist Grand Narrative that man is the chief cause.



Further, the survey researchers also found that "scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains" among many actual climate scientists. They found that while 75 percent of papers published between 1993 and 2003 explicitly endorsed AGW, between 2004 and 2008 that figure had fallen to 45 percent.



A consensus view in science has always been a fragile thing. Single heretical views have a history of entirely overturning the prevailing consensus. But in the case of AGW, with global warming having been shown conclusively to have slumped to a 16-year halt, the alleged 'science consensus' is becoming blatantly exposed. The trenches now are mostly populated by green ideologues, a left-dominated media, and bureaucrats who are usually the last to grasp the realities.



We are all entitled to an opinion. Unfortunately, in the age of 24/7 news, modern opinion is more likely to bear the marks of emotional response than informed and considered views. Thus the mind of modern man is all too fertile a soil for the latest apparent "consensus", insisting this particular field of science is "settled".



What is becoming blatantly obvious is that it is taking an ever burgeoning abundance of BS to fertilize it.



Peter C Glover is co-author of the bestselling Energy and Climate Wars and is a contributing editor at The Commentator. For more: http://www.petercglover.com">www.petercglover.com

[Anonymous]

the myth peddled by David Attenborough that polar bears are threatened by extinction when it turns out they are actually thriving;

I remember two young women collecting money to save polar bears from extinction..



With the exception of the Salvation Army I am usually suspicious of people who solicit donations on the street or door to door.

[Odinson]

Judging by the researches these idiots make, the north-pole should have been melted by now.

[Anonymous]

The absolute best face that the Ontario Liberals can put on the decisions to cancel gas-fired power plants in Oakville and Mississauga, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to taxpayers, is that the government was "responding to local concerns."

 

That is indeed one way to put it. One man's "crass political opportunism" can be someone else's "listening to residents."

 

The irony, though, is that the gas-plant affair takes place against the backdrop of an energy-planning strategy, and the Liberals' signature Green Energy Act, which was specifically designed to override local concerns about generation facilities. It also put far too much reliance on the feasibility of renewable energy projects, completely disregarded the impact on consumers, and imagined a world in which coal-fired plants, long a staple of Ontario's energy system, could be replaced by sunshine and the breeze.

 

That scenario has simply not come to pass. And while outrage over the Green Energy Act has long been felt in rural Ontario, where local concerns over new projects have been largely ignored, the greater Toronto gas-plant cancellations have produced a political fallout felt right in the Liberal heartland. It is Dalton McGuinty's green energy chickens coming home to roost.



The grand idea of the Green Energy Act was that it would allow the province to transition from the pollution of coal-burning plants by adding exponential amounts of wind and solar energy while at the same time encouraging conservation through a host of initiatives.

 

But adding renewable-energy capacity has proven difficult. Projects still have to be connected to the grid, which is a particular concern when the proposal is for a facility in a remote location, and the approval process has been slow.

 

Of greater concern is the problem of when the wind blows and the sun shines. On Oct. 28, for example, one of the windiest days of the year, Ontario's wind energy farms were humming along in the early evening and producing more than 1,450 megawatts — about 85% of wind capacity. This is highly unusual; in the high-demand summer months, wind routinely produces at less than 10% of capacity. But here was a rare day when the wind facilities were doing what they were intended to do — and the province was dumping the electricity on the market at a tiny fraction of what it was paying for it. In fact, at various points of the day, according to data published by Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator, the province was exporting to neighbouring jurisdictions almost the exact same amount it was generating from wind farms. At 3 p.m., it was generating 1,432 megawatts of wind — at the mandated rate of ¢13.5 per kw/h — and exporting 1,507 MW at less than ¢3 per kw/h. At 4 p.m., it was producing 1,450 MW from wind and exporting 1,425 MW, at the same 80% discount. You get the idea: Renewables producing excess energy at the time it is least needed.

 

Unfortunately for the Liberals, the converse is also often true, underscoring why wind and solar are not good replacements for coal. Those plants can be fired up and turned off as needed; renewables can't. This is why Ontario determined several years ago that natural-gas-fired plants were needed in southern Ontario — like coal plants, they have the flexibility to meet demand as needed.



The province's gutted manufacturing base has since made those plans moot; total energy demand remains well below pre-recession levels and is forecasted to decline further still next year. So when the residents of Oakville and Mississauga raised a fuss, the Liberals were in a position to back off. It didn't cost the province much in terms of meeting energy needs, although as we've seen, it sure cost the treasury.

 

Just how much it cost remains a subject of debate. The McGuinty government insists the $230-million it cites for both cancellations is the only accurate figure. Meanwhile, energy consultant Tom Adams and my colleague Terence Corcoran reported last week that among the 56,000 pages of documents released related to the gas-plant cancellations are indications that the Ontario Power Authority was engaged in settlement discussions with the power company behind the Oakville facility that topped $700-million. Officials at the Energy ministry insist that because the plant was ultimately relocated to Bath, near Kingston, no such settlement was paid. Other big-dollar figures related to transmission lines and the purchase of gas turbines are explained away as not specifically a result of the Oakville relocation.

 

"The estimates in the documents were preliminary and based on a worst case scenario where [the] plant was not relocated and the company was paid for sunk costs and lost profits," said Jennifer Kett, press secretary to Chris Bentley, the Energy Minister.

 

The government should be providing these explanations, as well as answering questions on whether other promises were made to the power companies in exchange for a reduced settlement — the documents make clear that government officials were trying to come up with ways to ensure the payout looked modest — to the Finance Committee, but that process was of course shut down when the legislature was prorogued. Instead, it's up to the public to sift through the thousands of pages and wonder what it all means.

 

The McGuinty Liberals have so far survived their energy-file mistakes, despite electricity costs that have spiked dramatically in recent years. But the problems are mounting. They may not have claimed Dalton McGuinty's leadership, but he won't be around to clean them up.



The McGuinty fiberals are masters at wasting money on green energy pipe dreams.

[Frost]

My view is we do do our part on destroying our home world, but the blatant disregard by the green nuts that our local space has warmed by two degrees, and our natural cycle on this world is nothing more than money grabbing theft .

We need to clean up, and try to do better, but we need to live also, and have the ability to move forward.

Living in a cave, and eating grass just don't get it.

[Frost]

We need to clean up, but we have laws already for that, and just need to keep industry in line.

The Carbon credit thing we already have in other ways, companies can only let out so much, and can  buy more rights from other companies, that's on the books already also.

[Frost]

That's the hypocrisy handing it off for the environmentalist, they know our standards are the best.

The Brazilians, and Russians are off shore thanks to Obama, and Soros ready to drill in gulf waters .

The pipeline is the best answer over that.

[Frost]

That's the hypocrisy handing it off for the environmentalist, they know our standards are the best.

The Brazilians, and Russians are off shore thanks to Obama, and Soros ready to drill in gulf waters .

The pipeline is the best answer over that.

Nope, I think importing heavy crude from Venezuela by tanker is better for the environment than a pipeline from a friendly neighbour. Using oil to move oil move oil makes more sense....joking of course.

   :?  

Okey !

Yeah I agree, better that way    let me fix my brain now to match.

[Frost]

They are just ignorant, and being used like many of these people who follow these groups.

Look at who is pushing, and funding, and you will see someone making big bucks if they win.

[Frost]

Sorry to go Shen Li, but I need something for my head, hope you are well, and warm.