How many scientific papers just aren’t true?
By Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby
A very pertinent article by Donna Laframboise in the Spectator:
We’re continually assured that government policies are grounded in evidence, whether it’s an anti-bullying programme in Finland, an alcohol awareness initiative in Texas or climate change responses around the globe. Science itself, we’re told, is guiding our footsteps.
There’s just one problem: science is in deep trouble. Last year, Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, referred to fears that ‘much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue’ and that ‘science has taken a turn toward darkness.’
By Paul Homewood
Just returning to yesterday’s story, these are the simple facts, rather than the hype from the IEA that gullible little Emily Gosden naively reported:
| TWh | 2014 | 2015 |
| Wind | 717 | 841 |
| Solar | 191 | 253 |
| Total Electricity | 23894 | 24098 |
| Solar/Wind as % | 3.8% | 4.5% |
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
Globally, the share of wind and solar in the electricity mix has limped upward from 3.8% to 4.5%.
For some reason Emily did not think to mention the fact.
FOOTNOTE
It seems it is not only little Emily that got hoodwinked! CNBC, and no doubt many others, have also fallen for the IEA’s propaganda:
Steven Capozzola has done a good job of debunking this as well at Climate Change Dispatch:
CNBC viewers are being snookered.
The business news network featured an article in the “Sustainable Energy” section of its Website that proclaimed: “Renewables surged past coal in 2015 to become world’s biggest source of electricity: IEA.”
In reading that headline, one might get the impression that wind turbines and solar panels produced more electricity last year than coal. But the fine print actually reveals a very different picture.
The opening paragraph of the article by “Freelance digital reporter” Anmar Frangoul gives a clue as to the sleight of hand being used. Frangoul cites the International Energy Agency (IEA) as reporting that “Renewable energy moved past coal in 2015 to become the biggest source of global electricity capacity.” The key word there is “capacity.”
What’s noteworthy is that capacity is far different from actual production. The average wind turbine has a maximum rated capacity of roughly 2 megawatts. That means, if the wind is blowing between 26-56 mph, the turbine can spin up to its peak generating capacity. In such moments, the wind turbine can produce its full 2 megawatts.
However, wind turbines, like solar panels, offer only intermittent power generation. Wind turbines can only produce power when there is sufficient wind—and when they are not shut down due to cold weather, repairs, or high winds. And solar panels only produce electricity during periods of direct sunlight. Thus, while a wind turbine can have a maximum capacity of 2 megawatts, its typical output may often be far less, or even 0 megawatts (on a windless day).
In contrast, and as the IEA itself notes, coal provided 40.8 percent of worldwide power generation in 2014. The renewables that Frangoul crows about—defined by the IEA as “geothermal, solar, wind, heat, etc.”—produced only 6.3 percent of all power.
Thus we see some of the misleading language in the CNBC article.
Frangoul talks about renewables producing 23 percent of world power generation in 2015—which is only possible when hydropower’s robust 16.4 percent is added to renewables’ paltry 6.3 percent share. And while the IEA says that “renewables represented more than half the new power capacity around the world” in 2015, one has to remember their frustrating intermittency. Wind turbines only generate roughly 20 percent of their installed capacity, and solar panels yield an even more meager 10 percent.
So, while Frangoul is happy to tout all of this new power plant construction, one has to consider that it represents investments that will often sit idle.
Such imprudence might seem naive. But the IEA astutely notes that “renewable power expanded at its fastest-ever rate in 2015, thanks to supportive government policies.”
Indeed, it is these very subsidies that have triggered a rush to wind and solar, despite abundant evidence of their limitations. It would be interesting, then, for reporters like Frangoul to further examine these much-touted renewable projects, and see if “capacity” actually meets expectations.
http://climatechangedispatch.com/cnbc-misleads-on-renewable-energy/
Emily Gosden Spins The IEA’s Misleading Propaganda
By Paul Homewood
Dear little Emily really does not get it does she?
By Emily Gosden, Energy Editor ,
25 October 2016 • 7:01pm
Global renewable electricity capacity has overtaken coal to become the world’s largest installed power source for the first time, after a record-breaking year in which half a million solar panels were installed every day.
Some 153 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power capacity – more than the total generation capacity of Canada – was installed during the course of 2015, making it the fastest-growing electricity source, the International Energy Agency said.
This was primarily due to unprecedented expansion of solar and onshore wind, with two new wind turbines installed every hour in China, which was the “undisputable global leader of renewable energy expansion”.
As a result, worldwide renewable capacity hit 1,985 GW, or about 31pc of global power capacity, just pipping coal-fired power, which stands at 1,951 GW, the IEA said.
Half a million solar panels were installed every day last year, the IEA estimates Credit: China Daily
However, the actual amount of power produced by renewable electricity generators was still significantly lower than that from coal, accounting for 23pc of global power production, compared with almost 40pc from coal plants.
This is because power plants do not generate at their full capacity all the time, with sources like wind and solar able to generate at their maximum capacity only when the wind blows or the sun shines.
The IEA forecast that renewables expansion would continue apace, with 825 GW expected to be built by 2021 – 13pc more than the IEA had forecast just a year ago – “driven by policies aimed at enhancing energy security and sustainability”.
That should help boost the share of renewable power in the global electricity mix to 28pc by 2021, “rapidly closing the gap with coal” in the medium term, the IEA said.
You would be forgiven for thinking that the world will soon be able to rely on little else but renewable energy! At least, until you’ve checked the actual facts anyway.
Despite all of the hype, last year renewable energy, excluding hydro, still only supplied 7% of the world’s electricity. This includes wind, solar, biomass and geo.
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
Hydro electricity is shown separately for two very good reasons:
1) Most of it has been around for a number of years. A decade ago, for instance hydro supplied 16% of global electricity, just as it does now (although of course total output of both have risen).
2) There is very little scope worldwide for any more significant amounts of hydro capacity to be built.
For those pushing other forms of renewable energy, it is a common trick include hydro in total renewable output, in order to give the impression that wind and solar power are much more significant than they actually are.
The article then repeats the usual scam of talking about “capacity”, rather than “output”, although Emily Gosden does briefly touch on the issue further into the article. Nevertheless the headline and main section of the story will leave an extremely misleading impression on most people, many of whom won’t even bother to read to the end.
The IEA forecast that an extra 825 GW of renewable capacity will be built by 2021, yet, based on a realistic 15% capacity utilisation, this will only yield an extra 1084 TWh a year. Based on current electricity generation, this would increase renewables share from 7% to 11%. However, since it is likely that total generation will continue to grow, renewable share will be much less than that.
Unsurprisingly, the article is little more than a cut and paste of the IEA’s press release here. The IEA probably used to be an impartial source of energy data and projections. Unfortunately, for a while now, it has been politicised, and is no more than a pawn in the push for renewable energy and decarbonisation.
FOOTNOTE
Having taken another look at the BP figures, the reality that our dear little Emily alludes to, is that non hydro renewables contribution to global electricity generation has increased from 5.9% in 2014, to 6.7% last year.
Truly astounding, I am sure you would agree!!!!
The Climate Truth File From CFACT
By Paul Homewood
https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CFACT-Climate-Truth-File-2016.pdf
I recommend you bookmark this.
From CFACT:
The full analysis is here.
It gives a point by point rebuttal of every climate alarmist argument.
NOAA: U.S. has gone 11 years without a major hurricane strike
By Paul Homewood
http://et-advisors.com/wp-content/uploads/ETA-Asia-Coal-Juggernaught_final.pdf
So much for Paris!
The above analysis is from Energy Transition Advisors, a green propaganda group, who are, somewhat naively, alarmed about what is going on in China and India.
According to their Global Coal Plant Tracker, this is the coal fired capacity in the pipeline:
| GW | China | India | Total |
| Announced | 232 | 56 | 288 |
| Pre-Permitted | 147 | 78 | 225 |
| Permitted | 26 | 43 | 69 |
| Construction | 205 | 65 | 270 |
| Total | 610 | 242 | 852 |
GW New Pipeline Coal Plant Capacity
Ed Davey Risks Sleepwalking Into Blackouts, Britain Warns!!
By Paul Homewood
h/t climanrecon
Well, some of us have been warning about this for years!
Dear little Emily writes in typically uncritical fashion:
Wikileaks: Soros Stooge Trashes Climate Scientist’s Career to Brown-Nose Billionaire Hillary Donor
By Paul Homewood
h/t Athelstan
From Breitbart:
The editor of ThinkProgress, the Soros-funded attack dog site, has been caught boasting to a billionaire liberal donor about how a smear campaign by one of his minions helped damage the career of a reputable climate scientist.
In the latest Wikileak, Judd Legum of ThinkProgress is revealed to have written in a 2014 email to green activist billionaire and Hillary Clinton bagman Tom Steyer:
I think it’s fair say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538. He would be providing important cover for climate deniers backed by Silver’s very respected brand. But because of our work, he is not.
Legum is referring to an incident which caused a big stir in both new media and climate science circles, not long after the launch of Nate Silver’s 538.
We covered this story at the time under the headline Now Nate Silver Capitulates, Throws Staffer To Green Activists – because that’s basically what happened. Amid much fanfare, Silver had set up his journalism site FiveThirtyEight – which made a big deal of being “data-driven” and therefore above the political bias of other web-based news media. One of his star writer recruits was climate expert Roger Pielke Jr. A former Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder, Pielke is not an out-and-out climate sceptic but a self-described “luke-warmer.” That is, he believes in the science of man-made global warming. But he doesn’t believe in exaggerating the case.
Pielke’s mistake was to write a piece for FiveThirtyEight stating what he thought was a fairly unarguable, scientifically grounded truth: that there has been no increase in “extreme weather events” as a result of supposed man-made climate change.
Almost instantly, Pielke found himself viciously attacked from a number of quarters, everywhere from The Guardian and The Week to the Columbia Journalism review, not to mention FiveThreeEight’s comments section, where he was accused of writing “propaganda for big oil.”
Pielke Jr was so mortified that he never wrote on the subject of climate change for the site again and was subsequently dropped as a writer by Silver.
Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the dark agent behind this monstering, was Climate Progress – the eco-fascist sub-section of ThinkProgress, run by Joe Romm, devoted to promulgating green propaganda and smearing sceptics.
Unsurprisingly, it now emerges that one of Climate Progress’s donors is Tom “rhymes with liar” Steyer, whose epic disgustingness I have previously chronicled here and here.
No doubt Steyer – and Soros – more than get their money’s worth: smearing and misinformation, after all, are what political attack dog sites are paid to do.
The key question is, though, how does this square with the environmental movement’s claim to hold the moral high ground?
If the “science” is as settled as it frequently claims, why is it necessary to orchestrate attacks on any scientist who speaks even slightly out of turn?
Conflicts Of Interest At The Committee On Climate Change
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dennis Ambler
The Mail’s story, about how the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy cheated to claim govt grants, recalls another investigation by David Rose three years ago:
Other industries would stand accused of damning conflicts of interest but when it comes to global warming, anything goes…
The Mail on Sunday today reveals the extraordinary web of political and financial interests creating dozens of eco-millionaires from green levies on household energy bills.
A three-month investigation shows that some of the most outspoken campaigners who demand that consumers pay the colossal price of shifting to renewable energy are also getting rich from their efforts.
Vested interest: Lord Deben (John Selwyn Gummer) is chairman of the Committee on Climate Change
Enquiries by this newspaper have revealed:
- Four of the nine-person Committee on Climate Change, the official watchdog that dictates green energy policy, are, or were until very recently, being paid by firms that benefit from committee decisions.
- A new breed of lucrative green investment funds, which were set up to expand windfarm energy, are in practice a means of taking green levies paid by hard-pressed consumers and handing them to City investors and financiers.
- £3.8 billion of taxpayers’ money funds the new Green Investment Bank, set up by the Department of Business and Skills. One of its biggest deals involved energy giant SSE selling windfarms to one of the new green funds, Greencoat Wind. The Green Investment Bank’s chairman, Lord Smith of Kelvin, is also chairman of SSE. The bank says it ‘provided expertise’ to enable BIS to take a £50 million stake in Greencoat, which helped fund the SSE sale.
- The same bank’s chief executive, Shaun Kingsbury, is one of the UK’s highest-paid public sector employees. His £325,000 salary is more than twice the Prime Minister’s.
- Firms lobbying for renewables can virtually guarantee access to key Government policy-makers, because they are staffed by former very senior officials – a striking example of Whitehall’s ‘revolving door’.
This what they had to say about the Committee on Climate Change:
How half of key Climate Change Committee is in the pay of green business
No institution plays a greater role in dictating green energy policy than the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) – the body set up by Ed Miliband when he was Labour Energy Secretary through his 2008 Climate Change Act.
The Mail on Sunday’s investigation has established that four of its nine members have recently had or still have financial interests in firms that benefit from its rulings.
Last week, the CCC urged the Government not to water down its ‘fourth carbon budget’. This binds the UK to slash emissions of carbon dioxide to half their 1990 level by 2025.
The budget also says that by 2030, the CO2 emitted per unit of electric power must be less than ten per cent of what it is at present – a cut of more than 90 per cent.
Energy analyst Peter Atherton of Liberum Capital says this will need investment of between £361 billion and £393 billion. Such a policy would also cut emissions from the electricity industry by about two-thirds.
Amazingly, almost half the CCC’s members, whose decisions affect every UK citizen and the entire economy, have been paid by firms with green interests. They are all paid £800 a day for their part-time CCC work, except for chairman Lord Deben, who gets £1,000.
Dame Julia King, 59, is also a director of the Green Investment Bank, for which she is paid £30,000 a year on top of her £272,000 salary as vice chancellor of Aston University.
The bank, funded by taxpayers to the tune of £3.8 billion, has investment in offshore wind as a ‘top priority’.
The more the CCC’s rulings favour renewable subsidies, the better the bank is likely to do. She lives in a house in Cambridge, which she bought for £740,000 in 2002.
Lord May of Oxford, a former Government chief scientific adviser, is paid an undisclosed amount as a member of the ‘Sustainability Board’ of the global banking giant HSBC.
In the section of its website that deals with its ‘sustainability’ work, the bank lists its four biggest green business opportunities.
Top of the list is ‘low-carbon energy production such as bio-energy, nuclear, solar and wind’ – all directly affected by the CCC’s edicts.
A cross-bench peer, Lord May, 71, is an atheist, but his stated belief that climate change is more dangerous than nuclear war has made him suggest that religious leaders ought to persuade people to support the green cause. ‘Maybe religion is needed,’ he said in 2009.
‘A supernatural punisher may be part of the solution.’
Former adviser: Lord May is now paid as a member of HSBC’s sustainability board
As this newspaper revealed in January, CCC chairman Lord Deben, 74, was until recently chairman of Veolia Water UK PLC, which connects windfarms to the National Grid.
According to energy expert Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University, the drive to renewables means new grid investment will reach £25 billion by 2020. Deben has refused to state how much Veolia paid him. Company records say he resigned on November 12.
His spokeswoman said that this was because the firm was being merged with a sister firm.
He remains chairman of his family consultancy firm Sancroft, which advises companies on ‘global environmental policy’. When he took up his CCC post, he resigned as chairman of offshore wind firm Forewinds.
Prof Sam Fankhauser admits he is paid an undisclosed sum as a director of Vivid Economics, which offers business clients advice on how to respond to green Government policies – such as those set by the CCC
Sam Fankhauser, 49, is a professor at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Institute on Climate Change, funded by the radical green billionaire Jeremy Grantham – the world’s most generous donor to green activist groups.
Prof Fankhauser admits he is paid an undisclosed sum as a director of Vivid Economics, which offers business clients advice on how to respond to green Government policies – such as those set by the CCC.
The firm describes itself as a ‘thought leader’ on the ‘economics of climate change’, adding that it offers ‘insights that are not available elsewhere, allowing us to model the effects of policy on prices [and] profits’.
Other CCC members have spent their careers as academics in fields that help fuel green campaigns.
Sir Brian Hoskins, a fierce critic of climate sceptics, is a climatologist at Imperial College, London, where he is director of another institute funded by Grantham.
Jim Skea is also at Imperial, where he is Professor of Sustainable Energy, and was launch director of the Low Carbon Vehicle Project.
The up to date position is as follows:
Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Scam Exposed
By Paul Homewood
David Rose exposes some decidedly dodgy behaviour at the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy:
