Marita Noon: Germany’s Energy Transformation

Marita Noon

Link to: Germany’s “energy transformation:” unsustainable subsidies and an unstable system (I’d really appreciate it if you would click on this link to RedState.com and select the “recommend” option. If a column on RedState gets a lot of “Recommends,” it gets the editors’ attention and has a higher likelihood of being posted on the front page where the readership is much higher. After all, I work so hard to produce good content each week so people will read it and be informed, and act, on the issues. The option? Gruber is right about the people.)

Greetings!

This year’s climate change talks in Lima, Peru, ended yesterday with a watered down compromise and virtually no major news coverage—leading one to believe that they’ve become almost irrelevant. My column this week, Germany’s “energy transformation:” unsustainable subsidies and an unstable system (attached and pasted-in-below), uses the talks and Germany’s recent decision to ratchet up its commitment to carbon dioxide reductions as the launching place to discuss what the U.S. should be learning from Germany’s renewable energy experiment. After all, our legislators are currently wrestling with whether or not to extend subsidies for renewables.

Germany’s “energy transformation:” unsustainable subsidies and an unstable system features many quotes and observations from a report done by a Swiss group that closely analyzed Germany’s Energiewende and offered important lessons the U.S. and other countries should learn from—whether or not we will remains to be seen. But, as I say in my closing remarks, an educated constituency is important! My writing, and your sharing of it, is part of the education process.

Thanks for posting, passing on, and/or personally enjoying Germany’s “energy transformation:” unsustainable subsidies and an unstable system. Once again, I’ve attached both the full-length- and 900-word versions. If you post my work, please use whichever you feel is best for your audience.

Merry Christmas!

Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great, inc.

PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM 87181

505.239.8998

 

Germany’s “energy transformation:” unsustainable subsidies and an unstable system

Perhaps when Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel was a child, she attend a party and was the only one who came without a present, or wearing inappropriate attire—and the embarrassment she felt haunts her to this day. That’s how psycho-dynamic psychology (Freud) might explain her December 3 decision spend more money on Germany’s failing energy experiment to avoid, as Reuters puts it: “the embarrassment of missing her government’s goal of a 40 percent reduction of emissions by 2020.”

As Europe’s biggest economy, Germany has also embraced the biggest carbon dioxide reductions through a program known as “Energiewende”—or, in English, also called energy change, shift, or transformation. Energiewende was launched in 2000 under Merkel’s predecessor who offered subsidies for any company that produced green energy.

While the European Union (E.U.) has committed to carbon dioxide cuts of 40 percent by 2030, Germany’s national goal aims to get there a decade sooner—which may have seemed achievable early in the program. After the 1990 reunification of Germany, the modernization of East Germany brought rapidly reduced emissions. However, the program’s overall result has raised costs and the emissions the expensive programs were designed to cut.

A few months ago, Bloomberg reported that due to increased coal consumption: “Germany’s emissions rose even as its production of intermittent wind and solar power climbed fivefold in the past decade”—hence Merkel’s potential embarrassment on the global stage where she’s put herself in the spotlight as a leader in reducing emissions.

On December 3, while 190 governments were meeting for two weeks of climate change talks in Lima, Peru (which, after 30 hours of overtime, produced a compromise deal that environmental groups see “went from weak to weaker to weakest”), Merkel’s cabinet agreed to a package that continues Germany’s optimistic—though unrealistic—goal and increases subsidies for measures designed to cut emissions. Regarding Germany’s “climate protection package”, Barbara Hendricks, Environment Minister, admitted: “if no additional steps were taken, Germany … would miss its targets by between five to eight percentage points.”

The results of the German agreement will require operators of coal-fueled power plants to reduce emissions by at least 22 million tons—the equivalent of closing eight of them. The Financial Times (FT) believes the plan will “lead to brownouts in German homes.”

With the goal of generating 80 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050, Germany has aggressively pursued a green dream with unsustainable subsidies that have produced an unstable system described by FT, on November 25, as: “a lesson in doing too much too quickly on energy policy.”

So, what are the lessons? What should the U.S., and other countries, learn from Germany’s generous subsidy programs and rapid, large-scale deployment and integration of renewable energy into the power system? These are the questions U.S. legislators should be asking themselves as they argue over a tax extender package that includes a retroactive extension for the now-expired Production Tax Credit for wind energy.

Fortunately, the answers are easy to determine. Finadvice, a Switzerland based advisor to the utility and renewable industry, did an exhaustive study: “Development and Integration of Renewable Energy—Lessons Learned from Germany.” The introductory comments of the resulting report, includes the following statement: “The authors of this white paper would like to state that they fully support renewables as a part of the power portfolio. …a couple [of the authors] have direct equity interests in renewable projects.” The author’s viewpoint is an important consideration, especially in light of their findings. They wanted Germany’s experiment to work, yet they begin the Executive Summary with these words:

“Over the last decade, well-intentioned policymakers in Germany and other European countries created renewable energy policies with generous subsidies that have slowly revealed themselves to be unsustainable, resulting in profound, unintended consequences for all industry stakeholders. While these policies have created an impressive roll-out of renewable energy resources, they have also clearly generated disequilibrium in the power markets, resulting in significant increases in energy prices to most users, as well as value destruction for all stakeholders: consumers, renewable companies, electric utilities, financial institutions, and investors.”

After reading the entire 80-page white paper, I was struck with three distinct observations. The German experiment has been has raised energy costs to households and business, the subsidies are unsustainable, and, as a result, without intervention, the energy supply is unstable.

Cost

We, in the U.S., are constantly being told that renewable energy is close to cost parity with traditional power sources such as coal and natural gas. Yet, the study clearly points out the German experiment has resulted in “significant increases in energy prices to most users”—which will “ultimately be passed on to electricity consumers.” Germany’s cost increases, as much as fifty percent, are manmade not market-made—due to regulation rather than the trust costs. The high prices disproportionately hurt the poor giving birth to the new phrase: “energy poverty.”

The higher costs hurt—and not just in the pocket book. The authors cite an International Energy Agency report: “The European Union is expected to lose one-third of its global market share of energy intensive exports over the next two decades due to high energy prices.”

Subsidies and instability are big factors in Germany’s high prices.

Subsidies

To meet Germany’s green goals, feed-in tariffs (FIT) were introduced as a mechanism that allows for the “fostering of a technology that has not yet reached commercial viability.” FITs are “incentives to increase production of renewable energy.” About the FITs, the report states: “This subsidy is socialized and financed mainly by residential customers.” And: “Because of their generosity, FITs proved capable of quickly increasing the share of renewable power.”

Germany’s original FITs, “had no limit to the quantity of renewables to be built” and “lead to unsustainable growth of renewables.” As a result, Germany, and other E.U. countries have “had to modify, and eventually phase out, their program because of the very high costs of their renewable support mechanisms.”

Germany has also begun to introduce “self-generation fees” for households and businesses that generate their own electricity—typically through rooftop solar, “to ensure that the costs of maintaining the grid are paid for by all consumers, not just those without rooftop PVs.” These fees remove some of the cost-saving incentive for expensive solar installation.

Section four of the report, “Unintended Consequences of Germany’s Renewable Policies,” concludes: “Budgetary constraints, oversupply and distortion of power prices, transaction-specific operational performance, market economics (i.e. Germany proposing to cut all support for biogas), debt structures, and backlash of consumers paying higher prices were all factors contributing to regulatory intervention. Projecting past 2014, these factors are expected to continue over the next several years.”

Stability

Hopefully, by now, most people—especially my readers—understand that the intermittent and unreliable nature of wind and solar energy means that in order for us to have the lights go on every time we flip the switch (stability) every kilowatt of electric capacity must be backed up for times when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. But, what most of us don’t think about, that the report spotlights, is that because the favored renewables benefit from “priority dispatch”—which means that if a renewable source is generating power, the utility company must buy and use it rather than the coal, natural gas or nuclear power it has available—the traditional power plants operate inefficiently and uneconomically. “Baseload thermal plants were designed to operate on a continuous base. …they were built to operate at their highest efficiencies when running 24 hours a day, seven days a week.” Now, due to renewables, these plants operate only a fraction of the time—though the cost to build and maintain them is constant. “The effect of fewer operational hours needs to be compensated by higher prices in these hours.”

Prior to the large integration of renewables, power plants earned the most when demand is high—in the middle of the day (which is also when the most solar power is generated). The result impacts cost recovery. “There are fewer hours in which the conventional power plants earn more than the marginal cost since they run fewer hours than originally planned and, in many cases, provide back-up power only.”

This translates into financial difficulties for the utilities that have resulted in lower stock prices and credit ratings. (Note: utility stocks often make up a large share of retirement portfolios.) Many plants are closed prematurely—which means the initial investment has not been recovered.

Because the reduced use prevents the power plants from covering their full costs—yet they must be available 24/7, power station operators in Germany are now seeking subsidies in the form of “capacity payments.” The report explains that a plant threatened to close because of “economic problems.” However, due to its importance in “maintaining system stability” the plant was “kept online per decree” and the operator’s fixed costs are compensated.

*****
Anyone who reads “Development and Integration of Renewable Energy” will conclude that there is far more to providing energy that is efficient, effective and economical than the renewable fairytale storytellers want consumers to believe. Putting a solar panel on your roof is more involved than just installation. The German experiment proves that butterflies, rainbows and pixy dust won’t power the world after all—coal, natural gas, and nuclear power are all important parts of the power portfolio.

Why, then, did Merkel continue Germany commitment to an energy and economic suicide? It is all part of the global shaming that takes place at the climate change meetings like the one that just concluded in Lima, Peru.

If only U.S. legislators would read “Development and Integration of Renewable Energy” before they vote for more subsidies for renewable energy, but, heck, they don’t even read the bill—which is why calls from educated constituents are so important. I am optimistic. Maybe we could learn from Germany’s experience what they haven’t yet learned themselves.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.

Our Pal Al

The following, except for my comments, comes from Breitbart and their contributor, Lindsay Leveen.

English: Al Gore's Hearing on Global Warming

English: Al Gore’s Hearing on Global Warming (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

You remember Al Gore.  Remember the awards he received, the sermons of environmentalism he preached and the promises he made.  Well, as we might have known, his words and sanctimonious attitude didn’t mean much:

Al Gore published a book, made a movie, and won a Nobel Peace prize for his thesis on global warming.  The unfortunate thing is he then entered into the venture capital world and brought upon us expensive Betamax technology such as the Fisker Automobile and the Bloom Energy Fuel Cell.

Had Al stopped at the movie or just winning the Nobel prize he may never had to face the most fundamental laws of thermodynamics that unfortunately for him, his investors, his political party, his Washington friends, and the US tax payers as a whole disproved his whole notion that cheap electric cars would proliferate and cheap electric power for these electric cars would be generated in his fuel cells.

Gore wanted more … more money, more fame and more ordinary recognition which might have kept him in pure light, had his motives been less self-centered.  Unfortunately for Gore and his supporters, thermodynamics bumped into his expectations.  Seems you can fool humans, but science can only be manipulated for a short time until facts fall down around the manipulators ears and light comes to bare the lie and reveal the truth.  Here’s what Leveen says next:

I learned thermodynamics while at Iowa State University and I wrote academic papers on the subject. I wrote a book that is university text at almost the same time Al was winning acclaim for his book and his matters green.  A few thousand university students and a few hundred laypeople have read my book and learned the fundamental yet inconvenient truth that the second law of thermodynamics allows nothing to come for free.

I reached out to the US Senate to plead with them based on thermodynamics that much money would be wasted on lithium ion batteries and on fuel cells.  My testimony had to be provided as outside witness testimony as I did not have the political connection and my Congresswoman simply ignored me.  But at least I provided that testimony 30 months ago and foretold how thermodynamics would prevail and much money and time would be wasted.

Leveen says his audience in the Senate and his Congresswoman would have none of his knowledge, as is often the way of lawmakers and watchdogs within our legislative bodies.  What happened next could have been headed off at the onset of Gore’s journey to nothing:

Fast forward. Bloom Energy may yet see 884 as its fatal number.  Fisker is on its last legs and their Delaware project is Dead On Arrival. Fisker’s battery supplier A 123 is almost out of electrons and has taken on toxic financing. This is after A 123 had already received $129 million in US DOE grants.

Fisker and Bloom lead A 123 by a few months in the toxic financing arena with their association with Advanced Equities, a firm that is now under SEC investigation.  Valence Technology and Ener1 two other US advanced lithium ion battery manufacturers are already bankrupt.

Finally Wall Street has caught onto Tesla being a mirage, and within a year we will all be talking about the $500 million wasted by the DOE on Tesla.

If we look and understand, we can see an unheralded hero in Mr. Leveen.  It is sad ignoramuses that let their love of power get in the way of veracity … such is the way of charlatans and hypocrites.  Here’s the rest of the piece:

 As for me, I can sadly say I told you so, but these numerous examples of rapid and massive waste of taxpayers’ money makes me even sadder as we still import oil from horrible countries. Had Steven Chu really learned his thermodynamics he would have told his boss about the real inconvenient truth. Instead he either intended that the US should fail, or that hope could overcome the second law of thermodynamics. As he won a real Nobel Prize in low temperature physics, he had to know that hope could not prevail, which then leaves me to think he had no interest in the USA formulating and executing a viable energy policy and that he wanted failure as he had no interest in us succeeding.

Al Gore did not understand the basics of thermodynamics and he is simply a greedy politician who wants admiration from crowds of followers. He and his VC friends are now out of money and time for the junk and expensive technology they promoted.  They are all out of friends and free money from the taxpayers. Their IPOs are postponed or cancelled as Wall Street has learned of the inconvenient truth of thermodynamics. Their only remaining hope is to use pay day loan sharks to keep their green-tech hopes alive.

Ivan Boesky and Mike Milken brought us junk bonds. Al Gore, Kleiner Perkins, and the US DOE brought us junk science. Ivan and Mike had to sit it out for a while. I wonder if Al and Steve will ever be held accountable or they will just manage to blame it all on bad luck or the previous administration.

Related articles

 

Global Warming Joke

 

President Bill Clinton installing computer cab...

Both with their mouths open … catching flies? President Bill Clinton installing computer cables with Vice President Al Gore on NetDay at Ygnacio Valley High School in Concord, CA. March 9, 1996. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This comes from Mark Huppertz:

I edited this graph adding  Al Gore’s ridiculous “hockey stick” graph information. It’s good information for the informed.

Thanks,

Mark Huppertz

Double Left Click For A Larger Image

 

“If I Wanted America To Fail …”

Just watch the video below:

This one comes to us from Sandia Tea Party Member,  Butch Stackpole.

Thanks for finding this Butch!

Related articles

Global Weather Guy Throws His Support To OWS Groaners

Al Gore's Hearing on Global Warming

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 -2011

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

Alvin Gore says he certainly supports the OWSers.  Perhaps he can toss some carbon trading proceeds dollars (out of the millions he has amassed since he left office)  toward the pool souls.  Here’s what he has to say about what “our leaders” have not done (is there a bit of self-abasement in his words) to straighten out this country and it’s economy:

Former Vice President Al Gore threw his support behind the Occupy Wall Street protests Wednesday night, arguing that the country’s elected officials have failed the public on everything “from the economy to the climate crisis.”

Gore, a vocal advocate of policies to address climate change, called the protests — which have spread around the country — a “true grassroots movement.”

If you follow his spew a little deeper into the article, this is what you’ll read:

“From the economy to the climate crisis, our leaders have pursued solutions that are not solving our problems; instead they propose policies that accomplish little,” Gore wrote on his blog Wednesday night.

“With democracy in crisis, a true grassroots movement pointing out the flaws in our system is the first step in the right direction. Count me among those supporting and cheering on the Occupy Wall Street movement.”

There’s a little more to read in the article, but from what I’ve read Gore certainly belongs in the crowd he pretends to berate.  I mean, how can he possibly say that the current bunch in Obama’s administration has supported policies that accomplish little, when they have loaned hundreds of millions (if not over a trillion or two) to solar panel and other renewable energy manufacturers.  Isn’t Gore the quintessential chief rooter rooster of the energy Roost roast.  He must be getting lonely hawking for and by himself.

You can read the rest of the story from one of The Hill’s blogs written by Andrew Restuccia if you click here.

Nobel Winner Rings The Bell On Parts Of Global Warming

Ivar Giaever

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 -2011

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

He is not the first and he is not likely to be the last; but a Nobel Prize wining scientist has opted out of the “warmist” batch and resigned his membership from one of the batch’s organizations.  From FoxNews Scitech:

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.”

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

No doubt we are all familiar with the old saw, “never say never.”  We have grown to accept the phrase as mostly good advice.  The same cannot be said for the word “incontrovertible.”  At least, not in the opinion of Giaever, when it applies to global warming and the man caused elements of the claim:

Giaever does not agree — and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

“I resign from APS,” Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that “the evidence is incontrovertible.”

“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

That worrisome word (incontrovertible) has caused debate in the scientific community before.  And why shouldn’t it.  The very nature of science seems to always leave the door open to new discoveries and new opinions; but perhaps not so much in the microscopes, thermometers and computer models of the warmists:

“The word ‘incontrovertible’ … is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate (sp) a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century.”

The link just below is crying out for the reader to read more and since it was placed there by FoxNews, I’ll leave it there for anyone who wants to check the article in its entirety.  Be sure to look for links to related articles below the link

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/?test=latestnews#ixzz1Z5hewMDz

The Man Is Seriously Grasping

Al Gore's Hearing on Global Warming

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 -2011

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

When former Vice President Al Gore uses racism to make a connection to so-called global warming or climate change, try as he might, he’s still wrong about the climate and he should be shamed for his comparison.

Racism is wrong, period.  It doesn’t take scientific proof to know that it is wrong.  The supposition there is proof that climate change and/or global warming can be almost entirely placed at the feet of humans, is just so much malarkey.  At least the warmists have shot themselves in their ample buttocks in many of their attempts to turn loose fiction into solid facts.

Here is this man (Gore) who wants to be the spokesman and arbiter of all things carbon.  One probably would not be wrong to suggest that not only does he risk what fame he has left, but he is probably heavily invested in carbon credits and renewables.  Should his preaching to the world fail, he is likely to see his fortune crumble around the weak foundation of his gospel.  Let’s look at some of  the latest news made by him and listen to some of his attempts to equate racists with global warming deniers.  From The Daily Caller and Caroline May:

One day climate change skeptics will be seen in the same negative light as racists, or so says former Vice President Al Gore.

In an interview with former advertising executive and Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky broadcasted on UStream on Friday, Gore explained that in order for climate change alarmists to succeed, they must “win the conversation” against those who deny there is a crisis.

“Win the conversation?”  Or twist the tests?  There has been enough twist and shout with polar bears, the Himalayas, Siberia and flora and fauna about which we have forgotten.

“I remember, again going back to my early years in the South, when the Civil Rights revolution was unfolding, there were two things that really made an impression on me,” Gore said. “My generation watched Bull Connor turning the hose on civil rights demonstrators and we went, ‘Whoa! How gross and evil is that?’ My generation asked old people, ‘Explain to me again why it is okay to discriminate against people because their skin color is different?’ And when they couldn’t really answer that question with integrity, the change really started.”

The former vice president recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.

“Secondly, back to this phrase ‘win the conversation,’” he continued. “There came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs with — you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this personally — but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won.”

There’s more to read and a video to see and hear at this link.

Plink on the related articles for more on Gore … if you can stand it.

Things We Didn’t Know — I’m Sure There’s A Simple Explanation For Global COOLING

Satellite view of Asia.

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 -2011

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

Here are the headlines from a Reuters article: Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming -study.  Of course the warmists will say, “Of course — we knew it “always.”  It just seems so simple.  I mean the way the mantra of the warmists dovetails with their “evidence” of fossil fuels being the main evidence for anthropogenic reasons for global warming and now this study — a perfect “mating” of the minds, don’t you think? The story goes:

Smoke belching from Asia’s rapidly growing economies is largely responsible for a halt in global warming in the decade after 1998 because of sulphur’s cooling effect, even though greenhouse gas emissions soared, a U.S. study said on Monday.

The paper raised the prospect of more rapid, pent-up climate change when emerging economies eventually crack down on pollution.

World temperatures did not rise from 1998 to 2008, while manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel grew by nearly a third, various data show.

The researchers from Boston and Harvard Universities and Finland’s University of Turku said pollution, and specifically sulphur emissions, from coal-fuelled growth in Asia was responsible for the cooling effect.

So, here I go with my ignorant mind:  I now understand there has been no global warming since 1998; at least according to this article. Is this what the warmists have said?  I don’t think so:

A U.N. panel of climate scientists said in 2007 that it was 90 percent certain that humankind was causing global warming..

There’s an elusive 10% … must be those stupid skeptics.  But wait!  There’s was before the above:

“It has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008,” said the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States.

A peak in temperatures in 1998 coincided with a strong El Nino (sic) weather event, a natural shift which brings warm waters to the surface of the Pacific Ocean every few years.

Subsequent years have still included nine of the top 10 hottest years on record, while the U.N. World Meteorological Organization said 2010 was tied for the record.

“A peak in temperatures in 1998 coincided with a strong El Niño weather event in the Pacific which brings warm water, yada yada …”  Yes, you have read right and El Niño is in no way anthropogenic if it is natural and not a natural result of something humans have mucked-up..

It looks, according to this new revelation, as though COAL is the culprit along with efforts to cut pollution:

Sulphur aerosols may remain in the atmosphere for several years, meaning their cooling effect will gradually abate once smokestack industries clean up.

The study echoed a similar explanation for reduced warming between the 1940s and 1970s, blamed on sulphur emissions before Western economies cleaned up largely to combat acid rain.

“The post 1970 period of warming, which constitutes a significant portion of the increase in global surface temperature since the mid 20th century, is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution,” it said.

Read the last quoted paragraph until you have it memorized.  I am flummoxed by this new information when coupled with the tubs of bull butter previously spread.

Here is the link to the complete article. Related links below.

Yes, I’m Convinced … NOT!

"Stop Global Warming And Save The Trees&q...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2011)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

Excuse me for shouting, but I’m still ignorant … I guess.  Mr. Gore, Warmist Extraordinaire  is still bloviating  about the hot causing the cold.  Monkeys, birds crocodiles, serpents have frozen to death and likely a brass billy-goat or two have seen their horns fall off due to the extreme cold.  Not in Alaska, not in Michigan, but in the Republic of Mexico in the State of Chihuahua.  Close to Juarez, Chihuahua in a zoo, when the heating devices failed to work due to electrical power failure.

It seems cold is breaking out and breaking records all over and just eight miles from Edgewood (my hometown) toward Texas in Moriarty, New Mexico, the temperature was said to be under -30°F.   Notice I said, “said to be.”  As it turns out, my search for the past week showed -18°F and no lower in Moriarty, but I’m not going to tell my good neighbors how cold they or their geography might have been.  The important thing for all of us in this area is it was cold enough to wreak havoc on our plumbing and there were several three-dog nights working back to last Thursday.

I have never appreciated the cold, and now, thanks to global warming I may never get an opportunity to experience extreme cold.  The folks that used to identify Gore’s Phenomenon as global warming, now tout it as climate change.  This change in weather extremes has to be difficult for those investing in the New Energy Economy and MoveOn.org,, both of whom have helped to excite several state cr-p and raid movements.  Not to worry Warmists, Soros and those similar to him never lose money.  Therefore, if you can but hold on until global warming makes a return, your money will be alright — if there is any left from the last big printing run.

Meanwhile, why not take a look at the story from Mexico.  There is no sign about what this change in Mexico and United States’ weather  might do to the illegal immigration problem from south of the US border, but the countries to the south of Mexico might see increases in population.  That is, unless the cold continues to fly south.

Climate change, sí — anthropogenic fail

There’s bound to be a link or more below:

Will Says; But Will The Warmers Take Note — Or Just Make Noise

Timon of Phlius, ancient Greek Skeptic philoso...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

George Will, serving as an op-ed writer on the Washington Post’s web presence has written a piece wherein he quotes a noted professor of politics at Bard College and Yale.  Of course, he also offers ample servings of his opinion.  I like Will and most of his commentary, but perhaps I’m to  apt to follow someone who does not follow all the  “warmers”  dogma.  If I still have “warmer” friends they might cringe when they see this post.  Maybe they’ll just saunter on … or not.  To get back to Will and his article, let’s look at this:

The collapsing crusade for legislation to combat climate change raises a question: Has ever a political movement made so little of so many advantages? Its implosion has continued since “the Cluster of Copenhagen, when world leaders assembled for the single most unproductive and chaotic global gathering ever held.” So says Walter Russell Mead, who has an explanation: Bambi became Godzilla.

I believe the climate change issue has been slapped on the head until some of its followers are dizzy, or perhaps dopey.  Not because, there is not climate change, but because “warmers”  have attempted to lay the cause for climate change and global warming in the main on humans.  To top their anthropological blame, I and others believe they failed miserably when they attempted  to explain away the East Anglia information obtained from hacked emails. Of course, there have been investigations which purport to absolve some of the actors in the controversy.  One blog reporting on the matter of some investigations will be found here. On to Will’s piece and his report on the mentioned professor’s assertions:

… Mead, a professor of politics at Bard College and Yale, notes that “the greenest president in American history had the largest congressional majority of any president since Lyndon Johnson,” but the environmentalists’ legislation foundered because they got “on the wrong side of doubt.”

And, further:

Environmentalists, Mead argues, have forgotten their origins, which were in skeptical “reaction against Big Science, Big Government and Experts.” Environmentalists once were intellectual cousins of economic libertarians who heed the arguments of Friedrich Hayek and other students of spontaneous order — in society or nature. Such libertarians caution against trying to impose big, simple plans on complex systems. They warn that governmental interventions in such systems inevitably have large unintended, because [sic] unforeseeable, consequences.

What Mr. Mead seems to say is the modern-day environmentalists (evios) have not only missed the boat, but were not even on the dock of public opinion and they allied themselves with big government factions.  I can remember when government programs were held at arm’s length, and insulted by the Mr. Cleans and Ms. Greens of the evios factions, some going so far as to break into nuclear facilities.  Now it seems the evios have the attention of every government in the world and the only groups protesting big government, aside from conservatives, are the anarchists.  No alliance existing or wanted between the two, I’d have to say.

Continue reading “Will Says; But Will The Warmers Take Note — Or Just Make Noise”