Month: April 2018

Ireland faces annual EU energy fines of €600m

Ireland faces annual EU energy fines of €600m

April 30, 2018

More lunacy from the EU:


From the Independent:



Ireland faces annual EU energy fines of €600m

Stock image 1

Ireland faces fines of €600m a year from the EU for failing to meet renewable energy targets and cutting carbon emissions by 2020.

New, more ambitious targets for 2030 do not let Ireland off the hook for the 2020 measures, it has emerged.

A report for the Dáil Public Accounts Committee, which calculated the potential fines within two years, said they will be a matter for the European Court of Justice to impose.

Irish EU Commissioner Phil Hogan said there was confusion in some quarters that the 2020 targets under the EU Renewable Energy Directive would be merged into the more ambitious targets for 2030. This would give the Government some breathing space and lessen the risk of punitive fines.

“But that is not the case. The 2020 target must be adhered to,” Mr Hogan said.

The commissioner urged the Government to be more proactive in developing wind and wave energy and reduce dependence on fossil fuels in line with EU agreed targets.

Mr Hogan said he had relayed this message to Climate Action Minister Denis Naughten.

“We all know exactly that there is no free pass post-2020 in relation to the Renewable Energy Directive and we will be running into trouble with infringement proceedings if this does not happen,” Mr Hogan said.

Fine Gael Senator Michelle Mulherin, who raised the issue in Seanad Éireann last week in discussions with Mr Hogan, said the Government must step up investment in renewable energy projects.

She said that a test station for wind and wave power off Belmullet, in Co Mayo, should be developed.

“Off-shore wind power has up to now often been deemed unduly expensive.

“But given the controversy and frequent objections to wind turbines on land, this issue should be re-thought,” she said.

Ms Mulherin was critical of what she said was a lack of commitment to developing alternative energy in a timely fashion.





April 30, 2018 at 04:21PM

EU To Spend Quarter Of Budget On Climate Policies

From Bloomberg:



Climate-Linked Spending Set to Rise to a Quarter of EU Budget

  • European Commission to present 2021-2027 budget proposal May 2
  • Climate to be component of regional aid, transport spending

The European Union’s executive is poised to propose spending 25 percent of funds available in next EU multiannual budget on activities related to climate protection, making sure new economic and political challenges don’t weaken the bloc’s resolve to fight pollution.

The European Commission’s blueprint for the 2021-2027 budget, to be proposed on May 2, will boost the so-called climate mainstreaming from 20 percent in the current multiannual financial plan, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. The funds for reducing emissions and adapting to climate change will be earmarked under policies such as regional aid, transport, research and external relations, said the person, who asked not to be identified because talks on the draft budget are private.



Bear in mind this is only the tip of the iceberg, as individual countries are already standing the major costs themselves of climate policy.

The EU Budget is about 150bn euro pa. If anything shows how fatuous the whole EU project is, this must be it





April 30, 2018 at 03:52PM

20 Years Later, The ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph Behind Waves Of Climate Alarmism Is Still In Dispute

It was 20 years ago, climate scientist Michael Mann published his famous “hockey stick” graph that he says “galvanized climate action” by showing unprecedented global warming.

Original “hockey stick” temperature graph in Nature, 1998. The Y axis shows the Northern hemisphere mean temperature, in degrees Celsius; the zero line corresponds to the 1902 – 1980 mean. Credit: “Global-scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing over the Past Six Centuries,” by Michael E. Mann et al. in Nature, Vol. 392, April 23, 1998

Mann used the 20-year anniversary of the graph to opine on the “industry-funded” attacks “to discredit the iconic symbol of the human impact on our climate,” which Mann claimed had withstood criticism.

“Yet, in the 20 years since the original hockey stick publication, independent studies, again and again, have overwhelmingly reaffirmed our findings, including the key conclusion: recent warming is unprecedented over at least the past millennium,” Mann wrote in Scientific American on April 20.

However, the two Canadian researchers who found serious flaws in the “hockey stick” study’s data and methodology disputed Mann’s characterization of the graph’s legacy.

“For everyone else, the debate was about data and statistical methods,” Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph in Canada.

“For Mann, judging by his rant, it was all a giant political conspiracy against him and his heroic crusade to save the planet. He still won’t acknowledge the errors in his work,” said McKitrick who co-authored a 2003 study with mining executive Steven McIntyre that challenged Mann’s work.

Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report. The graph showed a spike in global average temperature in the 20th century after about 500 years of stability.

The “hockey stick” went viral and become a rallying cry for environmentalists and politicians who opposed fossil fuels and wanted climate policies. Former Vice President Al Gore even featured the “hockey stick” graph in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The graph also came under intense criticism, even sparking an investigation by GOP lawmakers.

Global warming skeptics were heavily critical of the “hockey stick” graph, especially in the wake of McKitrick’s and McIntyre’s 2003 study. Their study found serious flaws in the proxy data Mann relied upon to estimate temperatures going back hundreds of years.

The Canadians’ 2003 study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th century that exceeds the warmth of the 20th century.

McIntyre and McKitrick also published a study on Mann’s “hockey stick” graph in 2005.

However, Mann wrote that “dozens of groups of scientists” had validated his 1998 study. Mann specifically pointed to a 2006 U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report that “affirmed our findings in an exhaustive independent review published in June 2006.”

Even McIntyre said subsequent studies have “produced somewhat hockey-stick-ish temperature reconstructions,” but added, “none (NONE) of our specific criticisms of Mann’s methods, proxies, and false claims has been rebutted.”

“The NAS report did not vindicate him, it said his methods were biased, and his results depended on faulty bristlecone pine records that shouldn’t be used by researchers,” McKitrick told The Daily Caller News Foundation by email.

“The NAS panel also cautioned against conclusions about warming more than 600 years back and said uncertainties were being underestimated,” McKitrick said. “That criticism applies to many subsequent studies as well.”

Indeed, the 2006 NAS reviewers agreed with the “substance” of Mann’s study but noted “claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain,” reported at the time.

The NAS noted the uncertainties were “not communicated as clearly as they could have been” and “confirmed some problems with the statistics,” but those problems only had a minor impact on the overall finding, reported.

However, NAS reviewers were extremely critical of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change featuring the report so prominently in its 2001 assessment.

“The IPCC used it as a visual prominently in the report,” Kurt Cuffey, a NAS reviewer told “I think that sent a very misleading message about how resolved this part of the scientific research was.”

At the time, Mann said he was “very happy” with the NAS’s results and in the years since used his experience in defending the “hockey stick” to effectively label himself as a martyr for fighting global warming. Mann said attacks against him continued despite other researchers validating his results.

“There is no legitimate scientific debate on those points, despite the ongoing effort by some people and groups to convince the public otherwise,” Mann wrote in April as part of a screed against his critics.

Mann asks

‘What more noble cause is there than to fight to preserve our planet.’

How about the noble cause of not misleading readers with biased methods and bad data?” McKitrick said.

Read more at Daily Caller

via Watts Up With That?

April 30, 2018 at 03:44PM

Climate Craziness of the Week: The @NobelPrize spews moronic climate propaganda

I did a double-take when I saw this, and at first I thought this must be coming from a fake Twitter account. So, I checked. And yes, it is from the official Nobel Twitter account:

Unfortunately, it’s all too real. We’ve known for a long time (ever since Al Gore and sex-crazed IPPC Director Rajanda Pachauri got the Nobel Prize jointly in 2007) that the Nobel governing body has become little more than a political tool, but you’d think they’d at least bother to check what they are Tweeting.


The part about Arrhenius is correct, the SIX METER sea level rise, not so much.

Borrowing from their buddy Pauchari and the IPCC, in AR5 they said in Chapter 13:

For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m with a rate during 2081–2100 of 8 to 16 mm yr–1. We have considered the evidence for higher projections and have concluded that there is currently insufficient evidence to evaluate the probability of specific levels above the assessed likely range. Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century.

Even if we take the worst case scenario from the overly-hot favorite son of climate alarmists worldwide, the RCP 8.5 model, of 16mm per year (current rate is about 3.1mm/year according to satellite measurements) it will take quite a long time to get to six meter of sea level rise:

6 meters = 6000mm ( 19.7 feet)

6000mm ÷ 16mm/year = 375 years

At the resent rate of sea level rise, which shows no signs of acceleration:

Based on tide gauge data, the rate of global average sea level rise during the 20th century lies in the range 0.8 to 3.3 mm/yr, with an average rate of 1.8 mm/yr.

Satellite: 3.3mm/year

6000mm ÷ 3.3mm/year = 1818 years

Tide gauges: 1.8 mm/year

6000mm ÷ 3.3mm/year = 3333 years

In any of the above three scenarios, civilization will have likely moved on to other power sources beyond fossil fuels. So what’s the worry?

The claim of six meters of sea level rise traces back to this Aug. 26, 2015 article from NASA where Josh Willis is quoted:

“A lot of the major uncertainty in future sea level rise is in the Greenland Ice Sheet,” said OMG principal investigator Josh Willis, a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. At about 660,000 square miles (1.7 million square kilometers), the ice sheet is three times the size of Texas. It’s about a mile deep on average and contains enough water to raise global sea levels about 20 feet (6 meters), if it were all to melt. “The question is how fast it’s melting,” Willis said.

From “A lot of the major uncertainty in future sea level rise is in the Greenland Ice Sheet” and the ” The question is how fast it’s melting,” we get enough certainty that clueless organizations like the Nobel, retweet it as if it were fact. Yet, even in the worst, worst-case scenario, we’ll never reach six meters of sea-level rise becuase mankind will have moved to other power sources.

The Nobel committee deserves an award for thoughtless alarmism. Maybe a Darwin award.







via Watts Up With That?

April 30, 2018 at 02:02PM