Month: August 2024

New Comments Policy Here

I’ve researched different options regarding commenting with the main intent of reducing bad behavior in the comments section. As many of you know, over the years I’ve banning certain words (which can be circumvented anyway, and inadvertently can lead to acceptable words being banned.)

I’ve also banned certain persons by their IP address, e-mail address, and screen name.

Again, these blocks can all be gotten around, which is why any new commenter must have their first comment be approved by me. This system works pretty well, especially for the few people who cannot hide their identity (think D-C) since their message is always the same.

The biggest problem I’m currently having is that some people who comment here repeatedly belittle others. This does not foster a healthy exchange of ideas, and no one wants to wade through an endless stream of insulting comments.

So, what I am leaning toward is banning of certain individuals who make a habit of insulting others. I will be the sole arbiter of who has crossed the threshold of bad behavior, what constitutes an insult (for a couple of you, it’s a subtle art form), and they will no longer be allowed to post using the same user name, email address, or IP address. This also means that others will not be able to mention them by user name after they are gone, but you all know how to get around that, anyway.

Of course, I cannot prevent those I’ve banned from reappearing with a new user name, email address, and IP address if they are clever enough. But if they resume their bad behavior, they will just be banned all over again. But if they turn over a new leaf… welcome back.

I will not give out warnings regarding bad behavior. Certain people will just disappear from the comments section. Think of me as Big Brother from 1984. Don’t bother protesting, because for each person who is banned I will have a list of quotes from their comments in reserve as evidence.

I will try to remember to post some brief commenting rules at the end of each of my new blog posts so that everyone is forewarned.

via Roy Spencer, PhD.

https://ift.tt/B5XubaQ

August 10, 2024 at 07:19AM

Can geoengineering stop global warming? Nobody knows, but strong doubts persist


The same question keeps getting asked, mainly by the media promoting grandiose scenarios and by groups looking for funding. Nature and agriculture don’t want less sun and less carbon dioxide, a recipe for reduced photosynthesis (see graphic). Any proposed human interventions that would only be able to have minor and/or short-period effects, even if successful from the warmist perspective, would seem to have little to offer. All this assumes there’s a solvable problem, which is also debatable, as natural climate variation is ever-present.
– – –
Summary:
— Geoengineering experiments like cloud brightening and sulfur dioxide injection are being explored to cool the planet.
— These technologies raise concerns about unintended consequences and could discourage necessary decarbonization.
— International regulations and standards are needed before large-scale geoengineering is deployed.

This year, a trial is being run to see if using technology to deflect the sun could help cool the planet, says OilPrice.com.

Meanwhile, another scientist hopes to spray sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to reduce global temperatures.

These are just some of the innovative trials taking place to curb the effects of global warming until greater decarbonization is seen [Talkshop comment – no observable ‘decarb’ effect to date].

The question now is whether these geoengineering, delay-oriented technologies will have a significant effect on global warming, as a mid-term control measure, or whether they present a major risk to a meaningful green transition.

Geoengineering refers to deliberate, large-scale interventions in Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change or mitigate its effects. These interventions are typically split into two groups, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM).

The CDR approach focuses on removing carbon dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere, using technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies and ocean geoengineering, as well as afforestation activities. Meanwhile, SRM uses technologies to reflect a portion of the sun’s energy away from Earth, aimed at lowering the Earth’s temperature.
. . .
David Suzuki, a Canadian environmentalist, suggested, “The whole notion of spraying sulphur compounds to reflect sunlight is arrogant and simplistic… There are unintended consequences of powerful technologies like these, and we have no idea what they will be.”

Many scientists are now using geoengineering technologies to curb the effects of global warming to buy time while governments attempt to decarbonize their economies.

However, there is widespread criticism over the use of SMR technologies, due to concerns about artificially altering the Earth’s temperature, as well as discouraging the decarbonization that ultimately needs to take place.

Similar criticism has been seen over the use of CCS technologies, which, it is argued, give oil and gas companies an excuse to keep pumping fossil fuels for longer. [Talkshop comment – strong customer demand continues.]

Full article here.
– – –
Image: Photosynthesis [credit: Nefronus @ Wikipedia]

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/Z79Dloy

August 10, 2024 at 07:15AM

Britain might be leading the world on Net Zero, but no one is following

By Paul Homewood

h/t Robin Guenier

 

I can only assumes Jeremy Warner’s recent about face on Net Zero is the result of a radical change in the Telegraph’s editorial policy:

 

 

 

image

In China and much of the rest of the “developing world”, net zero targets appear to mean nothing at all beyond their usefulness in undermining the West. Economic growth is routinely prioritised over climate change goals.

Similarly in the US, which pays lip service to net zero while simultaneously celebrating its position as the world’s largest oil producer; big tax breaks for fracking go hand in hand with the hundreds of billions the Biden administration is pouring into the green energy transition.

Even holier-than-thou little Norway, which aims to be carbon neutral by 2030, seeks to extend the life of its North Sea oil and gas reserves long into the future with big ongoing incentives to invest.

In a bid to revive economic growth, Christopher Luxon’s new centre-Right government in New Zealand is meanwhile in wholesale retreat from the environmental commitments of his saintly predecessor, Jacinda Ardern.

Only in the UK does the torch of net zero still burn strong, with the newly installed Labour Government determined to double down on emission targets whatever the costs. Even Brussels demonstrates at least a modicum of common sense on these matters.

Britain isn’t “world leading” in much these days, but when it comes to climate change we aim to be well ahead of the pack, with some of the most demanding regulatory requirements on the planet.

“Over the top, lads,” shouts the energy secretary, Ed Miliband with all the righteous self-belief of a cross-carrying crusader, only to look behind and find that nobody is following. There are few first-mover advantages in this game, only the certainty of being mown down in the charge.

Since entering office little more than a month ago, the new Government has further toughened up what was already an exceptionally challenging timetable for the transition to clean energy. In so doing, it has effectively signed the North Sea oil and gas sector’s death warrant, putting tens of thousands of jobs at risk, undermining a once lucrative source of tax revenue and potentially opening up another giant hole in the balance of payments.

Make no mistake: we will continue to use oil and gas for decades to come, whether we produce it ourselves or not.

Yet tax allowances are being axed, the marginal rate of tax is about to be raised to levels where it becomes uneconomic to produce, and there’s an absolute ban on all new licences. The Government is also committed to bringing forward by five years the target both for decarbonising electricity generation and for banning the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles.

Both of the new targets are likely to considerably increase the costs of the transition to consumers, if indeed they can be met at all. The industries affected are universally sceptical. The accelerated timetable for phasing out petrol and diesel vehicles is beginning to look particularly destructive.

Even under the last government’s policies, car manufacturers were mandated to sell at least 22 per cent of their output as zero emission vehicles this year. With EV registrations currently languishing at little more than 16 per cent of the market, suppliers are facing fines of £15,000 per vehicle for failure to meet the mandate.

For what it is worth, the Department for Transport insists that it does not expect to fine any manufacturer this year, even if it is hard to figure out why not. Let’s hope ministers are finally seeing the error of their ways.

It scarcely needs saying that there is no point in manufacturing a car at all when faced with penalties of such magnitude. To meet the new Government’s targets, demand and supply would have to crater. Unless, of course, we turn over the entire market to the Chinese, whose EVs are much cheaper and generally of higher quality than their European counterparts.

This, in turn, would not just consign what’s left of Britain’s auto industry to the dustbin of history, but because today’s semi-autonomous vehicles are essentially all-seeing, data-harvesting computers on wheels, would also raise major security concerns.

Who needs satellites and spy balloons when at the drop of a hat an entirely-made-in-China Lotus Eletre can be driven by an otherwise loyal employee deep into the heart of Britain’s Atomic Weapons Establishment? The choice could hardly be starker – national security or emissions reduction. Yet that’s what it comes down to. Something, somewhere, has to give, and whichever it is will not look pretty.

As things stand, Britain’s net zero targets are little more than virtue-signalling policy on the hoof; their industrial, economic and security implications have not been properly thought through.

There are few overt climate change deniers out there any more. All of us can see that the climate is changing, and that man-made emissions are the likely cause. Yet, at less than one per cent of the problem globally, there is very little we in Britain can do that will make the slightest bit of difference.

Making ourselves martyrs to the cause won’t change a thing. A little less idealism, and rather more economic realism, would be very welcome.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/14tYreH

August 10, 2024 at 05:17AM

Britain is Leading the World on Net Zero, But No One is Following

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

by Will Jones

Britain is leading the world on Net Zero, but no one is following, leaving Britain alone in committing green suicide, says Jeremy Warner in the Telegraph. Here’s an excerpt.

In China and much of the rest of the ‘developing world’, Net Zero targets appear to mean nothing at all beyond their usefulness in undermining the West. Economic growth is routinely prioritised over climate change goals.

Similarly in the U.S., which pays lip service to Net Zero while simultaneously celebrating its position as the world’s largest oil producer; big tax breaks for fracking go hand in hand with the hundreds of billions the Biden administration is pouring into the green energy transition.

Even holier-than-thou little Norway, which aims to be carbon neutral by 2030, seeks to extend the life of its North Sea oil and gas reserves long into the future with big ongoing incentives to invest.

In a bid to revive economic growth, Christopher Luxon’s new centre-Right government in New Zealand is meanwhile in wholesale retreat from the environmental commitments of his saintly predecessor, Jacinda Ardern. 

Only in the U.K. does the torch of Net Zero still burn strong, with the newly installed Labour Government determined to double down on emission targets whatever the costs. Even Brussels demonstrates at least a modicum of common sense on these matters.

Britain isn’t ‘world leading’ in much these days, but when it comes to climate change we aim to be well ahead of the pack, with some of the most demanding regulatory requirements on the planet. 

“Over the top, lads,” shouts the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband with all the righteous self-belief of a cross-carrying crusader, only to look behind and find that nobody is following. There are few first-mover advantages in this game, only the certainty of being mown down in the charge.

Since entering office little more than a month ago, the new Government has further toughened up what was already an exceptionally challenging timetable for the transition to clean energy. In so doing, it has effectively signed the North Sea oil and gas sector’s death warrant, putting tens of thousands of jobs at risk, undermining a once lucrative source of tax revenue and potentially opening up another giant hole in the balance of payments.

Worth reading in full.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/XMKhbSg

August 10, 2024 at 04:11AM