May 28th, 2009

Vot ist up mit MIT?

I enjoy reading Dr Roy Spencer's blog because he doesn't just do science, he tries to make it enjoyable as well as informative.
His latest humour cracked me up.

The MIT Global Warming Gamble

May 23rd, 2009

the-mit-greenhouse-gamble-small31

Climate science took another step backward last week as a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was announced which claims global warming by 2100 will probably be twice as bad as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted.

Watts of WUWT also took time out to roll on the floor and laugh his butt off at MIT's buffoonery:

Popular Science writes:

It’s time to call your bookie, because the line on global warming is in. A new paper from MIT breaks down the odds of different outcomes from global warming, based on whether governments take action now or later. And if you’re taking that action, bet on “government getting involved” to beat the spread, as last week an important climate change bill made it out committee in the House of Representatives.

The bill, named the American Clean Energy and Security Act, would institute a cap-and-trade program, and reduce carbon emissions by 17 percent over fifteen years. The plan also calls for increased research into alternative energy, and provides $750 billion in subsidies to consumers to help offset the increase in energy cost the bill would cause.

See the compete article here

With that kind of cash payout, and since an MIT odds calculating machine is involved in making the modeling forecasts over 400 model runs, maybe this would be a more appropriate prop for the MIT photo op:

MIT_climate_bandit

*************************************************************************************************************
When the MIT climate terrorists' salaries are compared to other competent entertainers, science fiction writers and presenters, are they really such bad value for money? I mean, does it really matter if the Moon landing was faked? At the end of the day we are entertained, just like our forefathers were when the Martians invaded in 1938.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1930s/a/warofworlds.htm



Green idiocy costs jobs, destroys economies

The following text was borrowed from an article, found at the following link:
TonyBlankley/2009/05/27/economic_reality_of_5_million_green_jobs

[...] in March, one of Spain's leading universities, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, published an authoritative study "of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources." The report pointed out: "This study is important for several reasons. First is that the Spanish experience is considered a leading example to be followed by many policy advocates and politicians. This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made. Most important, it demonstrates that the Spanish/EU-style 'green jobs' agenda now being promoted in the U.S. in fact destroys jobs, detailing this in terms of jobs destroyed per job created."

The central finding of the study is that -- treating the data optimistically -- for every renewable-energy job that the government finances, "Spain's experience … reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created."

Despite expensive and extensive green-job policies, a surprisingly low number of jobs were created. And about two-thirds of those "green" jobs were just to set up the energy source, in construction, fabrication, installation, marketing and administration. Only 10 percent of the green jobs created were permanent jobs actually operating and maintaining the renewable sources of energy.

Each wind industry job created in Spain required a subsidy of about $1.4 million. Overall, the average subsidy cost for each green job was about $800,000 (571,138 euros). And to create about 50,000 green jobs, Spain lost 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, principally in metallurgy, nonmetallic mining and food processing and in the beverage and tobacco industries.

Each green megawatt brought on line destroyed 5.28 jobs elsewhere in the economy (8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy and 5.05 by mini-hydropower). The total higher energy cost -- the higher cost of renewable energy over the market price of carbon-based energy -- between 2000 and 2008 was about $10 billion. Moreover, the report concluded, "These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain's approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources."

The high cost of green energy predictably drove energy-intensive Spanish companies and industries out of Spain to countries with cheaper carbon-based energy, while the cost to Spanish taxpayers of renewable-energy subsidies was "enormous … 4.35 percent of all (value-added taxes) collected, 3.45 percent of the household income tax, or 5.6 percent of the corporate income tax."

The paper referred to is here:
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf


Green idiocy and China

Obama wants an area the size of California given over to wind turbine power generation. Ignoring the cost-benefit proof of idiocy, the simple fact is that without enormous subsidies production will go to China because they can produce and ship them far more cheaply due to the absence of a green millstone around their producers' necks. With enormous subsidies, where will the money be borrowed from to finance such? China is the West's main benefactor, buying up much of the government stock that funds idiotic political whims. In financial terms, they already own the US.

China wants the West to succumb to suicidal 40% CO2 reductions before it will commit itself to reductions sometime in the future - at a time when the truth that CO2 emissions are harmless will be widely accepted - so gaining economic advantage over the West. Even without the competition obliterated, China's economy is burgeoning and they don't have lemming leaders like we have. They won't cede to crackpot limitations until they are guaranteed ownership of the world. Do we really want to be governed by eastern culture because that is where all paths the agenda blinded EU and governments are following lead to. Due to an overwhelming financial advantage, China will also have the military advantage. With regard to infantile commitment to green energy, China has been busy, very busy buying up oil supply options, increasing domestic coal production and stocking up on Aussie coal. As an economic and cultural competitor, how clever our leaders are to legislate belly-up spineless homage to our main competitor. In the process they are driving former unallied nations, India and Russia, to align with the East.

Russia is close to selling worthless hot air to Japan for $350 billion. When the bottom falls out of the carbon credit (indulgences) market, as the sale of any non existent commodity inevitably does, ongoing commitment of public money will bankrupt countries and the recent financial debacle will be a non event in comparison. As another EU disaster, carbon credits will stand apart from the bottomless green pit as a disaster of sufficient magnitude to warrant an individual section in the library of EU mega-bloomers.

EU warped logic driven by misanthropic ideology and hatred of all things caucasian seems to go this way. Reduce already slowing Western CO2 emissions in the absence of a similar reduction in ballooning Asian CO2 production. That way there is a suspicion (at best) increasing temperatures will be offset or cooling will be accelerated by a few hundredths of a degree C at a cost of trillions.

They give a toss about your grand children? ROTFALMAO
They care even less about your grand parents.Emigrate while there is still time. Give your grand kids a chance.