January 4, 2012 by Walter Schneider.

Fred Singer: Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!

Monday, January 2nd 2012, 4:14 PM EST

Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

In discussing the recent release of some 5,000 Climategate e-mails, blogger Anthony Watts uses the clever headline “They are real — and they’re spectacular.” He credits Jerry Seinfeld as the source. Following his example, I choose the headline “Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!” — also taken from a Seinfeld episode — in discussing the surface temperatures generally reported for the latter part of the 20th century; they form the science basis for prosperity-killing international climate policy….(Full Story)

After I had posted the link to that article to my Facebook wall, someone commented:

That looks like a quality site. Interesting that only land-based temperature sensors show a rise in temperature and not sea or atmospheric sensors. Could the rise be because of the rise in concrete? Cities act like storage heaters and are always a bit warmer, if the thermometers are nearer cities then there is your answer.

Yes, concrete in cities has a lot to do with hot and somewhat rising land-surface temperature records, but that is not all.  The circumstances involved are complicated.  Here is my response to the man:

Yes, it not only looks like but it is a respectable website. It presents primarily the views of skeptics who do not deny that there is a warming trend in global temperatures but who are doubtful that much of the increase of about 0.7 degrees C during the past century was caused by anything that was done by people.

Your question deserves a long answer, and it is essential that before and after reading all of this comment by me, you have a look at some of the graphs and comments shown at http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150216691769443.332265.591619442&type=3
They strongly relate to many of the issues discussed in the following.

The vast majority of skeptical climate scientists feels very strongly that our sun, a variable star, modulates climate trends on Earth. They should know. Most of them had long careers in climate sciences, meteorology and such. Fred Singer, for example, the author of the lead-in article in this discussion thread, has very respectable credentials.

He, “…(born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[1] Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming….” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

About concrete, roofs, parking lots, etc. in urban areas affecting temperature trends, yes, they do. A very large number of official temperature measurements are being taken in weather stations that are in urban areas or at airports. About 0.5% of the global land surface is considered to be urban. A very disproportionately-large portion of weather stations is located in urban locations. It would be ludicrous to assume that all of the temperature values measured at those stations are representative of or close to global, average temperature values, however one may decide how such a hypothetical global average can be accurately determined.

The effect that the urban environment has on temperature values is real, it has been measured, and allowances and adjustments have been made for it in the official temperature record — with frequent revisions as the debate of the effect progressed from initial denial to tacit acceptance. It is called the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.

One of a number of research studies targeting the UHI effect addressed California. The results from that study support what you surmise. The issue of the UHI in California is very well illustrated by this graph: http://prntscr.com/4sm9m
(quoted at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-phil-jones-calling-a-scientist-the-jerk-over-his-uhi-discoveries-in-calfifornia/ )

There is much disagreement between climate scientists who consider their science in constant need of refinement (something that applies to all true science) and those who oppose them and insist that mankind is to be blamed for the current global warming — even though there have been many and often much greater intervals of global warming throughout human history, long before any SUVs were even a gleam in the eyes of automakers, even long before there was any industrialization at all, not only on earth but even on other planets of the solar system.

The one camp feels that correlations exists between hundreds and thousands of aspects of the incredibly complex global climate system. They seek to measure all possible climate factors and to gain an understanding of the roles they play, their correlations and of the mechanisms that drive them.

The other camp feels that the global climate is essentially stable and would remain stable if it were not for mankind mucking things up. They seek to build computer models that are to game their theories, with the outcomes being hoped for to match what their theories predict, even though reality increasingly diverges from the predictions that result from those theories.

There is a much, much better correlation between the variations of solar radiance and global temperature variations than there is between global atmospheric CO2 trends and temperature trends.

While the mechanisms that make the sun such a large influence on global climate are being increasingly better understood, global temperature trends have miserably failed to come even close to reaching the enormously escalating temperature increases that the proponents of the man-made global warming theory had insisted on predicting. In fact, while atmospheric CO2 levels keep rising (quite likely as a result of the Sun’s influence and increasing solar activity since the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850 and before), global temperature trends have remained flat for the last decade.

Puny man remains puny, and there is little reasonable doubt that the climate on Earth is driven, dominated and controlled by the largest source of energy in our solar system, our sun. Mankind’s influence appears to be pocket change in the enormously large, astoundingly complex and nested systems of energy flows affecting climate on Earth. Nevertheless, the proponents of the theory of man-made global warming promote their beliefs with religious zeal and, in the name of “the precautionary principle”, pursue their goals that cost many trillions of dollars and the systematic deconstruction of the economies of the developed nations.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Weather, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

November 5, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

In October 2011, the Alberta Government launched a massive advertising campaign promoting the idea that billions of dollars of tax revenues and increased electricity rates (which climbed in October to about 12.5 cents per kWh for residential consumers) are needed to achieve “carbon” capture and sequestration (that is: “storage”), in an attempt to have Alberta do its part in regulating global climate trends.

First of all, the “carbon” in carbon capture and sequestration is a misnomer, because what is supposed to be captured is not carbon but carbon-dioxide, plain, old CO2, a benign, harmless trace gas that is essential to all life on Earth and without which life as we know it would not exist on Earth.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have been measured regularly and systematically since 1959.  Some people, some of whom are scientists, assert that global temperature trends are being affected and even controlled and driven by atmospheric CO2 levels. That assertion is not supported by hard evidence.  At best, nothing more can be said about it than that it is a theory for which the science is not settled.  It is supported only by computer models.

Computer models will say what they are designed to say, and the adage about computers, “GIGO” (Garbage In, Garbage Out), applies with a vengeance to computer models.  No scientific evidence exists that proves that atmospheric CO2 levels are a controlling factor in global temperature trends.

On the other hand, a good many scientific facts relating to CO2 have been established and are supported by real world measurements, such as,

1. There is no correlation between rising temperature trends and increasing CO2 levels.
2. In 1998, the global temperature trend levelled off and can even be said to have fallen a bit, while atmospheric CO2 increased since then to about 392 parts per million or about four hundredth of one percent of the atmosphere.
3. Man-made CO2 emissions comprise only about three percent of total atmospheric CO2.  The other 97 percent of atmospheric CO2 originate from natural sources.
4. Plants will stop growing when atmospheric CO2 reaches a level of 200 parts per million and will begin to die off when the CO2 level falls to 150 parts per million.
5. The rising CO2 levels during the last thirty years have helped along the greening of the planet and increased agricultural productivity (e.g.; by about 25 percent in China).  In reality, increased levels of atmospheric CO2 have helped substantially to alleviate world hunger.

The truth about CO2 emissions is not wanted by those who spend our money.  Indeed, some people try to oppress it!  Good luck with that.  The advent of the Internet has made it practically impossible to suppress the truth, but the Alberta Government’s CCS propaganda campaign makes it obvious that good, old propaganda tactics are alive and well.  There are just fewer people now who will be willing to swallow government-sponsored lies than there were, say, during the Hitler era.

John O’Sullivan: Popular Skeptic Writer Fired for Exposing Carbon Climate Fraud

Friends, I write to announce my employment with my publishers, Suite101, was  terminated today without prior notice or explanation and all my articles  published over a two-year period with them ar….(Full Story)

In  case you missed the link to it in John O’Sullivan’s article, the  observations offered here are fairly straight-forward and easy to  understand:

Japanese Satellites say 3rd World Owes CO2 Reparations to The West

Well, in a somewhat bizarre twist, it looks like I must reconsider my opposition to CO2 reparations. The notion that the evil sources of CO2 “pollution” must pay those who are lowering the planet’s CO2 levels….(Full Story)

So,  guess what! If we believe that man-made CO2 emissions are the cause of  catastrophic global warming, then let’s do the best thing possible to  ameliorate the problem.  Let’s make sure that the underdeveloped and  developing nations acquire the same living standard as achieved by the  developed nations, and the problem will go away all by itself.

However, if anyone wishes to put his money where his mouth is with his climate change superstitions and wants to spend billions of dollars implementing measures for amelioration of catastrophic global warming, let him do it with his own money, at the source and not here where it will do no good.  However, if he wants to spend that much money to do some good for humanity where he lives, let him spend it on fixing things that need fixing, such as our health-care system.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Censorship, Shell CCS Project, Corruption & Fraud, Electric Energy Prices, Community & Industry, Climate Change, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

October 27, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Not quite so fast, let’s take a step back, take a deep breath, and look at things a bit more objectively.

In October 2011, the Government of Alberta launched a massive advertising campaign on TV and in the press promoting the ostensible benefits of a number of carbon capture and storage projects that are largely funded by Alberta taxpayers and to a smaller extent out of federal tax revenues.

The October 26 issue of the Edmonton Journal included “A SPECIAL SECTION by the Calgary Herald in partnership with the Government of Alberta”, comprised of a collection of articles from various sources printed on a total of six full-sized pages.

Here is just one of those stories: “Taming CO2 crucial to our future“, by Brian Burton, for the Calgary Herald.

I agree to some extent with the assertion in the title of that article, but from a perspective that is opposite to the intended meaning.  CO2 doesn’t need to be tamed.  It is a benign, beneficial but nevertheless vitally essential atmospheric trace gas without which life as we know it would not exist on Earth. Globally, the man-made portion of atmospheric CO2 comprises about three percent of annual CO2 emissions.  The remaining 97 percent of CO2 emissions are from natural sources.  For starters, every human alive breathes out about 1 kg of CO2 each day.

The portion of Alberta CO2 emissions that is to be captured and stored is a minuscule fraction of global man-made CO2 emissions. Even if atmospheric CO2 levels were to drive and control climate trends, the fraction of CO2 captured and stored in Aberta would be so small that it would not ever be possible to measure how that would influence global climate trends.  If anyone ever calculated what the impact of our CCS schemes would be, the results of such calculations must be extremely disappointing, as they have not been published or mentioned in the main-stream media.  Aside from that, the “evidence” of the benefits of reductions in man-made CO2 emissions only exists in computer models.  There is no measurable evidence in the real world that proves that there is any substance to the claims made in the theory that reductions in Alberta CO2 emissions will have any measurable impact on global climate trends.

Those are just some of the circumstances of the context in which Alberta’s efforts at attempting to use CO2 capture and storage as a thermostat for global climate control take place.  Still, far from objectively addressing any of those circumstances, the Government of Alberta ignores and does not even mention them.  That is so because of the main premise of the theory of sucessful propaganda expressed by one of its masters:

“The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. …

“All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction. …

“The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan….

“The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.” —Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI

One may well wonder why the Government of Alberta is waking up to the reality that if the propaganda that supports CCS schemes is not being promoted, all CCS schemes may well and most likely flop.  The CCS schemes are expensive white elephants that cannot come to life, exist and operate without massive government subsidies.

Page 2 of the Edmonton Journal’s special October 2011 section on Carbon Capture and Storage boasts that “Alberta Leads the Way: Pioneering province first to put money behind CCS projects and a levy on carbon emissions”, but I see nothing laudable about a scheme to waste $2 billion through blowing CO2 down Mother Earth’s derriere.  Alberta may lead the way now, but it was one of the last to jump on the wagon and may well be one of the last to jump off.

I have no intention of presenting here even only a partially complete list of CCS and green energy boondoggles, but let’s at least look at a couple of recent news items in that regard:

1.) In Scotland: “Longannet carbon capture and storage project is no more”, October 22, 2011
http://lce.folc.ca/2011/10/22/longanet-carbon-capture-and-storage-project-is-no-more/

2.) In West-Virginia: “High costs bury AEP’s carbon burial plan”, July 16, 2011
The king wears no clothing, but it is even worse that he can’t afford to pay for being made to look like a naked fool.
http://lce.folc.ca/2011/07/16/high-costs-bury-aeps-carbon-burial-plan/

It seems to me that just as the Nazi propaganda machine went into high gear and intensified its efforts the more elusive Hitler’s dream of his 1000-year Reich became, so the CCS and alternative energy  schemes will be promoted ever more intensively the more their objectives prove themselves to be unattainable.

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Deficits and Debts, Propaganda debunked, Corruption & Fraud, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

September 26, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Reason Foundation

Extreme Weather Events Are Killing Fewer People Than Ever Before

The worldwide death rate from weather happenings has dropped over 98 percent since the 1920s

September 22, 2011

Despite concerns about global warming and a large increase in the number of reported storms and droughts, the world’s death rate from extreme weather events was lower from 2000 to 2010 than it has been in any decade since 1900, according to a new Reason Foundation study….(Full Story) *

So, why all this doom and gloom, the hype and hysteria about the ostensible catastrophic, man-made global warming?

__________
* Indur M. Goklany is a science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indur_M._Goklany

The graph identified here was provided in a posting by Indur Goklany at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/the-amazing-decline-in-deaths-from-extreme-weather-in-an-era-of-global-warming-19002010/.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Corruption & Fraud, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

September 22, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Dr David Evans: Four fatal pieces of evidence (disproving the anthropogenic global warming nonsense)

Dr David Evans lays out four crucial pieces of evidence, and calls for a debate with Prof Andrew Pitman. But the evidence is so unarguably strong for skeptics, we know that the name-calling-team-who-want-our-money will do anything to avoid a public debate. If the evidence is “overwhelming” why are they so unwilling to explain it?  — Jo Nova

(Full Story )

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Taxes, Propaganda debunked, Corruption & Fraud | Print | No Comments »

July 26, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Weather extremes? You think we have weather extremes? Have a look at this:

A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events

By James A. Masurek (2010)

The chronology covers weather events from the years 0 to 1900 A.D.
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/weather.pdf (9.4 MB)
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com

The following quotes from the chronology show just a few instances of warm weather when no one yet dreamed of “carbon” taxes, cap and trade or emission trading schemes to vacuum money out of our pockets:

582 A.D. In 582 in Western Europe, the heat of during the winter caused the trees to bloom in the month January. This month also was filled with violent rain, lightning and thunder.79 (Ibid. p. 20)

Winter of 583 / 584 A.D. The winter [in Europe] was of such persistent gentleness; that in the month of January one could see roses.62 (Ibid. p. 20)

In 584 the month of January in Western Europe produced roses. This was followed by a white frost, a hurricane and several disastrous incidents of hail that ravaged successive harvests of crops and vineyards. At the same time there was an excessive drought. The year produced almost no grapes. Desperate farmers delivered their vines at the mercy of the herds. But the trees, which had already borne fruit in July, producing a new crop in September, and some even bore again in December, and the vines offered at the same time well-formed clusters.79 (Ibid. p. 20)

586 A.D. [Because of the warm weather] in Western Europe the trees blossomed in the month of July 585 [586?], bloom again in September 586 and a large number of these who had already borne fruit produced a second crop of fruit until the Christmas holidays.79 (Ibid. p. 20)

However, just a few years later, this is what happened:

Winter of 603 / 604 A.D. In 604 in Scotland there was four months of frost, followed by dearth [famine]. The frost was also severe in England.47, 93

[In Europe] in 604, there was the most severe rigorous winter. The [grape] vines mostly died in all places. The Sea was frozen, and killed the fishes in it. This produced a great famine.72

The unusual cold of the year 603 in Western Europe killed much of the vineyards.79

(Ibid. p. 21)

Still, all of that was not so bad, compared to what happened just a few years later.

642 A.D. The winter in Europe was severe. The Black Sea was frozen. There were snowdrifts 90 feet (27 meters) deep.28 (Ibid. 22)

Still, things got worse:

Winter of 763 / 764 A.D. In the same year (763 A.D.), it was bitterly cold after the beginning of October, not only in our land, but even more so to the east, west, and north. Because of the cold, the north shore of the Black Sea froze to a depth of 30 cubits (~ 45 feet) a hundred miles out. This was so from Ninkhia to the Danube River, including the Kouphis, Dniester, and Dnieper Rivers, the Nekrophela, and the remaining promontories all the way to Mesembria and Medeia. Since the ice and snow kept on falling, its depth increased another twenty cubits (~ 30 feet), so that the sea became dry land. It was traveled by wild men and tame beasts from Khazaria, Bulgaria, and the lands of other adjacent people.

By divine command, during February of the same (764 A.D.) second indication the ice divided into a great number of mountainous chunks. The force of the wind brought them down to Daphnousia and Hieron, so that they came through the Bosporos to the city (Constantinople or Istanbul) and all the way to Propontis, Abydos, and the islands, filling every shore. We ourselves were an eyewitness and, with thirty companions, went out onto one of them and played on it. The icebergs had many dead animals, both wild and domestic, on them. Anyone who wanted to could travel unhindered on dry land from Sophianai to the city and from Chrysopolis to St. Mamas or Galata. One of these icebergs was dashed against the harbor of the acropolis, and shattered it. Another mammoth one smashed against the wall and badly shook it, so that the houses inside trembled along with it. It broke into three pieces, which girdled the city from Magnaura to the Bosporos, and was taller than the walls. All the city’s men, women, and children could not stop staring at the icebergs, then went back home lamenting and in tears, at a loss as to what to say about this phenomenon. (Theophanes the Confessor).3

Around Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey), the two seas frozen.47, 93

In the winter of 762 A.D., the Dardanelles and Black Sea were frozen over, and snow drifted to an astonishing depth of 50 feet (15 meters).1 [misprint for 763 A.D.] (Ibid. p. 25)

Do you think that those wide swings from one extreme to another, from extreme heat to extreme cold in the space of a few years and even months could have been caused by fluctuations in industrial emissions of CO2, by wide and catastrophic variations in the numbers of SUVs that were manufactured and sold?

Weather extremes have always happened and will continue to happen. The only thing that will ensure our survival is to be prepared for when they happen. To cripple our economy through insane and futile attempts to regulate the climate when we are not even close to understanding how our climate functions is exactly the wrong thing to do. That will ensure nothing more than that when the need to adapt to weather extremes arises, we will have made sure that we do not have the means necessary by which to adapt.

Lemmings come to mind, and this is what lemmings do:

700 A.D. In England and Ireland, there was a famine and pestilence during three years, “so that men ate each other”.57, 91

In 700, our Saxon ancestors being yet heathens were plagued with such severe famine for three years together, that many died of hunger. And in Sussex, England many were so tormented with it, that sometimes groups of 40 people would get up on the rocks by the seaside and throw themselves down headlong into the sea and were drowned.72 (Ibid. p. 24)

Posted in The New World Order, Propaganda debunked, Weather, Climate Change | Print | 2 Comments »

May 20, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Some recent energy articles of interest

By John Droz, Jr.

In a shockingly honest assessment, the head of the NYS agency promoting offshore wind, now publicly admits that it’s a bad idea:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110503/NEWS01/105030346/Michael-Townsend-doubts-viability-offshore-wind-farms

A fine list that dispels the myths about the “anti-wind” campaign http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/33662

An extremely pertinent report is this worldwide study comparing energy use to several other important matters (e.g. infant mortality rate, GDP, literacy rate, etc.) http://www.aeaiinc.com/reports/Energy_and_Country_Instability.pdf

A Spanish community voted to pass a “visual impact” tax on wind turbines (1.6% of their generated income) http://www.windpowermonthly.com/News/MostRead/1061498/Spanish-region-imposes-visual-impact-tax-turbines/

Wind Power’s Promises Gone Awry, written by a NY physicist http://www.empirepage.com/2011/4/26/promises-and-predictions-gone-awry

A new book “The False Promise of Green Energy” http://www.cato.org/store/books/false-promise-green-energy

Obama on Energy: Inconsistent, Incoherent http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/7290/Obama-on-Energy-Inconsistent-Incoherent

Very promising news: government financial support of Cape Wind project now in doubt
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110513/NEWS11/110519876

The official UK’s government’s climate advisory panel (made up mostly of environmental activists) recently concluded that building nuclear was the way to go: http://tinyurl.com/3s6ydep

A reasonable discussion of nuclear radiation, written by an environmentalist
http://www.marklynas.org/2011/03/the-dangers-of-nuclear-power-in-light-of-fukushima/

A good article, with graphics, about Small Modular Reactors http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/small-modular-reactors-smaller-and-cheaper/.

Other worthwhile discussions of the same topic

• http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-new-debate-fukushima-and-small-modular-nuclear-reactors/73084/
• http://alfin2300.blogspot.com/2011/04/can-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-save.html
• http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-Future-of-Nuclear-Energy-Small-Modular-Nuclear-Reactors.html

“Lots of Dirty Things Have To  Happen to Make Clean Energy” touches on some of the environmental downsides of wind energy
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/ron-arnold-lots-dirty-things-have-happen-make-clean-energy

Some recent global warming articles of interest

George Manbiot is one of the leading environmentalists on the planet. Recently he wrote two introspective columns about the environmental movement, and how it has gone wrong. For an environmentalist, he makes some amazingly candid observations:

part 1 http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/02/the-lost-world/

part 2 http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/05/our-crushing-dilemmas/

In my view, the main failing of his commentaries is that he doesn’t see the solution. It’s this:

Any and all environmental solutions must be truly SCIENCE-based. To date they have instead been POLITICAL agendas.  If the environmental movement adopted real science (not things like consensus science) then environmental progress would happen.

A fine article about AGW and the Scientific Method http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/scientific-method

All you need to know about AGW http://www.theblogofrecord.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/global-warming-cartoon-the-rent-seekers-dream-come-true1.jpg

“The Ten Major Failures of Consensus Science” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/10_major_consensus_failures.pdf

A new good website about the fallacy of AGW  http://www.galileomovement.com.au

Thank you for your support.

john droz jr.,

physicist & environmental advocate

Posted in Energy Newsletter, Propaganda debunked, Energy Issues, Alternative Energy Sources, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

April 8, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Yesterday, when we picked up our mail, we found a copy of an expensive brochure “ALTALINK : Report to communities,” 14 pages, on high-quality, non-recyclable, heavy-weight paper, with many colour photos. Five of the photos feature wind turbines, while a few portions of the report identify the growth and proliferation of wind turbines, collectively called “wind farms” by ALTALINK.  It remains up to anyone’s imagination how it is possible to farm the wind, but the brochure must have cost a fair bundle.  AltaLink could have saved the effort and built a few miles of transmission line instead.

It is not clear what that brochure — apparently distributed to all Alberta households — is intended to achieve, other than to make people believe that everything is good about ALTALINK and their endeavors, e. g.: to connect wind turbine installations to the electricity grid.  ALTALINK does not involve itself in electricity generation.  It only installs and maintains the high-voltage transmission network used to connect all of Alberta’s electricity distributors to sources of electricity generation.

ALTALINK is Ralph Klein’s brainchild, an offspring that is the product of his party’s imagination in search of increased revenues, the deregulation of the utility industry that immediately brought much higher electricity rates to all consumers of electricity in Alberta, especially to residential and small-business consumers, after all of the large electric energy consumers and retailers had already secured long-term energy contracts. (It is in the news today that Ralph Klein is suffering from a serious, rapidly-progressing, incurable form of dementia.)

I will not discuss in detail all of the claims presented in “ALTALINK : Report to communities,” but I will discuss only some of the claims that misrepresent facts of wind-power generation and pricing of electricity rates.  A much abridged version of the brochure is accessible on the Internet.

Wind-Power Generation

Page 3 of “ALTALINK : Report to communities” states:

Connecting wind power — Albertans now have access to twice as much wind power as a result of AltaLink’s Southwest 240 kV Project. Energized in October 2010, this 90-kilometre transmission line between Pincher Creek and Lethbridge allows for 1,000 megawatts of wind‐generated electricity to reach homes and businesses throughout the province. That’s equal to powering 1,600 homes each month.

Participation of the local First Nations communities, the Piikani and Blood, was essential to the success of the project. Significant employment was created by this project and more than 80 Alberta businesses supplied services or materials.
(Source URL)

How wonderful!  Still, that claim suffers from a few problems.  According to AESO (Alberta Electric System Operator), the total wind-power generating capacity in Alberta is 777MW, of which often as little as 0MW and hardly ever even close to its maximum generating capacity is being produced and put on the grid. At the time I am writing this, the grand total of 67MW out of the total nominal and much-advertised 777MW wind-power generating capacity is being produced.  You can verify what the wind-power generated in Alberta is at any time you wish to look it up.

However, only a fraction of the wind-power generated in Alberta and put on the grid comes from the Pincher Creek area at any time.  The total wind-power generated in the Pincher Creek area is currently 0MW,  and the 67MW generated through wind power in Alberta come from a single source that is not in the Pincher Creek area.  It is the Ghost Pine Wind “Farm” in Kneehill County, in the Drumheller area.  The Ghost Pine Wind “Farm” has a maximum generating capacity of 82MW, and the construction of a 140kV transmission line to connect it to the grid was completed not all that long ago.

A lot more of Alberta’s wind power generated does not come from the Pincher Creek area.  That means that perhaps at some point in the future there may be a total of a 1,000MW generating capacity installed in the Pincher Creek area, but, unless a lot more Wind-Power generating capacity will be installed in the Pincher Creek area in the future, it will not be required.  The “90-kilometre transmission line between Pincher Creek and Lethbridge” that “allows for 1,000 megawatts of wind‐generated electricity to reach homes and businesses throughout the province” will not be required until the power it is intended to transmit can and will actually be generated.  The transmission line is most definitely not required right now.

I wonder why ALTALINK did not say so in their promotional brochure.  What the heck, it is only money that we consumers pay for right now through our power bills, and there is no shortage of that money coming in, right?

Talking about money, the lower-left-hand corner of page 5 of  “ALTALINK : Report to communities” contains a pie chart that breaks down the price of the good deal Ralph Klein gave us on the electricity rates we must now pay. I will translate that chart into plain English.

Breaking Down an Average Electricity Bill

Generation
The cost you pay for the electric energy you have used in a given time period: 56%

Administration
Cost that you pay for administration charges such as fees related to billing and customer service: 7%

Distribution
The cost your distribution company charges you to build, operate and maintain the local distribution system: 27%

Transmission
Cost that TFOs, such as AltaLink, charge to build, operate and maintain the provincial power system: 10%

I know, you don’t pay your electric energy bill in percent, you pay for it in dollars.  So, let’s make those figures a bit more meaningful.  The total electricity cost in terms of percent is quite useful for that.

56% of what you pay for electric energy consumption pays for the cost of electricity generated and put on the grid.  That is roughly 2.4 cent or $0.024 per kWh you consumed and includes a reasonable margin of profit for the generating companies.

46% of what you pay for electric energy consumption is for AltaLink and the distribution company that bring the electric energy from the generating companies to your house.  That is roughly 1.9 cent or $0.019 per kWh of electric energy you consumed and includes the cost of all of the overhead and a reasonable margin of profit for those services.

The total cost of the electric energy you consume and of the services required to bring it to your home is about 4.3 cents or $0.043 per kWh consumed, including a reasonable margin of profit for all involved in doing it and billing you for it.  That is it!  No more and no less.  That is all there is.

You probably pay a substantial amount over and above that for each kWh you consume.  That is money that will not go to waste.  It will provide a clear profit over and above all who are feeding on your wallet, including the Government of Alberta.  If you pay 8.6 cents or more per kWh consumed, you pay an extra 100 percent or more over and above what is required to provide for the costs and a reasonable margin of profit for all who so generously bring you your portion of the lifeblood of the nation: electric energy.

However, in all of that, remember that included in what you pay for electric energy is something the powers never tell you about. Electric energy generated from wind power is not free.  It is one of the most expensive forms of energy imaginable.

The electricity grid has no spare capacity at any time.  When the wind does not blow, and when the beautiful wind turbines that spoil the skylines in increasingly more Alberta locations turn, just idling away to keep themselves from seizing up, without producing any power for the grid at all, and often consuming power just to stay healthy, something must take up the demand, and spare capacity must be put on line.  If not, then there will be brown-outs and even black-outs.

Other than generating more hydro power (which we don’t have much of), a natural-gas-fired power generating plant is easiest to put into operation.  It takes up to about three hours to be on full production.  Coal-fired power plants take a lot longer, up to three days to be on full generating capacity, which is why they are being kept on spinning standby, consuming fuel all the while when not required to produce electric energy, so that they can be put into full production on short notice, which is still too long for comfort.

Spare capacity that can be put on the grid instantaneously when the wind does not blow constitutes unscheduled demand and drives up the price of electric energy into the lofty neighbourhood of $1000 per MWh, which means a cost of up to a full dollar per kWh to bring it on the grid.  With the convenient percentage figures that AltaLink provided on page 5 of their promotional brochure, it is not hard to figure what the consumers must pay for that, namely two or more dollars per kWh.  However, the pain of paying for that is made easier to bear by making you pay for every kWh you consume a good portion more than it is worth.  A $1000 per MWh spread over all of the kWh you consume during the year works out to just a few cents per kWh consumed but can be a substantial portion of all of the cost of the electric energy you consume throughout the year.  It just depends on when, how often and for how long the wind does not blow.

Yes, when it comes to electric energy generated by wind, the wind does not come free of charge.  The only thing that is free is death, and we all must pay for that with our lives.  However, we can do something about paying the enormous profits made by many from wind power generation.  We can begin to ask the powers to stop pulling the wool over our eyes.

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Electric Energy Prices, Energy Issues, Alternative Energy Sources | Print | No Comments »

March 17, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

I made a few entries at facebook:

Walter H. Schneider Radiation jumped significantly from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant on Tuesday during a fire near reactor No. 4, but dropped quickly after the fire was extinguished.  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/world/asia/20110316-japan-quake-radiation.html

Walter H. Schneider There is evidence of a lot of irrational fear of the radiation that is emanated by the Japanese nuclear power plants. In a nutshell, those fears are largely baseless, but don’t take my word for it. Go straight to what the experts have to say, and what they say is not hard to understand.

Introduction to Radiation Health Effects and Radiation Status at Fukushima | MIT NSE Nuclear Science and Engineering

Radiation is energy that propagates through matter or space. Radiation energy can be electromagnetic or particulate. Radiation is usually classified into non-ionizing (visible light, TV, radio wave) and ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation has the ability to knock electrons off of atoms, changing its chemical properties….

For anyone whose life is presently dominated and controlled by fears of radiation, and that includes all governments who issue orders for their staff to evacuate Japan, you should not let yourself be ruled by irrational fears and superstitions fueled by sensationalist media hype. Go instead to the experts: http://mitnse.com/

–Walter

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Alternative Energy Sources, Explosions & Fires | Print | No Comments »

March 15, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Do you fear serious health problems due to being exposed to radiation from the Japanese nuclear plants?

You are not alone.  There is now a run on potassium-iodate in the land of the fearful and many pharmacies have run out of it.  What is that hysteria all about?

There is little to fear.  The situation in Japan is a far cry from being as harmful as other nuclear accidents were, and the dangers from those, too, were blown out of all proportions.  Here is a very informative account of that:

From the Summer 2010 Issue
of 21st Century of Science and Technology

Observations on Chernobyl after 25 Years of Radiophobia
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc.

The worst possible nuclear plant accident produced no scientifically confirmed fatalities in the general population. But there was enormous political and psychological damage, mainly the result of belief in the lie that any amount of radiation is bad.

Here is another item that will do much to allay hysterics, specifically with respect to the nuclear energy plant in Fukushima, that presently and increasingly raise fears of nuclear-energy-induced radiation impacts to heights that have not been seen since the tidal wave of fear about the consequences of the Chernobyl incident was set into motion.

Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors. | Morgsatlarge – blogorific.

There exists a copy of this post on Barry Brooks excellent blog, where you can still use the discussion function: http://bravenewclimate.com

Last but not least, see this:

MIT NSE Nuclear Information Hub

Information about the incident at the Fukushima Nuclear Plants in Japan hosted by http://web.mit.edu/nse/ :: Maintained by the students of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT

It is extremely difficult not to become influenced by the fear mongering promulgated by the media. The sad reality is that “The News” are vehicles by which to bring advertising to the people.  One must make a deliberate effort to avoid becoming influenced by the media.  After all, their primary purpose for existence is to influence people and thereby to make a profit.  The media employ professionals schooled and trained in influencing people, all for the sake of profit.

The best news of all to accomplish that with are bad news, better yet, alarming news, and, if the news are not bad enough to achieve that with, then news that have been invented or have been made alarming when they were not and should not have been presented as alarming news in the first place will do better than all others.  “Dog bites man” is not news, “Man bites dog!!” is.

Randolph Hurst was someone who had the reputation of being ruthless in inventing and presenting alarming news for boosting the circulation of his newspapers.  I believe that it was he who once said: “There is no such thing as bad News,” meaning that, for the purpose of increasing circulation, the more alarming the news are, the better, because the greater the circulation numbers, the larger the advertising revenues.

Newspapers derive the vast majority of their revenues from advertising.  The prices charged for copies of their newspapers pay for nothing more than just the paper they are printed on and perhaps putting them into circulation.  The reporting, the editorializing, the writing, the composing, the typesetting, the wages and salaries of their staff, and all of the capital and operating expenses of newspapers are paid through advertising revenues.

Of course, very similar considerations apply to other branches of the media, such as broadcasting.

Increasing the circulation (or the size of a listening or viewing audience) increases the advertising revenues.

I believe that the recognition of that reality is one of the most important things any activists should engage themselves in.

There is an enormous media bias regarding feminism and men’s issues.  I admired many of the human rights activists whom I met throughout my life for being fully aware of that.

Now get this.  That bias in the media is not driven by an evil conspiracy.  It is driven by greed for media profits.  It just so happens that some ideological opportunists exploit the greed of the media for their own purposes.

That happens not only with respect to vilifying men and fathers for the purpose of creating and enlarging a rift between the sexes and to aid the systematic deconstruction of the traditional nuclear family.  The same principle creates opportunities for other fanatical ideologists or pain alarmists such as those who wish to promote their agenda for world domination or perhaps nothing more than their greed for power and wealth by creating unfounded fears about specific environmental issues.

One little aspect of the manufacturing of fears for profit is the creation and intensification of fears regarding nuclear energy.  Accidents such as those at Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are god-sends for environmental-alarmism opportunists and carpetbaggers.

__________
Note: Dr. Jaworowski’s report on radiophobia may seem at first to be difficult reading, but get into it and become fascinated.

By understanding what Dr. Jaworowski stated about radiophobia and in reading his explanation of how it was created and exploited in connection with Chernobyl you may be making the most important contribution you could ever have imagined to becoming enlightened in your career as a human rights activist.

There is no shame in being duped once…

Posted in Alarmist Insanity, Propaganda debunked, Health issues, Alternative Energy Sources, Pollution: Health Issues, Explosions & Fires, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »