Sovereign Risk – renewable energy rentseekers’ mask to continue plundering

I have a piece in the Herald Sun this morning on renewable energy.  After rehearsing familiar ground on how this form of energy is imposing colossal costs on the economy, it addresses the Sword of Damocles that the renewables lobby claims hangs over the head of any government seeking to abort this monstrous scheme.  On this matter I argue

Beneficiaries of the subsidies argue that unless they are maintained, Australia will suffer adversely by being regarded as a nation imposing “sovereign risk” on investors. This, so it is said, will discourage future investments. Sovereign risk is where governments seize property without proper compensation.

But changing a tax or subsidy can hardly be considered an imposition of sovereign risk. Such changes happen all the time and invariably mean losses to somebody.

Moreover we have seen policy changes in recent years that have very severe repercussions on investments.

Take the automotive industry, where reductions in industry protection, changes to industrial relations laws and the energy price hikes have caused investment write-offs amounting to billions of dollars. Or the “alcopops” industry, severely impaired by a sudden and unexpected 70 per cent tax increase. Or cigarette manufacturing, hounded from Australia by tax hikes and restraints to marketing.

We also saw the former Commonwealth government, in response to claims by the ABC about animal cruelty, dramatically close the live beef trade to Indonesia. Many graziers had to shoot their stock and average prices fell by a third.

The victims of these government activities got no compensation. Importantly, nor did the measures bring a rise in investment risk.

While the less government meddling there is in the economy the better, the fact is taxes, subsidies and tax rates do change. No government can reasonably expect to bind its successors to paying a worthless subsidy for 15 years as is nominally the case with the RET. And no investor would sensibly expect this.

Many governments are seeking ways of escaping the wanton cost impositions irresponsible green predecessors have bequeathed them.  None more so than Spain, the former poster child of green energy.  Following its election the current Spanish Government has wound-back previously agreed green energy subsidies.  This has prompted claims of retrospectivity and sovereign risk, including an appeal to Brussels.

The Spanish risk premium seems unaffected by this and has in fact been declining.

Australia’s renewables rort, with seemingly guaranteed high returns, has provided a bonanza for many union pension funds, but these have mainly provided the capital and sold back the forecast stream of electricity.  Those most at risk from a termination of the scheme are the electricity retailers, who have taken long-term contracts on the wind power as part of the portfolio of forward buying to cover the requirements imposed by the current legislation.

Renewables and climate change matters were among the many issues of government imposed costs and liberty curtailments addressed by the late Ray Evans whose funeral is today.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Sovereign Risk – renewable energy rentseekers’ mask to continue plundering

  1. JohnA

    Beneficiaries of the subsidies argue that unless they are maintained, Australia will suffer adversely by being regarded as a nation imposing “sovereign risk” on investors.

    The term “sovereign risk” is being defined from
    “the risk that a government will arbitrarily seize your assets without compensation”
    into the Newspeak version:
    “the risk that a government will change any of its policy settings so as to cause you to fall off the gravy train”.

  2. Driftforge

    I would have thought the imposition of a tax — say the MRRT — was a good example of sovereign risk. The removal of subsidies however would seem different and one of those things that should be planned for, especially when the subsidy is in an area where the basis for that subsidy is political in nature.

  3. Andrew

    MRRT was so punitive as to constitute appropriation.

    Anyhow, are the Greens and other tax eaters now arguing that the end of the rebate for off-road diesel would constitute unacceptable sovereign risk?

  4. handjive

    “Unfortunately we have gone backwards in energy supply policy with the carbon tax and forced substitution of cheap coal-generated electricity for expensive renewables.”

    Too right.
    Traitorous is the word needed.

    Pakistan surges into coal-fired power plants to meet energy demand

    Plans announced by the Pakistani government to more than double the country’s power output by building upwards of 15 coal-based power plants have drawn strong criticism from environmentalists who fear the consequences for the environment and the health of the country’s population.

    Cheap energy improves quality of life.
    CO2 hating Environmentalists have Australia reversing into tomorrow.
    Traitors. All of them.

  5. Rabz

    Plans announced by the Pakistani government to more than double the country’s power output by building upwards of 15 coal-based power plants have drawn strong criticism from environmentalists who fear the consequences for the environment and the health of the country’s population.

    Why are greenfilth leftist scum (BIRM) so obsessed with keeping third world peons mired in poverty?

    People will be healthier and live longer if they have access to cheap, abundant energy.

    greenfilth leftist scum (BIRM) are among the most vile misanthropes in human history and it’s time they were shut down. Good to see some steps being taken in India, for example, to apply the blowtorch to their bellies.

  6. Dr.Sir Fred Lenin

    The unions who own the alp love “renewabkes” ,will resist being dragged kicking and screaming “sovrin risksovrin risk” from these massive subsidies.the crooks who run union super funds love the money being in fraudulent electricity,they dont have to invest in the real market like the real super funds do.That takes Ability,something the alp/union muppets lack.Tell me this ,would you put your financial future in the hands of bracks or swan? Not Bloody likely! The alp has dozens of Failed treasurers ,retired on Taxpayer funded pensions.Where else do you get a job where you make a dogs bollocks of everything ,then “retire” at 50 on a lifetime indexed pension ,of course you contributed from the large salary paid to yiu by the Taxpayer for stuffing everything you were involved in.Look at thise two muppets krud and giliard,200 grand a year! They should be in a labour camp for life on bread and water!

  7. evcricket

    Here’s some fresh science for you guys on how Conservatives view climate science
    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/06/dan-kahan-climate-change-ideology-scientific-illiteracy

    It’s good stuff, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

  8. evcricket

    Now to Alan’s article.

    It’s based on a flaw; the RET is not a subsidy it is a market with contracts and certificates. Cancelling the RET is different to removing a straight subsidy because there are no contracts for subsidies.

    Not that Alan cares.

  9. MRRT was so punitive as to constitute appropriation.

    Appropriation isn’t about scale, its about effect. The only arguments that I can see regarding the RET elimination not being a form of sovereign risk are:

    – sovereign risk is limited to the imposition of negatives, and excludes the removal of positives
    – that there should have been a commercial expectation that upon change of government there would be a change of conditions.

  10. Surely it doesn’t represent “sovereign risk” so much as “industries-that-survive-on handouts” risk.

  11. Rabz

    Beaver, you deluded dunderhead, care to provide an answer for why you greenfilth leftist scum are obsessed with keeping third world peoples in grinding poverty?

  12. Helen

    Many graziers had to shoot their stock and average prices fell by a third.

    Correct Alan, for half our cattle, the prices fell by one third. But we couldn’t sell a female for love nor money. For those the price fell by 100%. And the girls make up about 40 percent of our turnoff. So incomes fell by much more than the price for male cattle and the costs blew out because we had to hold those cattle we could not sell. Caring for unsold animals doubled our debt.

  13. Rabz

    Surely it doesn’t represent “sovereign risk” so much as “industries-that-survive-on handouts” risk.

    Agreed – sovereign risk is an entirely spurious argument to begin with. Wind, solar etc, wouldn’t attract any investment full stop if they weren’t subsidised – nor would people use them as power sources if they were charged the full cost of providing them.

    Oh – and who pays a disproportionate amount of the subsidies for these preposterous frauds?

    Poor peoples.

  14. evcricket

    I love the idea that developing nations are going to turn to coal any day now. The big problem with big centralised generation is it requires a very well maintained network, which is hard in vast or uncontrolled countries.

    Indonesia has the second I think largest coal reserves in the world, yet 180 million people there are without electricity. The problem is distance, so a coal plant doesn’t fix it. Expect that much of the third world (those that are electrifying now) to turn to solar because they don’t have to build a network as well. India are going solar, Indonesia likes it for their islands. I expect it will have a big impact in Africa too where networks are easily threatened and destroyed in military strife.

  15. Gillard created sovereign risk with her wrecking ball approach to just about every industry she could lay her hands on.

    Deregulation is not sovereign risk.
    removing tax subsidies is not sovereign risk.
    Reduction in government meddling and socialist green policies will never come close to being sovereign risk.

  16. I love the idea that developing nations are going to turn to coal any day now.

    They already have. India’s electricity is 59 percent coal, for example.

    Indonesia has the second I think largest coal reserves in the world, yet 180 million people there are without electricity.

    really, you’re picking Indonesia…. that’s a completely cherry-picked example. Indonesia is an archipelago; of course it has unique problems in setting up a large scale network. Most of indonesia – as you say – is without electricity. That’s not because they’ve seen the light and are going green, you dummy.
    It’s because many areas of Indonesia have not yet industrialised.

  17. Tom

    RET is not a subsidy it is a market with contracts and certificates

    AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  18. Marlon Shakespeare

    Renewables are a colossal waste of money.
    They are simply not efficient enough to cope with demand.
    Nuclear and shale gas are the future.
    Recommend a few recent documentaries on the subject, Fracknation and Pandoras Promise.
    The sooner we make the change the better.

  19. Rabz

    Expect that much of the third world (those that are electrifying now) to turn to solar because they don’t have to build a network as well.

    Just as I expected. Solar doesn’t work. It is incapable of providing baseload power.

    The problem is distance, so a coal plant doesn’t fix it.

    There are other alternatives. Insisting on so called renewables imposes absurd costs for intermittent power. Not good enough.

  20. evcricket

    What are these obvious alternatives for distributed power Rabz? You seem to know a lot about this and I would love to learn from someone as knowledgeable as you.

  21. Bruce of Newcastle

    I love the idea that developing nations are going to turn to coal any day now.

    What, like Germany?

    Green dream on ice as ‘coal frenzy’ grips Europe and renewables lose their attraction

    Germany will build 10 new power plants for hard coal, is opening new coalmines practically every month and, worryingly for climate change activists, is increasingly turning to lignite, the least efficient, most polluting form of coal. “From Germany to Poland and the Czech Republic, utilities are expanding open-pit mines that produce lignite,” Bloomberg reports. “Alarmed at power prices about to double US levels, policymakers are allowing the expansion of coalmines that were scaled back in the past two decades.”

    And Evcricket, re your Motherjones article, the reason conservatives like myself reject CAGW is that it isn’t happening. The models are wrong because they all use a climate sensitivity much higher than it really is.

  22. Rabz

    They’ve been mentioned above, genius.

  23. cohenite

    Evecricket, I apologise before hand when I call you a fuckwit, just ignore it, I’m a conservative and governed by political and indeed existential responses which are beyond my control and are engaged by stimuli such as RET, AGW and the like. So nothing personal you’ve just supplied the stimuli and in Pavlovian fashion I respond.

    It’s classic operant conditioning; I have been conditioned by a continual supply of electricity and watching my society advance over the last 60 years from the primitive state it once was so when I see a threat to that advancement I instantly respond.

    Please feel free to continue to supply the stimuli and I will respond accordingly, fuckwit.

  24. Andrew

    Indonesia has the second I think largest coal reserves in the world, yet 180 million people there are without electricity. The problem is distance,

    Green troll knits the kangaroo. Yeah, Indonesia doesn’t use coal because it’s so fucking HUGE! Not like tiny countries like AUS and USA, they can use coal. A great moment in Cat trolling – up there with “sole traders don’t actually create anything” and “Peris really IS the first indigenous parliamentarians and only right wing nutjobs disagree!”

  25. bobby b

    It seems as if people are mistakenly applying the term “sovereign risk” to situations which might be more appropriately discussed in terms of a rebirth of the concept of “odious debt.”

    Sure, the past regime might have promised to send you your blood money – our tax money – every year from now to forever.

    But sometimes, societies recognize that just because a past despot has promised to you that society will continue to steal my tax money forever and ship it to you, the promisee – you – should have known better than to have taken that as anything more than a pledge personal to the despot.

    A shorter version would be, do you want to collect on this “debt” of my tax money that you say you’re owed? Then go find that past despot and collect it from him, because he made promises that can not in any moral way be attributed to me. Shut up and be happy for how long you got to rob me at all.

  26. jupes

    Why are CO2 emissions still being debated?

    Over the last 17 years and 9 months, global CO2 emissions have increased by over 10%. During that same period global temperature hasn’t risen a jot.

    The science is settled.

  27. Andrew

    Oh and developing countries not seeking coal – tell that to Kosovo. They might not be GETTING coal, as the warmies would rather people died than we emit a little gaseous plant food, but they’re seeking it.

  28. 1234

    Coming from Moran this is rank hypocrisy. He was screaming soverign risk for any plan to remove the diesel fuel rebate.

  29. Bruce of Newcastle

    Apology for the broken link. Here’s what it should’ve been:

    Temperature falling since the start of the 21stC.

    Whereas the UK Met Office, who use the most well known climate model, predicted a rise of over 0.3 degrees C.

  30. Rabz

    The science is settled.

    The fraudulent hypothesis is null and void.

  31. evcricket

    Go Bruce go. We need more of this citizen science. It must be infuriating that the journals keep rejecting your papers.

  32. Marlon Shakespeare

    Evcricket: France gets 80% of it’s power from nuclear, and also has relatively low carbon emissions (as if carbon emissions actually matter!)
    When the new thorium molten salt reactors get off the ground things will get interesting.
    Recommend buying shares in TEG.
    Nuclear power is simply more efficient solar that you can also use at night if that makes you feel better about it

  33. Ivan Denisovich

    the RET is not a subsidy it is a market with contracts and certificates.

    In a similar manner, taxes are savings:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/swan_saves_by_taxing_you_more/?nk=fc9fd95eda0d6259091f14b860c77b2a

    Is that you, Swanny?

  34. Bruce of Newcastle

    I’ve never had a paper rejected Ev, nor a patent application. I’ve many of both. Y’see I am actually a scientist, and y’see I do actually do work on climate related things from time to time and I do even get paid for it.

    It would be great if more people could do “citizen science” as it would give the population more ability to check and reject claims by hucksters like the IPCC activists. But if I do “citizen science” then there are no professional scientists in this country.

  35. Coming from Moran this is rank hypocrisy. He was screaming soverign risk for any plan to remove the diesel fuel rebate.

    The whole point, dummy, is that leftists don’t understand sovereign risk and never worry about it, except in the case of removing government feeding tubes that funnel money to mendicant industries. That’s not sovereign risk.

    If the progressives had shown the slightest interest in sovereign risk during the Gillard years when it was real – they might have a leg to stand on.

  36. nerblnob

    Interesting article on solar power in this month’s “Which” magazine (the UK equivalent of Australia’s “Choice”). Pretty much warning consumers that the UK government is going to reduce feed in tariffs again later this year having already halved them in 2012, and therefore few new solar installations will ” pay for themselves ” as the lucky recipients of all this largesse have it. Also pointed out that the subsidies to solar are costing other consumers quite a lot.

    It’s a pity the Australian press can’t report this simple fact.

    That said, feed in tariffs are generally guaranteed at the rate you got in at for twenty years, so only new snouts at the trough will get the reduced tariffs. Which , while generally supportive of solar panels, reckons it costs everyone else at least 10% on their electricity bills.

    Once again, the sort of plain speaking that Australian media seems incapable of these days.

  37. Kaboom

    bobby b nailed it at 8:59 a.m.:

    It is odious debt, not “sovereign risk”.

    Well said, that man!

  38. Tim Neilson

    Poor old evcricket, believing that temperature data and CO2 data aren’t valid until some scientific journal deigns to notice them.
    Amazing how within a single thread evcricket can go from posting links to “motherjones” to sneering at “citizen science”. And, for bonus points, accusing Alan of “hypocrisy” in the very same thread.

  39. Alfonso

    Even our own Judith wants to discuss the best way to financially abate/apply tax to nasty CO2 as if CAGW is real and not just a pretend yowie cryptobeast.

  40. cohenite

    That’s right; renewables have only seen the light of day because of AGW.

  41. 1234

    So Aussiepundit – sovereign risk is OK when created by right wing govts but not OK for “leftists”. I like your consistency

  42. johanna

    BTW, re solar feed-in schemes, does anyone know if they survive the sale of the property? Or are they portable with the punter if they move?

    My great hope is that they terminate if a property is sold, given the outrageous ripoffs guaranteed to early adopters for up to 20 years. That way, there is at least some hope than a lot of them will disappear before the end of the guaranteed period.

  43. brc

    In terms of sovereign risk, I would see that going down when the government steps away from trying to centrally plan the market and decide what’s good for people, rather than letting the people work it out.

    If I’m an investor in an industry in a country, and I see the government lurching around trying to force a particular technology by regulation or nationalisation or both, then I’m going to stay away.

    When I see a government dropping back and letting the market work, then I’m more likely to wade in.

    No sane allocator of capital would have invested a cent in Australia during the RGR years. They were like a kid with a loaded gun – you never know which way they were going to point it and blow away some industry. The telecoms industry, the cattle industry, motor industry, insulation industry, building industry, mining industry – the legislative and regulatory bullets were whizzing around hitting targets all over the place.

    Winding back and terminating the RET along with the Carbon Tax and all the other ‘energy 5 year plans’ are an impediment to foreign investment, not a stimulus. Only docile Australian idiots truly believe that taxpayers are going to endlessly keep voting for private companies to keep looting their pockets for no return.

    The reason they are all squealing is because a lot of industry super funds are in this up to their eyeballs. It’s not ‘sovereign risk’ it’s ‘hapless industry fund being found out’ risk.

  44. M

    Evcricket:

    The evidence is clear, The CAGW hypothesis has failed miserably.

    There is small shame in having believed it, great in continuing to do so.

    Move on.

  45. Gab

    I don’t believe evcrick has the capacity for reasoned thought.

  46. brc

    It’s funny how people will never let go of a religion, even if they don’t really believe in it anymore, it still guides them.

    So it is with CAGW. An entire generation which will never truly renounce it – right up until their deathbeds they will still assume armageddon is just around the corner…just you wait…

    The 20th decade of no warming is going to be hard to deal with for many. 20 years after a stated second coming and everything but the most hard core believers are going to question the prophecy.

    But not some.

  47. cohenite

    AGW is a rotten lie on many fronts but it is particularly stupid because the natural state of climate on the Earth during the last few million years is cold. We are currently in an interglacial where conditions are of great benefit to life. There has never been runaway periods of heat [apart from the odd century long volcanic eruption or asteroid strike] on this planet but there have been plenty of cold snaps.

  48. evcricket

    Bruce, you and your mates here continue to make two fundamental errors.

    1. This continued focus on air temperatures. The global warming theory is that greenhouse gases trap heat and change the energy balance of the earth. That energy can heat the air, land and sea. Any time someone says “global temperatures haven’t risen in XX years” they are parading their ignorance. There is a lot more to the global energy balance than the almost invisibly thin atmosphere around the planet. To prove me wrong I challenge any of you to find a scientific article that claims the global warming theory relates only to air temperature.

    2. Equilibrium climate sensitivity can not be directly measured in real time. The key here is ‘equilibrium’; the final state once it has stopped changing. If we stop emitting greenhouse gases today there will be a period of time afterwards where the earth is still gaining energy. So if you look at the temperature change now and compare it to the greenhouse gas concentration over time and compare them you will be excluding any energy gained after we stop emitting. There is an excellent discussion of this phenomenon in Fundamentals of Thermodynamics.

    Thanks for having a learning attitude.

  49. brc

    This continued focus on air temperatures. The global warming theory is that greenhouse gases trap heat and change the energy balance of the earth. That energy can heat the air, land and sea. Any time someone says “global temperatures haven’t risen in XX years” they are parading their ignorance. There is a lot more to the global energy balance than the almost invisibly thin atmosphere around the planet. To prove me wrong I challenge any of you to find a scientific article that claims the global warming theory relates only to air temperature.

    It’s hiding the oceans, dagnammit!

    Funny how nobody talked about the oceans until the heat went missing.

    It’s a travesty, remember.

  50. .

    “The heat is missing in the oceans, but we can’t find it”

    That is – “the dog ate our homework”

  51. Leo G

    “Indonesia has the second I think largest coal reserves in the world”- evcricket

    I think 14th (by proven coal reserves). Indonesia presently ranks 5th for coal production (up from 7th in 2008). The country plans to increase the proportion of energy from coal in its total energy mix from 24% (2011) to 30% (2025). The average annual increase in Indonesian coal consumption since 1980 has been 16.5%.
    Moreover the Malaysia-Sumatra interconnector grid may be operating by 2020, DC links are under construction connecting Java and Sumatra, and the contribution to growth from “renewables” is overwhelmingly from hydro and geothermal, not solar PVs (despite the 600 isolated grids).

  52. Leo G

    “To prove me wrong I challenge any of you to find a scientific article that claims the global warming theory relates only to air temperature.”

    How times have changed. Twenty years ago I often posed the same question to warmist colleagues (t’Huggees). At the time, GCMs failed to account for more than 30% of poleward heat transfer.

  53. bobby b

    evc: “. If we stop emitting greenhouse gases today there will be a period of time afterwards where the earth is still gaining energy. ”

    Only if you assume that inputted energy from the sun is a constant.

  54. brc

    I don’t believe evcrick has the capacity for reasoned thought.

    This is unlikely to be true.

    The cricket lives in a canberra bubble, where death by evil capitalism is the dogma. Saving the planet is the life purpose – merely leaving the citizens of Australia to live long and prosper without their help is not even a consideration.

    If people such as this started to think independently, they would threaten their income, social standing and would probably get what amounts to excommunication. For a canberra moocher, going against established thought would be social and career suicide. Even entertaining the idea that the holy scripture of the IPCC is wrong is heretical (despite the IPCC themselves backing away from their earlier claims).

    In an environment like that, it’s understandable that adhesion to the groupthink is not only occurring, but defending the groupthink is actively happening.

    My deepest sympathies for getting caught up in all that to anyone who has. Such stifling intellectual restriction must eat away at ones soul.

  55. Bruce of Newcastle

    Ev – I’m glad you are now actually starting to address the science.

    This continued focus on air temperatures.

    Sure, that is because I can give you an easy link. If you take Gleckler et al 2012, coauthored by our own John Church, you will see that sea temperatures have risen at 0.025 C/decade over the last 50 years. If you do the calcs that corresponds to an ECS of 0.4 C/doubling. If you cannot do the calc yourself, please don’t hesitate to ask.

    And ocean heat content has plateaued too, and in the UK Met Office’s official dataset it is falling too. There is a small lag in ocean heat content, but its only about a decade.

    Equilibrium climate sensitivity can not be directly measured in real time.

    That is why I use the longest and most consistent dataset available, HadCET. I have used 250 years of data, the IPCC only validate their models to at most 100 years of the 20thC, which is how they derive ECS. They however leave out the full effect of the Sun and leave out the ~60 year cycle in the oceans, a mistake known in the stats field as “omitted variable bias”, which you can look up.

    If you do use 250 years of HadCET data, with the empirical effects of the Sun and ocean oscillations you get an ECS of 0.7 C/doubling – in other words the same as Lindzen’s measured median TCS. Because lag is short, this is no surprise, except to progressive social engineers like yourself.

  56. Dr Faustus

    Sovereign Risk, strictly, is the risk that a government will default on its debts (although this is often extended to include the risk of confiscation of private property by government). The underlying condition is total (or near total) loss to investors caused by government fiat which unilaterally sets aside whatever contractual, or legal rights to compensation that may exist.

    Peak rent-seekers, such as the Clean Energy Council (here giving Clive Palmer a blow job), deliberately use the term incorrectly because it has exciting political connotations of Zimbabwe, Mexico or Djibouti.

    Dishonest clap trap: there is no prospect of Australia defaulting on legal contractual obligations without compensation. If the RET thieves’ kitchen loses out on its expected super-profits – tough shit, that’s economic life in Australia.

  57. .

    Carbon pollution as a concept was never balanced. The holistic farmers always asserted they could sequester a massive amount of CO2 through carbon retention in perennial pastures, through various methods such as stubble retention, no bare earth management policy, no or low till, etc…

    Evcricket would have no clue here. Nor do Milne, Bandt, Gillard etc.

  58. brc

    Maybe, seeing as Al Gore is in town, you might be able to catch up with him and ask why he didn’t include deep ocean warming as part of his apocalyptic snuff film? I only ever saw snippets, but it was all crashing glaciers and drowning floridas and stuff.

    Maybe slightly less freezing deep oceans doesn’t actually matter, and we should be erecting inefficient energy structures at great cost to the economy to ‘fight’ it?

    Most people couldn’t care less what the fractional changes in climate are. They only get involved when politicians try and tax them extra to ‘fight’ it.

  59. .

    That is why I use the longest and most consistent dataset available, HadCET. I have used 250 years of data, the IPCC only validate their models to at most 100 years of the 20thC, which is how they derive ECS. They however leave out the full effect of the Sun and leave out the ~60 year cycle in the oceans, a mistake known in the stats field as “omitted variable bias”, which you can look up.

    If you do use 250 years of HadCET data, with the empirical effects of the Sun and ocean oscillations you get an ECS of 0.7 C/doubling – in other words the same as Lindzen’s measured median TCS. Because lag is short, this is no surprise, except to progressive social engineers like yourself.

    The climate models are either inept, corrupt or intentionally dishonest.

  60. brc

    Dr Faustus – you put it better than I.

    Stopping idiotic economic self harm is likely to decrease sovereign risk, not increase it. Because the country is less likely to turn into a shrinking, high unemployment mess if sound energy policies are followed.

  61. cohenite

    Thanks for having a learning attitude.

    And thank you eve for stimulating my response again fuckwit.

    Now, with that out of the way let’s look at eve’s 2 points.

    1 The Earth energy balance; indeed eve is right because the EEB can be the opposite of the temperature trend; that is global average temperature [GAT] may be going up while the EEB is declining; 2 words and an equation explain; the 2 words are Stephan-Boltzmann and the equation is (A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4; GAT can increase but the EEB need not change; conversely, the EEB can vary but the GAT temperature stay the same. SB explains this; the SB equation is E = sigma x T^4, where sigma = 5.67×10^-8, and T is temperature in K.

    What this means is that the radiated energy increases as the 4th power of temperature. The base temperature is crucial; for instance, a 50′C rise in temperature has a different change in radiated energy depending on the base value; for example:

    From 200K-250K radiated energy increases from 91-222 W/m^2 – an increase of 131 W/m^2.

    From 300-350K radiated energy increases from 459-851 W/m^2 – an increase of 392 W/m^2.

    And this is where the equation, (A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4, comes into play. The GAT is the average of all the anomaly temperatures ate various sites around the world. If you average all those sites you get (A + B)^4; but that ignores the base temperature at the particular sites which is where A^4 + B^4 comes into play; for instance the base temperature at the Arctic is very cold so this means an increase in temperature at the Arctic or the West Antarctic Peninsula, which are both slightly warming, has a much less radiated energy effect than a slight decrease in temperature in a warmer region, which is happening.

    The slight increase in temperature at the poles will increase GAT but the slight decrease in temperature at the warmer parts will mean based on SB that the EEB will decline. There is a paper on this effect by Pielke Snr et al and a wonderful series of explanations in depth by Lucia who tears Eli Rabbet apart beginning here.

    On reflection it may be better to let eve digest that before I rebut his second point so I will finish with the fact that satellite measures clearly show that at the TOA there is an energy imbalance on Earth, that is more radiation is leaving then is coming which defeats the idea that the missing heat is being stored at the bottom of the ocean.

    Over to you eve.

  62. gabrianga

    What’s wrong with Moran?

    Doesn’t he remember Tony Windsor gave the nod to renewables after a taxpayer funded visit to Spain?

    Strange how panic hit the ranks when the Spanish Government stopped paying massive subsidies

    Even Chinese solar panel manufacturers took a hit on their sale of solar panels due to the awakening of our Spanish friends.

    Have look at some who support Australia “going” renewable. Hewson ,Goldman’s, the Greens ,Windsor et al and it leaves a foul taste.

  63. .

    cohenite
    #1361586, posted on June 27, 2014 at 11:47 am
    Thanks for having a learning attitude.

    And thank you eve for stimulating my response again fuckwit.

    Now, with that out of the way let’s look at eve’s 2 points.

    Cohenite

    This tutorial you guys are giving Ev is what Fran Barlow used to call a “teaching moment”.

    I think he’s too busy counting his profits from flogging subsidised, piece of shit energy efficiency tech to pensioners.

  64. Tom

    The climate models are either inept, corrupt or intentionally dishonest.

    You kidding? Until last year, they were a licence to print other people’s money. The steeper the up curve, the more other people’s money you could filch from politicians and the bureaucracy.

  65. Rabz

    My deepest sympathies for getting caught up in all that to anyone who has. Such stifling intellectual restriction must eat away at ones soul.

    Err, thanks brc – this is why I felt the need to establish the CCC™ – to seek out like minds and where possible challenge the groupthinkers.

  66. alan moran

    Interesting comment from the green’s SMH mouthpiece. Al Gore was duped but the, err, smart money got its way with what appears to be a commitment by Palmer to support the on going diversion of public funding to the Clean Energy waste and to the renewables program. These people are blatant self-servers.

  67. Leo G

    This continued focus on air temperatures.

    President Obama apparently agrees. He explained last week how the overwhelming evidence for progress on climate change is actually to be measured:

    “… it will be measured in disasters averted, lives saved, a planet preserved”

    The perspective from a parallel universe.

  68. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    Evcricket:

    Indonesia has the second I think largest coal reserves in the world,

    Liar. http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/wca-publications/

    The seven largest reserves are USA, Russia, China, India, Australia, Germany, South Africa, Ukraine. They PRODUCE a lot, being seventh after China, USA, India, Australia, South Africa and Russia. Indonesia is the third-largest coal exporter after Australia and China.

    [Indonesia] …yet 180 million people there are without electricity.

    Liar. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGEQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.differgroup.com%2FPortals%2F53%2Fimages%2FIndonesia_overall_FINAL.pdf&ei=-bysU5OBOsWdkwXauIHoBA&usg=AFQjCNEeTcCU_leLyOrG__jt3stsbU4NYQ&bvm=bv.69837884,d.dGI

    The Indonesian electricity system – a brief overview

    P,2: …more than 86 million Indonesians – around one third of the total population – still lack even the basic access to electricity. Since 2008, the electrification

    rate has fallen from 67% to 65%, and the number of people without electricity access has increased by more than 2.5 million per year.

    p.3: The Indonesian power system consists of eight domestic interconnected systems and 600 isolated grids, which are all operated by PLN.

    The problem is distance, so a coal plant doesn’t fix it.

    Liar. It does for the major population centres (Java – 2010 national census was 237.6 million with 58% living on Java) .

    p.2: Coal has substituted oil as the main energy source and accounts for 40% of the total capacity (see Table 1).

    Expect that much of the third world (those that are electrifying now) to turn to solar because they don’t have to build a network as well. India are going solar, Indonesia likes it for their islands.

    Liar:

    ‘renewables’ Hydropower generation accounted for 13% of distributed generation, whereas geothermal accounted for less than 1%.

    ‘Solar’ Solar Home Systems (SHS) are also widely distributed; although numbers have declined following several failed electrification schemes.

    Most of-grid electricity is from diesel generators. 2008 figures are 30,000 DG sets, 17,200 SHS, 4,700 mini-grid diesel gensets, 53 centralised photovoltaic and 51 small scale hydro.

    Renew-balls potential maxes out at 155GW but 76GW is hydro, 50GW biomass and 28GW geothermal so wind+solar potential is a piddling 1GW. And it’s all BS anyway. Biomass is needed for fertiliser to help feed people and geothermal means tapping near active volcanoes in earthquake zones.

    Evcricket the Liar:

    What are these obvious alternatives for distributed power Rabz?

    Diesel gensets, diesel minigrids, hydro minigrids. That’s pretty much it as Indonesia conclusively shows.

    Evcricket the Liar:

    Bruce, you and your mates here continue to make two fundamental errors.

    Aaaaaaw… How cute. A window-licking drooler trying to ‘do science’. Hey, drool-boy, your computer models predicted a tropospheric hotspot. There was drooler consensus! Then two million balloon measurements showed it did not exist. Now it’s “oh, the magickal heatiness is hiding below 2000m deep in the sea.” Because ARGO shows it sure ain’t in the top 2000m. Hey, window-licking greenfilther, how does heat get from the troposphere to the abyssal deeps without anyone knowing? It’s greenfilth magick, is it?

  69. nerblnob

    That’s right; renewables have only seen the light of day because of AGW

    No, renewables have been on the go since oil shortages, “Peak Oil” (RIP), pollution scares etc, and just general inventive public tinkering. Until governments got massively involved squandering taxpayers money, the biggest investors in alternative energy development were the energy companies themselves.

  70. entropy

    No, renewables have been on the go since oil shortages, “Peak Oil” (RIP), pollution scares etc, and just general inventive public tinkering. Until governments got massively involved squandering taxpayers money, the biggest investors in alternative energy development were the energy companies themselves.

    That’s one of the things at makes me laugh about claims people that question anything to do with AGW, or more importantly, the green filth ‘solutions’ are really in the pay of ‘Big Oil’.

    Big Oil are fundamentally energy companies. They will sell you energy at the price that will maximise their profit. So eventually, if one magical day a bunch of solar panels will deliver the same energy output as a tank of petrol at a profit, they will happily sell you as many Joules of energy panels as you want.

  71. Rabz

    Thanks Mk50 – greenfilth magick, indeed.

  72. Leo G

    ABC Fractured Fact check:
    Tony Abbott overstating household savings from axing the carbon tax

    The claim: Tony Abbott says Australian households will benefit to the tune of $550 a year if the carbon tax is axed.
    The ABCFC verdict: Based on Treasury modelling, households will be better off by around $550 in 2014-15 if the current legislation is scrapped. However the following year the estimated impact on households drops to $280.

    But Abbott has clearly stated that the saving was a bonus- a $550 a year bonus- meaning that the saving over a full year was expected to be $550 for each household and proportionally less for a lesser period.
    The ABC wrongly states that the following year the savings drops to $280 (note: not the savings per year). In fact, if the ABC figure for the 2015-2016 year is correct then the saving is $848 (or $424 a year over the two year period. By the third year the saving is $1271 ( $424 a year over the 3-year period)
    The ABC Factcheck claim is wrong to state that: “the impact on average households would plummet to $280 in 2015-16 and rise to $423 in 2016-17″. Impact on households dropping to $280 implies households had returned the previous years bonus.

Comments are closed.