Clarifying the climate debate (2). Smoking chimneys. Sorry, it’s steam!

People who are alarmed about warning are invited to stop using PR material including gigantic plumes of black “smoke” coming out of power plants. CO2 is colourless. Update, as Tel pointed out on comments it is not smoke at all, it is steam artfully photographed to look black. Deception piled on deception.

Besides modern plants no longer belch harmful sulphides and particulate matter that used to give China its legendary industrial strength air. Any stats on the improvement of their air? given the number of new plants they have built, and are in the process of building as we speak?

Here is a thought, not originally part of the plan for the post. Modern coal fired plants produce as much as 40% more power from a given amount of coal. This suggests that we could achieve very large reductions in emissions by phasing in new plants to replace the old ones.

A word on the purpose of these posts, taking the point made by Tel and cohenite and probably others that there is no point in debating the true believers and I dont want to generate long threads where everyone says the same things over again. The point is that many of my associates including some that go back to uni and even school are hooked on the war on CO2. Some have made a pretence of serious interest in the topic and others have just absorbed the mainstream message by osmosis. All of them I regarded as people of good faith, intelligent, educated and cosmopolitan. Almost all are rusted onto the ALP and that has increasingly strained long-term friendships in recent years. Still we can communicate when it is convenient, given that we have all come a long way from Tasmania in 50 years and I like to think that I have some credibility with them.

So I want to challenge them with a list of the most obviously absurd and unsustainable elements of the warming propaganda to see if they are happy with the company they are keeping. Perhaps with some of the outer defences of the citadel of alarmism breached, they may be susceptible to arguments directed against the heart of the enterprise represented by the climate models and their abuse by the IPCC.

That is in the nature of a hobby, like following the fortunes of the Eels and the Demons. The more serious line of march is to get at the hip pocket nerve of the masses by explaining how unreliable energy is screwing their budgets and will not work anyway, based on the German experience.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Clarifying the climate debate (2). Smoking chimneys. Sorry, it’s steam!

  1. John Constantine

    Snowy hydro battery.

    Massive ten billion dollar, huge carbon emmission project.

    Just so we can dump hydroelectric water unused out to sea on the ocean side of the mountains and churn water from the irrigation side back up the hills instead of letting it flow down the river to grow things.

    Their turnbullites squandertopia wasted ten billion dollars under the excuse of climate change to centrally control the water of the Snowy and dump it unused out to sea.

    Unswerving rewilding and unswerving deindustrialisation and unswerving dewesternisation.

    Once the climate change scam ends, they will unswervingly and seamlessly move to the next excuse for eternal Stalinism.

  2. Tel

    They find a cooling tower and they photograph the completely harmless water vapour coming out of the cooling tower, but they always just happen to accidentally catch the sun behind so it looks black (clouds can look black if you catch the light at just the right angle). Then they fool people into believing that’s smoke in the picture.

    People who are alarmed about warning are invited to stop using PR material including gigantic plumes of black smoke coming out of power plants. CO2 is colourless.

    Almost certainly you were looking at water, not smoke at all. It’s a classic trick, it’s been done over and over and people still buy the snake oil…

  3. Church and State were intertwined in Medieval Europe.
    Somewhere between the Reformation and the Enlightenment, it became clear that separation of Church and State was essential, since the wide diversity in Belief among different churches was no basis for public policy.

    It occurs to me that this is in the main what our argument should be. The AGW nonsense is clearly a religion. So far as I am concerned it is all complete nonsense, from the idiotic notion of ‘global warming’ through the meaningless and obscure term ‘climate change’ to teh myriad of idiotic predictions which are never demonstrated to occur.

    But far be it from me to quarrel with those for whom this nonsense is their religion. Hence it is not the notion of apocalypse by CO2 that we should oppose, but the idea that these false prophets should be allowed access to public policy.

  4. The BigBlueCat

    Environmentalist activists rarely know what they are looking at … I recall they once took a photo of the tailings dam at the uranium mine in Kakadu and used it in their PR materials claiming it was “pristine environment” about to be destroyed and needing protection….. talk about shooting your foot off! I was delighted to hear it cost them many $k’s in production and recall costs, along with the reputational damage.

  5. Rafe Champion

    Thanks Tel, post updated!

  6. Unfortunately Leftism is akin to mental illness, and I’m not trying to be abusive towards or dismissive of those with mental illness. But when you observe how the Left thinks and acts, collective insanity in many cases (repeating the same thing in the hope that they will get a different outcome), the only thing that you can draw is that they are afflicted with mental illness.

    And it afflicts the Left at any level. Consider SHY accusing Fraser Anning of misusing taxpayer funds, yet she completely ignores her using taxpayer funds for a holiday for herself and child. Bill Shorten is no different when attending union rallies. Whether this is reflective of just politics, morality, integrity, a case of mental illness, or all four, is something to ponder. Given many of SHY’s past statements, I suspect the fourth possibility.

  7. This is an early morning shot of Yallourn power station: https://australianimage.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/stories-6.jpg. Note the massive pollution that nature spread over the valley that morning and many mornings before and after. It kind of makes what the power station is emitting somewhat insignificant.

  8. Mark M

    Hot air? Steam? Pollution?

    Look no further than the home of academic rigour and journalist flair for an example …

    https://theconversation.com/au/topics/coal-fired-power-stations-33229

  9. duncanm

    Plenty of stuff to counter them with. I tend to discuss along these lines:
    – let’s assume man made warming is real. I don’t think there’s any serious argument that says that CO2 emissions have zero impact on the earth’s climate. That neuters their denier denier pants on fire slurs and establishes common ground.
    – quantify that impact for me – IPCC models have proven repeatedly to be wrong… how about we assume their last model is approximately correct just to keep things simple. See I’m still on your side.
    – what is the impact of leaving things as is, climate wise?
    – the impact of a warmer world isn’t all negative. Many places would be nicer to live, be more productive, support more people, flora and fauna if it was warmer. Its not all bad
    – how much money do we have to spend to limit temp rise to 1 or 2°C ? trillions
    – wouldn’t that money be better spent providing clean water in the third world, eliminating malaria, etc etc? All those things could be done for much less cash and have a demonstrably larger impact on the human condition. Not only that, we have a much higher confidence in those solutions than we do fiddling with CO2 output.
    – if it was such a big problem, we have a solution – nuclear power. Why is this not an answer?
    – what is the Earth’s optimum temperature. What temperature should we actually target?

  10. yackman

    Sorry Rafe; it is a lost cause.
    Sounds like we are of similar vintage having friends of 50 yrs plus and the subject of steam vs smoke will not be listened to. Quite often carbon dioxide is stated to be a pollutant.
    Forget raising the photosynthetic equation.
    I am currently reading Ian Plimer’s latest book which covers all the issues and puts some numbers around costs wrt electricity as well as reprising the carbon dioxide debate.

  11. Bruce of Newcastle

    In contrast I can’t remember ever seeing condemnation in the Australian MSM of the massive harm caused by windfarms. That certainly encompasses the death and maiming of birds and bats in the millions, but also through infrasound effects over a quite wide area. The numbers of protected species threatened must be huge.

    The ABC in particular never seems to cover this horrendous environmental damage.

    (The old story about the Victorian windfarm and the orange bellied parrot occurred before the global warming thing took off – there was much protesting then…but never now.)

  12. Kneel

    “Almost certainly you were looking at water, not smoke at all.”

    Indeed.
    Big give-away – chimneys are thin and tall with barely visible exhaust, cooling towers are short and squat and pump out massive amounts of water vapour in a cloud.
    As you say, if you are seeing a large plume of “pollution”, it’s almost certainly water.

  13. All of them I regarded as people of good faith, intelligent, educated and cosmopolitan.

    I don’t believe they can be intelligent and of good faith at the same time.
    Either they are not intelligent and so believe the propaganda that CO2 is pollution (but are of good faith regards the environment) or they are actually intelligent, therefore must know that CO2 is not a pollutant but go along with the scam because they are not of good faith.

    Regarding climate models. Maybe you can show them how many there are that the IPCC uses. How many runs each of them make and how wide off the mark they all are.
    The IPCC doesn’t use the end result of any one model, but rather average out all the averaged out runs of each model. UNSCIENTIFIC CRAP.

  14. herodotus

    In America the Weathermen were intent on collapsing the US by a mix of violence and economic sabotage, and by coincidence their acolyte Obama set about to kneecap the US by a range of regulations that damaged the economy or held it back, and stupid foreign policies that enabled others with attitudes like “America the Great Satan” and “Death to America”. Some Hope and Change snake oil salesman he was.
    The Great Global Warming Swindle (remember what the ABC did to it) could have been quite effective in pouring cold water on this big scam at an early stage. It had to be stopped, undermined, hidden.
    Climate change is not about climate, it’s about knobbling the entire west.
    Too many western nations now have a globalist elite and a left/green activist movement. Too many western nations have forgotten how to think conservatively, while the media help those elites and activists to label all conservatives as “far right” or “extreme right” or worse.
    It’s arguable that even an extraordinary fighter like Trump might not be able to stop the rot.
    With so many houses divided, can it end in any way other than either rigorous subjugation of people, or civil war?

  15. Speedbox

    It’s arguable that even an extraordinary fighter like Trump might not be able to stop the rot.

    President Trump is unquestionably a great fighter and he will hold back the tide of socialism and climate change claptrap during his presidency but, sooner or later, he will be gone. At best, by late 2024 – and I doubt we will see another like him. Then it is back to ‘business as usual’ in Washington. In fact, I believe that whilst the Democrats will try hard to win in 2020, they also know that Trump has a ‘use by’ date and will hold their best in reserve for 2024.

    With so many houses divided, can it end in any way other than either rigorous subjugation of people, or civil war?

    That is a damn good question.

  16. Razor

    Very new to this blog and have read with great interest the articles and opinions. I particularly liked duncanm’s post. The only fault I see, with all respect duncan, is the religion has moved onto a new front, as they have done over the years when their modelling isn’t giving them the results they want. It’s all about the oceans taking up the extra CO2 now and the release of methane from glacial melt! These topics are now de-rigueur amongst the adherents to the climate religion. When these theories become untenable they will come up with something else.

    An absolute joy to find your blog as I’ve been feeling since Turnbull’s ascension I was the only one who could see this for what it is. I’m looking forward to posting a bit more and as a working professional, albeit in his 50’s, there are some topics I might even make some sense on.

  17. max

    Peter Foster: Another report reluctantly admits that ‘green’ energy is a disastrous flop

    The report confirms what should have been obvious from the start: the more “variable” wind and solar are introduced into any electricity system, the more they make it both more expensive and less reliable.

    Amid hundreds of graphs, charts and tables in the latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) released last week by the International Energy Agency, there is one fundamental piece of information that you have to work out for yourself: the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar. The answer is 1.1 per cent. The policy mountains have laboured and brought forth not just a mouse, but — as the report reluctantly acknowledges — an enormously disruptive mouse.

    The International Energy Agency (IEA) has in recent years become an increasingly schizophrenic organization. As both a source of energy information and a shill for the UN’s climate-focused sustainable development agenda, it has to talk up the “transition to a low-carbon future” while simultaneously reporting that it’s not happening. But it will!

    https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/peter-foster-another-report-reluctantly-admits-that-green-energy-is-a-disastrous-flop

  18. Bruce of Newcastle

    I’m interested by the IPCC AR5 chart in this post today:

    Leading German Climate Scientist Mojib Latif Caught Up In A Web Of Contradictions

    I can’t direct link the chart, but it is the 2nd one in the article.
    It’s quite amazing. The IPCC now has humans causing 2.3 W/m2 of global warming and the Sun 0.05 W/m2 of warming. We humans are 46 times as powerful as the Sun!

    I must be imagining things when it gets cold at night.

    (Btw good to see you come by Razor, drop by the open thread if you’ve the time!)

  19. The BigBlueCat

    Here are a couple of interesting videos to watch … intelligent, leading climate scientists who speak against the mainstream Climate Change mantra.

    A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Global Warming

    Show Me The Data

    Kinda debunks the anthropogenic CO2 mantra, the increasing temperature mantra, etc. Climate systems are chaotic, and the changes in global temperatures reported are both unreliable and also representative of natural variability (take your pick). They are also unreliably predicable (or reliably unpredictable). The confidence limits in the model predictions render the models useless – 95% of models have failed, and in the next 10 years 100% of models will likely have failed.

    I agree with duncanm, who said:

    wouldn’t that money be better spent providing clean water in the third world, eliminating malaria, etc etc? All those things could be done for much less cash and have a demonstrably larger impact on the human condition. Not only that, we have a much higher confidence in those solutions than we do fiddling with CO2 output.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.