Benny Peiser(GWPF)--Germany`s Climate Consensus Collapsing

 Germany now ungovernable!.  AFD opposes plans to cut CO2 emissions by renewables. A new chapter dawns in Germany.    COAL IS KING IN GERMANY AS IN AMERICA.  Time for celebration!

Germany faces a political crisis after a month of four-party exploratory talks about forming a so-called Jamaica coalition collapsed late on Sunday night. For the first time since the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), German parties with a majority in parliament are unwilling to form a Government. Nobody knows what happens next or how this deepening crisis can be solved anytime soon.

The inability to agree on contentious climate and energy policy issues together with disagreement over migration triggered the end of the exploratory coalition talks yesterday evening.

Most remarkable: Germany’s failed and increasingly unpopular climate policies are at the core of the crisis. It also signals the collapse of Germany’s decade-old climate consensus.

While the Green Party demanded the immediate shut-down of 10-20 of Germany’s 180 coal power plants, the Liberal Party (FDP) stood by its manifesto promise of  a radical reform of the Energiewende, advocating the end to subsidies for renewable energy.

Experts at the Federal Ministry of Economics had warned participants at the exploratory coalition talks that Germany will miss its legally binding 2020 climate targets by a mile and that trying to achieve its 2030 goals would risk the economic prosperity of the country.

The Ministry also  warned that any attempt to force a radical reduction of CO2 emissions “by 2020 would only be possible by partial de-industrialisation of Germany.”

Climate business as usual is no longer an option for the Liberals. The party fears that a fast exit from coal-fired power generation, as demanded by the Greens, would result in severe social, economic and political problems. A continuation of radical climate policies would affect Germany’s main coal regions, not least in Eastern Germany where the right-wing protest party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) had gained significant support in the federal elections in September.

The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) won nearly 13% of the vote in the general election in September and forms, with over 90 MPs, the third-largest group in the Bundestag. The party’s success has changed Germany’s political landscape and has ushered in the end of the green consensus among mainstream parties. To ensure that the cost of energy remains low, the AfD advocates the continued use of nuclear and coal-generated electricity. It opposes the Energiewende, stating that “energy must remain affordable and should not be a luxury commodity.” Claiming that subsidies for renewable energy are only benefitting well-off families and green businesses, their manifesto promised the abolition of Germany’s renewable energy law (EEG) together with all green energy subsidies.

As a recent editorial of the Wall Street Journal concludes: “No wonder voters are in revolt. The right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) won a surprising 13% vote share in part on a promise to end the Energiewende immediately. A new study from the RWI Leibniz Institute for Economic Research finds that 61% of Germans wouldn’t want to pay even one eurocent more per kilowatt-hour of electricity to fund more renewables.”

The dramatic success of the AfD means that for the first time a party is represented in the Bundestag that opposes Germany’s plans to cut CO2 emissions by moving to renewable energy. Its sceptical stance on climate and green energy issues has sent shock-waves through Germany’s political establishment who fear they can no longer afford to appease the Greens without losing further support among their traditional voter base.

Without the development of new pragmatic policies and a forceful defence of a cheap energy strategy in face of a rapidly fading (and ageing) green movement, Germany is unlikely to free itself from the green shackles that are hindering technological and economic progress, never mind political stability. Much of the green ballast that is holding Germany back will need to be thrown overboard if the country wants to regain political stability and economic pragmatism.

Just as East Germany’s socialist central planning failed miserably before it was overthrown and replaced by an open society based on liberty and free markets, Germany’s climate religion and green central planning will have to be discarded before it  can return to energy realism and economic sanity.

Christopher Booker on BBC climate bias

The Professor from the Grantham Institute is Professor Joanna Haigh formerly from the Institute of Physics.    I am also a long standing member of the Institute of Physics and as the founder of the energy and climate group at the Institute of Physics in London  I can  clearly say Professor Haigh is wrong.

          There is no scientific evidence that the earth temperature is increasing.  Climate data in NOAA has been deliberately criminally altered lowering the temperature data before 1998 and increasing it after 1998 to give the false impression that the earth temperature in increasing in temperature.  All the main physics research in UK universities Northumberland, Southamption etc all indicate that climate change is due to the changing sun resulting in the earth heading towards a new ice age.  research by Professor Murry Salby(see his Westminster lecture) shows that nearly all the CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from natural sources such as high vegetation equatorial regions and ocean releases(over 98%). .

Three weeks ago, the BBC was happy to apologise for a breach of its legal obligation to report only with “accuracy and impartiality”, after an interviewer on the Today programme had failed to challenge a point which the global warming sceptic Lord Lawson had got wrong. (From Christopher Booker column in the Sunday Telegraph 19 November)

Yet in recent days, as Today has gone into overdrive to puff the latest UN climate talks in Bonn, it has repeatedly failed to challenge a string of climate alarmist interviewees on claims much more wildly misleading than anything said by Lord Lawson.

When, for instance, a professor from the Grantham Institute wanted to correct any idea that computer models had got wrong their predictions of rising global temperatures, she was allowed to claim, unchallenged, that they had all been “bang on”.

Yet last March, when Dr John Christy, who runs one of the two official satellite temperature records, presented the US Congress with a scrupulously compiled graph showing the truth of those model predictions, it made clear that only one of 105 had been anywhere the temperatures actually recorded. The rest had exaggerated the real temperatures by up to a whole degree or more.

The same professor was allowed to get away with claiming that the cost of renewable energy had “simply plummeted”. Again the real figures show otherwise. Our hugely subsidised offshore wind farms, for instance, are producing electricity for which we still have to pay up to £161 a megawatt hour, three and a half times the current wholesale price of electricity.

At midday last Wednesday, coal and gas were providing 73 per cent of all the electricity we were using, while all our wind farms put together contributed just 0.5 per cent. So how are we going to keep our lights on under the Government’s plans to eliminate all those “polluting” fossil fuels?

The professor assured listeners that every country other than President Trump’s US, has “signed up” to the Paris climate agreement. Two days later, Today’s Justin Webb, interviewing another professor happily recalled that Al Gore had recently “told this programme” that China was doing “rather well” in its drive to lead the world in renewables.

Yet not once has Today ever allowed us to know that, in documents supplied to that same Paris climate conference, the rest of the world, led by China and India, detailed its plans to build so many hundreds of new coal-fired power stations that global CO emissions will by 2030 have risen by 46 per cent.

acknowledgements Paul Homewood     Not a lot of people know that blog

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/19/driving-wall-stubborn-trade-talk/

BBC Forced to Withdraw Fake Sea Level Claims!

BBC World at One  Radio 4,  27 March 2017.

BBC Forced To Withdraw Fake Sea Level Claims by Paul Homewood By Paul Homewood http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/comp-reports/ecu/theworldatone270317 Readers may recall an item on the BBC World at One back in March about rising sea levels in Florida, when their correspondent claimed that: 1) Rising seas and flooding are turning Miami Beach into a modern day Atlantis, the city being submerged by water. 2) Sea levels at Miami are rising at ten times the global rate. I covered the story here. I complained to the BBC at the time, and, after being fobbed off the first time, escalated the complaint to the Executive Complaints Unit, who have now published the above judgment. Astonishingly, they regard the claims about “Atlantis” to be “soundly based”, even though they now accept that sea levels around Miami are only rising at about 8 inches a century. Of course, they had no choice but to withdraw the ludicrous claim about “ten times the global rate”! But why on earth does the World at One need to be reminded that they should not make scientific claims without actually checking the facts first? For that matter, why has not this instruction gone out to all news and documentary programmes and news sites as well?

ELECTRIFICATION FOR THE UK------DISASTER IN WAITING
Terri Jackson Bsc(hons physics) Msc MPhil(econ) MInstP
original founder energy and climate group at Institute of Physics
with contributions by Philip Foster MA(Natural Sciences).
WATCH THE TESLA ELECTRIC CAR EXPLODE IN FLAMES!
There has been much discussion in the press about the potential for
increasing electrification in the UK with a government date of 2040 for complete
electrification. Motoring organisations including the AA have expressed scepticism and
concern that it would place too much strain on the National Grid. The National Grid
estimates that most electric cars will require a battery capacity of 90 kilowatt hours(kWh) to
make journeys of around 300 miles. The present TESLA battery capacity is rated at 70KWh.
Philip Foster cites as a base calculation Drax power station which uses about 0.31 kilograms
of coal per KWh generated
(www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/f/fuelcomparison.htm). Fast charging is only 50%
efficient so a single charge will require 140KWh of electricity for a single charge, giving about
43 kilograms of coal for one charge(0.31x140). Using a higher capacity battery as suggested
by the National Grid of 90KWh would mean an even higher coal usage of 55.8 kilograms of
coal for a single charge.. A petrol car would require about 20 kilograms of petrol for the same
distance. So an electric car will release double the amount of CO2 of that of a petrol car. Also
the loss to the treasury of ending petrol car use is estimated to be £28 billion! (Edmund King
President AA. Times Report 28 October 2017)
Tesla car bursts into flames in test drive in France! Watch it on youtube!
https://youtu.be/ifaH7uzkMT8
( (see also www.notrickszone.com German web site. Pierre Gosselin)

Lawrence Solomon. Paris is dead! Global warming deniers have won!

, 2017) Since his pullout in June, Trump has repeatedly reaffirmed the
wisdom of pulling out of the “bad deal” for the U.S. that was Paris.
This article, by Lawrence Solomon, first appeared in the National Post Canada
LAWRENCE SOLOMON: PARIS IS DEAD!
Paris came to New York this week, with leaders of countries signing the 2015 Paris Climate
Agreement coming to the United Nations to chide, nudge or beseech Donald Trump in
hopes he would reverse his decision to scrap the agreement.
The U.K.’s Theresa May, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Justin Trudeau, among others,
could have saved their breath. Since his pullout in June, Trump has repeatedly reaffirmed
the wisdom of pulling out of the “bad deal” for the U.S. that was Paris. All the evidence that
has since come down only bolsters his case.
Shortly after Trump announced the pullout, stats from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal
confirmed that coal is on a tear, with 1600 plants planned or under construction in 62
countries. The champion of this coal-building binge is China, which boasts 11 of the world’s
20 largest coal-plant developers, and which is building 700 of the 1600 new plants, many
in foreign countries, including high-population countries such as Egypt and Pakistan that
until now have burned little or no coal.
All told, the plants underway represent a phenomenal 43 per cent increase in coal-fired
power capacity, making Trump’s case that China and other Third World countries are
eating the West’s lunch, using climate change as a club to kneecap us with expensive power
while enriching themselves.
The coal plants underway represent a phenomenal 43 per cent increase in
coal-fired power capacity
At the same time that growth in coal is soaring, that of renewables is sagging. As reported
by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, renewables investment fell in 2016 by 18 per cent

Australian Great Barrier Reef recovers in defiance of alarmistpredictions

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/coral-regeneration-raises-hopes-for-great-barrier-reef-recovery/9001518

                A survey of sites between Cairns and Townsville shows that the Great Barrier Reef has started to recover exposing the alarmist predictions of doom last year.(Report from the Australian Institute of Marine Science.)   The 2016 bleaching which was all over the BBC has not proved fatal at all in spite of the BBC and other media predictions.   Scientists from the AIMS surveyed 14 coral reef sites where the corals have already started to reproduce. (david Chen
30 September)

Pew Research Center: Most Americans dont believe in scientific consensus on climate

Pew: Most Americans Don’t Believe in ‘Scientific Consensus’ on Climate Change

By Lauretta Brown | October 4, 2016 | 1:34 PM EDT
cnsnews.com

FILE - In this Tuesday Aug, 16, 2005 file photo an iceberg melts in Kulusuk, Greenland near the arctic circle. (AP Photo/John McConnico, File)

(CNSNews.com) – Nearly three-quarters of Americans don’t trust that there is a large “scientific consensus” amongst climate scientists on human behavior being the cause of climate change, according to an in-depth survey on “the politics of climate” released Tuesday by Pew Research Center.

According to the survey, only 27 percent of Americans agree that “almost all” climate scientists say that human behavior is mostly responsible for climate change, while 35 percent say that “more than half” of climate scientists agree on this. An additional 35 percent of those surveyed say that fewer than half (20%) or almost no (15%) climate scientists believe that human behavior is the main contributing factor in climate change.

Pew contrasted this to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which “stated in the forward to its 2013 report, ‘the science now shows with 95 percent certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.’”

Additionally, Americans were skeptical about the expertise of climate scientists.

Just 33 percent of those surveyed said that climate scientists understand “very well” whether global climate change is happening, another 39 percent said climate scientists understand this “fairly well.” Twenty-seven percent of those surveyed say climate scientists don’t understand this “too well” or don’t understand it at all.

When it comes to the causes of global climate change only 28 percent say climate scientists understand them “very well” while 31 percent say the scientists understand them “not too well” or “not at all.”

Additionally, Americans seemed to lack trust in climate scientists’ solutions to climate change. Only 19 percent say climate scientists understand very well the best ways to address climate change, and 35 percent say the scientists understand this not too well or not at all.

Americans also don’t trust the news media’s coverage of climate change. Forty-seven percent of those surveyed say the media does a “good job” covering global climate change, while 51% say they do a “bad job.”

Thirty-five percent of Americans say the media “exaggerate the threat of climate change,” and 42 percent say the media “don’t take the threat of climate change seriously enough.” Just 20 percent say the media are “about right in their reporting.”

UN Climate Panel cannot be trusted. Ball and Harris Citizens Journal.

UN climate panel cannot be trusted

Added by Debra Tash on September 8, 2017.
Saved under Editorial, General Editorial
Tags: Dr. Tim Ball, Tom Harris, UN climate panel

By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris

Policy-makers, not scientists, lead the IPCC process

In his Opening Statement on Wednesday at the 46^th Session of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Montreal, IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee asserted that “Science underpins the negotiating process and provides the evidence base for sound policy.”

In reality, the IPCC is highly biased and simply ignores findings that do not conform with the climate alarm. This is because, contrary to its original purpose of studying all climate change, the IPCC role is now: “to assess …the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced [italics added] climate change…”

The problem is, you cannot determine the human effect unless you know the extent and cause of natural climate change. And, of course, if human-induced climate change was found to be trivial, there would be no reason for the IPCC to exist. The IPCC therefore always supports the climate scare, no matter what the science reveals.

The IPCC’s narrow mandate is one of the results of the definition of climate change given by the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Convention asserts:

“Climate Change means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”

Since the IPCC is required to support the Framework Convention, the IPCC had to adopt the UNFCCC’s political definition of climate change. This results in policy-makers, not scientists, leading the process. Indeed, IPCC vice-chair Thelma Krug admitted as much when, according to the Canadian Press (Sep 6, 2017), she said that the scientists are guided by policy-makers in member states. Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorology professor Richard Lindzen was not exaggerating when he said that the supposed scientific consensus was reached before the research had even begun.

That this was bound to happen was clear from the start. The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report stated:

“it is not possible at this time to attribute all, or even a large part, of the observed global-mean warming to the enhanced greenhouse effect on the basis of the observational data currently available.”

Yet, two years later, the UNFCCC’s primary objective was established: “to achieve … stabilization of greenhouse gas [GHG] concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [human-caused] interference with the climate system.”

The fact that, in 1992 (and even today), we had no idea what GHG concentrations would lead to “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” was immaterial. The die was cast. The world-wide climate alarm had begun.

At least some in the IPCC must recognize that the UNFCCC’s skewed definition of climate change makes no sense. A footnote to the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report’s Summary for Policymakers asserts:

“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the UNFCCC, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity.”

This is not true, of course. Following the UNFCCC’s lead, the IPCC reports effectively exclude most natural variables and mechanisms. This is politically necessary so as to support the predetermined conclusion that human sources of carbon dioxide (CO₂) are causing dangerous climate change. This, despite the fact that CO₂, from natural and human sources is only 4% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

This is not true, of course. Following the UNFCCC’s lead, the IPCC reports effectively exclude most natural variables and mechanisms. This is politically necessary so as to support the predetermined conclusion that human sources of carbon dioxide (CO₂) are causing dangerous climate change. This, despite the fact that CO₂, from natural and human sources combined, is only 4% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Voltaire once said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” Like the politicians and bureaucrats who created the terms of reference for the IPCC and the UNFCCC, Voltaire understood how definitions direct and limit debates and ultimately control outcomes. Its time governments woke up to this scandal and the IPCC and the UNFCCC terminated.

Citizens Journal California US.  Dr Tim Ball is the former Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg.  Tom Harris is the executive officer of Climate Science International.

DIESELGATE. Wall Street Journal exposes the German motoring scandal.

             The WSJ in a recent article has exposed the growing German car dieselgate scandal  based on the climate alarmist political idiocy behind Germany`s deception when diesel engine powered vehicles were falsely portrayed and promoted as environmentally superior to combustion engine powered vehicles.( https://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-coming-global-car-wreck-1503695929-1MyQjAxMTA3MTI1NjQyMDY5Wj/). The German dieselgate scandal by Larry Hamlin.

         The WSJ article exposes how the German press have disguised and obfuscated the fact that politically mandated commitments to meaningless CO2 emissions reductions have driven the industry`s great green disaster.  WSJ notes that the prominent German magazine Der Spiegel has spent much of the summer hoarsely condemning VW, BMW, Audi, Mercedes and Porsche accusing them of besmirching the reputation of "made in Germany" in the eyes of the world, never mind   record sales lately of BMW and Mercedes cars.   Not a word from Der Spiegel that the German dieselgate scandal arises entirely from European politicians politically correct pursuit of meaningless reductions of CO2.

          The WSJ article suggests that this entire climate alarmist driven political diesel swindle will be swept under the rug to promote yet more politically driven escapades pushing EVs as the next answer to making further car industry meaningless CO2 emissions reductions in support of climate alarmist idiocy. The switch from gasoline to diesel made the air in European cities significantly less breathable thanks to diesel particulates and nitrogen oxides. There has been no inclination to question the cost benefit basis of the anti carbon crusade.   The carbon imperialists as the Indian government has called them.   Chancellor Merkel has cunningly tried to distance herself from her role in this debacle by trying to blame the German car makers. The next disastrous move from the alarmist politicians is to get the car manufacturers to build electric vehicles, another move that will prove even more disastrous than the move from gasoline to diesel.
     (taken from the WSJ article by Larry Hamlin 2

7 August 2017).
CONGRATULATIONS TO ANDREW MONTFORD ON BEING ELECTED DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FORUM(www.thegwpf.com)

Why `an inconvenient truth`(Al Gore global warming film) cannot be the truth

Tom Harris executive director of Canada based International Climate Science Coalition.
    PAGOSA DAILY POST   Pagosa Springs  Colorado  10 August 2017

Overlooked in the debates about former Vice-President Al Gore’s global warming films, An Inconvenient Truth (2006) and An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power (2017), is the fact that ‘truth’ is not possible in science.
Scientific hypotheses, and even scientific theories, are not truth; they can be, and often are, wrong.
Truth applies to mathematics, chess, and other endeavors in which we write the rules. It never applies to our findings about nature, which are educated opinions based on scientists’ interpretations of observations. Philosophers since ancient times have recognized that observations always have some degree of uncertainty and so they cannot prove anything to be true. Not only are our methods of observing imperfect but, as human beings subject to many influences, we all have biases that affect how we interpret what we think we see.
At first, it was mostly activists and politicians who made claims to certainty about climate change. But increasingly, more scientists now use such language as well. A prime example is scientists who work with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has repeatedly claimed that some of their major conclusions are “unequivocal,” in other words, ideas that cannot be wrong.
For instance, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Synthesis Report starts, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of…”
Although a supporter of the human-caused global warming hypothesis, Lehigh University philosophy professor Steven Goldman explained in a personal communication that the IPCC statement is faulty. It is “an attempt to persuade extra-logically,” said Goldman. “Strictly logically, no observations can lead to an ‘unequivocal’ interpretation.”
David Wojick, a Virginia-based Ph.D. in the logic and philosophy of science, disagrees with Goldman about climate change but agrees that the IPCC made a serious mistake in the Synthesis Report. “Reasoning from evidence is inductive logic,” said Wojick. “As for unequivocal, that is never the case in inductive logic.”
Yet, in speaking about the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I co-chair Dr. Thomas Stocker asserted that “warming in the climate system is unequivocal.” Canadian historical climatologist Dr. Tim Ball calls Stocker’s statement “nonsense.”
The promotion of absolute truths in science has impeded human progress for centuries. For example, when the Greco-Egyptian writer Claudius Ptolemy proposed his Earth-centered system, he did not say it was physical astronomy, a true description of how the universe actually worked. He promoted it as mathematical astronomy, a model that worked well for astrology, astronomical observations, and creating calendars.
It was the Catholic Church that, relying on a literal interpretation of the Bible, promoted the Ptolemaic system as ‘truth’ — to be questioned at one’s peril. This was why Nicolaus Copernicus, a Canon in the Church, waited until he was on his death bed before he allowed his revolutionary book — showing the Sun to be the center of the universe — to be published, even though the text was completed three decades previous. This is also why Galileo had so much trouble when he claimed that the Church was wrong and that Copernicanism was the truth, a position that Galileo could not really know either.
Later, the assumed, unquestionable truths of Isaac Newton’s laws eventually acted to slow the advancement of science until Albert Einstein showed that there were important exceptions to the laws.
When authorities preach ‘truth’ about science, progress stops.
Einstein once said, “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” It might be humorous to the gods, but when eco-activists like Gore succeed in suppressing debate about climate change — one of the most important issues of our age — we all lose.

Trump digs coal

Photograph: Donald J Trump at a rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa, last month. Credit Dominick Reuter/Agence France-Presse------Getty images.

Electricity Generation   

In 2016, annual U.S. electricity generation from natural gas surpassed generation from coal-fired power plants, the first time this has happened based on data going back to 1949. Natural gas supplied an estimated 34% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2016 compared with 30% for coal. The increase in the share of generation fueled by natural gas last year was driven by sustained low prices for natural gas. The U.S. average price for natural gas delivered to electric generators was $2.88/million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2016.

Natural gas prices have risen since last year, with the delivered price to electric generators averaging $3.58/MMBtu during the first half of 2017. EIA estimates that the share of total U.S. generation fueled by natural gas during the first half of this year averaged 29%, down from nearly 34% during the same period last year. In contrast, coal’s share of generation rose from 28% in the first half of 2016 to 30% in first half of 2017. Another reason for the decline in natural gas generation so far this year is the strong increase in conventional hydroelectric generation, particularly in the western states. The share of total generation in the West census division supplied from hydropower averaged an estimated 32% in the first half of 2017, compared with 27% during the first half of last year.

EIA expects a less pronounced change in generation shares during the second half of 2017. Natural gas is expected fuel 33% of total U.S. generation in the second half of 2017, compared with 34% during the second half of 2016. The delivered natural gas price to electric generators is expected to average $3.60/MMBtu between July and December 2017, up 46 cents from the same period in 2016. Coal’s share of generation in the second half of 2017 is relatively unchanged from the second half last year at 32%.

Natural gas and coal are expected to fuel about the same amount of generation in 2018, with each providing slightly more than 31% of total U.S. generation. Renewable energy sources other than hydropower are forecast to supply nearly 10% of U.S. generation in 2018, up from slightly more than 8% in 2016.

US EIA  US Energy Information Administration

According to the EIA’s July report, “EIA estimates that the share of total U.S. generation fueled by natural gas during the first half of this year averaged 29%… In contrast, coal’s share of generation rose from 28% in the first half of 2016 to 30% in first half of 2017.” For the full year 2017, EIA estimates that coal will generate 3.453 million kilowatts per day, while natural gas, because of a rise in its retail price this year, will generate a hair less, or 3.432 million kilowatts. Wind and solar remain niche sources of energy providing about one-seventh as much power as coal and gas.

That’s not all. On July 21, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that “mining increased 21.6 percent.… The first quarter growth primarily reflected increases in oil and gas extraction, as well as support activities for mining. This was the largest increase since the fourth quarter of 2014.” ‎No other major American industry had such gains and across all industries output was up less than 2%.

As for the drilling and mining industries, they have gained more than 50,000 jobs since Trump’s election with 8,000 added in June alone. Many of these were in the oil and gas industry, but some were in coal, whose output has increased 12% this year.  Stephen Moore American Spectator

Every state in the US over 90F July 1934.

Every state in the US was over 90F in 19 July 1934, many over 100F.   Highest temperatures in US history.  acknowledgements to Google earth and Tony Heller.  (to say todays temperatures 2017and 2016 were highest is outright lies)

Tom Harris article in Washington Times on climate change

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/5/energy-policy-of-trump-has-flaws/

The flaw in President Trump`s energy policy.
Tom Harris International Climate Science Coalition

President Trump’s energy policies are, mostly, a beautiful thing to see. In line with his America First Energy Plan, Mr. Trump has ended the Obama administration’s war on coal, America’s least expensive source of electricity, by rescinding the Clean Power Plan and other burdensome and unnecessary regulations. He has fast-tracked the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to increase the flow of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta to U.S. refineries. And of course, he has announced U.S. withdrawal from the flawed Paris Agreement on climate change, while promising to “refocus the [Environmental Protection Agency] on its essential mission of protecting our air and water.”

On June 29, at the Unleashing American Energy Event at the Department of Energy in Washington, Mr. Trump went even further. He committed to work to “revive and expand our nuclear energy sector,” starting with a “complete review of U.S. nuclear energy policy.” He will encourage the financing of highly efficient overseas coal stations. New petroleum pipelines are in also the mix, as are new natural gas sales to South Korea, new export terminals for natural gas, and a new offshore oil and gas leasing program.

But there is a fly in the ointment, an echo of climate change policies that, according to the Congressional Research Service, the Obama administration spent $120 billion on. Rather than dismissing the Paris Agreement as fundamentally unsound, a multitrillion-dollar boondoggle devoid of sound science, Mr. Trump said at the Energy Department event, “Maybe we’ll be back into it someday, but it will be on better terms, fairer terms. We’ll see.”

The Paris Agreement is based on the hypothesis that carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial activities are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous climate change. If carbon-dioxide emissions are harmless or, as Energy Secretary Rick Perry said last month, not “the primary control knob for climate,” then the raison d’etre for Paris vanishes. It makes no sense to boast, as Mr. Perry does, that, even though the U.S. is withdrawing from the agreement, “the United States already leads the world in lowering emissions.”
All efforts to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions are, at best, a waste of money. That includes the capture and storage underground of carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, which Robert E. Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., told E&E News on June 30, “was a pseudonym for no coal.” Mr. Murray explained, “It is neither practical nor economic . It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, ‘Look what I did for coal,’ knowing all the time that it doesn’t help coal at all.”
Senior fellow for energy and climate at the Heartland Institute, Frederick D. Palmer, said, “Though still undergoing further research, capturing CO2 and compressing it to a liquid for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery from shale fields may be valuable. But it should be funded mostly by industry as they see fit, not the government.

US Energy Secretary Rick Perry questions CO2 climate change.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry did a remarkable thing last week: he expressed skepticism about the causes of climate change in a TV interview and, even after widespread condemnation from environmentalists and the press, he did it again a few days later before a major Senate committee.

After telling a CNBC host on June 19 that he did not believe that carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the primary “control knob” for climate, Perry said:

“This idea that science [of climate change] is just absolutely settled and if you don’t believe it’s settled then you’re somehow another Neanderthal, that is so inappropriate from my perspective. I think if you’re going to be a wise, intellectually-engaged person, being a skeptic about some of these issues is quite alright.”

Climate activists and many media were outraged. The Houston Chronicle reported, “Perry’s comments drew attacks from environmental groups, which called the former Texas governor a ‘climate denier.’” The Chronicle’s energy correspondent, James Osborne, condemned Perry for questioning “one of the fundamental tenets of climate change.”

“Rick Perry’s outrageous comments are the latest indication that this administration will do everything in its power to put polluter profits ahead of science and public health,” said Sierra Club Climate Policy Director Liz Perera.

Labeling Perry’s comments “anti-science,” Mashable, a prominent online media company, headlined their coverage, “Rick Perry just said CO2 isn’t the leading driver of climate change, even though it is.”

On and on went the attacks from Associated Press, Salon magazine, Toronto Star, Market Watch, etc. Media outlets that reported uncritically on Perry’s comments were few and far between.

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) even sent an open letter to the Secretary, warning him, “It is critically important that you understand that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause [of recent global warming]… Skepticism that fails to account for evidence is no virtue.”

Most politicians would have responded to the onslaught by quickly issuing a mea culpa press release, pledging allegiance to political correctness. But not Perry. Only three days later, in response to intense questioning by Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) at the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee hearing about President Trump’s 2018 energy department budget request, Perry asked, “Don’t you think it’s OK to have this conversation about the science of climate change…What’s wrong with being a skeptic about something that we’re talking about that’s going to have a massive impact on the American economy?”

Perry’s points about climate change, in both the TV interview and his Senate testimony, are justified. And being a skeptic about such a complex and uncertain field, especially one with expensive policy ramifications, is indeed “quite alright.” Besides being necessary for science to advance, skepticism is the duty of our elected officials when activists demand the allocation of vast sums of public money to contentious causes.

In fact, dozens of open letters and other public lists show that many experts do not support the hypothesis that we face a man-made climate crisis. The Climate Scientists’ Register assembled by the International Climate Science Coalition is perhaps the simplest document of its kind. In only a few days in 2010, over 100 experts from 22 countries agreed to the following statement:

Leading alarmist climate scientist Michael Mann commits contempt of court

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
report by John  O`Sullivan (PSI EO)

Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

Defendant in the libel trial, 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

John O'Sullivan

CEO & Trustee: 

Principia Scientific International (A registered UK charity)  

http://principia-scientific.org/

Merkel`s G-20 Climate Alliance is Crumbling

Merkel’s G-20 Climate Alliance Is Crumbling

The German chancellor had been hoping to isolate Donald Trump on climate issues at the upcoming G-20 summit in Hamburg. But Merkel’s hoped-for alliance is crumbling, underscoring Germany’s relative political weakness globally. Many countries are wary of angering the United States.

By Christiane Hoffmann, Peter Müller and Gerald Traufetter

June 09, 2017 06:49 PM

German Chancellor Angela Merkel had actually thought that Canada’s young, charismatic prime minister, Justin Trudeau, could be counted among her reliable partners. Particularly when it came to climate policy. Just two weeks ago, at the G-7 summit in Sicily, he had thrown his support behind Germany. When Merkel took a confrontational approach to U.S. President Donald Trump, Trudeau was at her side.

But by Tuesday evening, things had changed. At 8 p.m., Merkel called Trudeau to talk about how to proceed following Trump’s announced withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. To her surprise, the Canadian prime minister was no longer on the attack. He had switched to appeasement instead.

What would be wrong with simply striking all mentions of the Paris Agreement from the planned G-20 statement on climate, Trudeau asked. He suggested simply limiting the statement to energy issues, something that Trump would likely support as well. Trudeau had apparently changed his approach to Trump and seemed concerned about further provoking his powerful neighbor to the south.

The telephone call made it clear to Merkel that her strategy for the G-20 summit in early July might fail. The chancellor had intended to clearly isolate the United States. at the Hamburg meeting, hoping that 19 G-20 countries would underline their commitment to the Paris Agreement and make Trump a bogeyman of world history. A score of 19:1.

From the G-6 to the G-3

But even before Trump announced the American withdrawal from the Paris Agreement that evening in the White House Rose Garden, it had become clear in Berlin that they would miss their first target. Led by the Italian G-7 presidency, the plan had been for a joint reaction to Trump’s withdrawal, an affirmation from the remaining six leading industrial nations: We remain loyal to Paris.

Suddenly, though, Britain and Japan no longer wanted to be part of it. British Prime Minister Theresa May didn’t want to damage relations with Trump, since she would need him in the event of a hard Brexit, the Chancellery surmised last week. And given the tensions with North Korea, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe couldn’t put his country’s alliance with the U.S. at risk. In other words: Climate policy is great, but when it comes to national interests, it is secondary.

[…]

It is a defeat for Merkel, and not just when it comes to climate policy. It is also a setback for her claim to leadership on the global stage. Germany’s geopolitical influence, the incident shows, remains limited. When it comes to power, security and interests, Germany is a not a global player, but a mid-sized power that isn’t even able to keep Europe together.

[…]

Hope Fades

In parallel, though, Merkel’s advisers are working on an “Action Plan on Climate, Energy and Growth,” a document that had initially been planned for the 19 in Merkel’s original 19:1 calculation. But hope is fading that enough heads of state and government can be found to sign the document.

[…]

There are widespread concerns that a whole list of countries might pull back out of fear of the consequences for their relations with Trump – something they aren’t willing to risk over the question as to how hot it might be on the planet in 100 years.

(acknowledgements to whatsupwiththat.com  David Middleton.

President Trump withdraws the United States from Paris Climate Agreement

           PRESIDENT TRUMP  WITHDRAWS  US FROM DISASTROUS PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT.

                           The cost of the Paris Climate Deal would be at least $100 trillion(yes trillon!) for the rest of this century with a maximum reduction of 0.3 F degrees in global average temperature.(insignificant).  Even this assumes global warming when the changing sun points to global cooling and a new ice age (backed by nearly all UK physics research departments in UK universities).  The moves to renewables both in the US and in the UK will devastate their economies if not stopped. The German press agency DPA has reported over 330 000 electricity consumers disconnected from the electric grid over the past year because they cannot afford to pay their high electricity bills due to the massive subsidies given to renewables.  In the UK the recent OBR report estimates that all households in the UK will by 2022 be paying £722 per household for these same subsidies. High electricity prices are due to renewables subsidies not due to the energy companies as politicians would try to have you believe.
               The Paris agreement would trap billions in extreme poverty for generations by denying them access to abundant, affordable, reliable energy.   the agreement allows countries like China to go on  building hundreds of coal fired power stations up to 2030.  No wonder China backs the agreement.  The Paris Agreement is illegal in the US and never got the vote of the Senate in the US Congress.  It has been treated as a treaty although it was due to ex President Obama signing a executive order. It should have gone to the Senate where it would have been defeated.  Senator James Inhofe says "By pulling out of the Paris Agreement Trump is further demonstrating his priority of American energy dominance"(USA Today).  The US has paid $1 billion into the Green climate fund,  China and Russia have paid nothing.  No wonder China supports the agreement.

German climate disaster. Over 300 000 without electricity!

The Times today 31/5/17

Sir,

Mrs Merkel criticises President Trump for failing to endorse the 2015
Paris climate change deal. However, the Deutsche Presse-Agentur, a
press agency, reports that more than 330,000 German households have
been cut off from the electricity grid because of a failure to pay the
massive prices. This is due to increasing climate subsidies for
renewables. So is it any wonder Mr Trump has doubts? As a result of
Mrs Merkel†s climate policies, energy poverty is engulfing Germany.
She may say that Europe can no longer depend on Britain and the US,
but in reality it is Britain and the US who can no longer rely on
Germany and Europe.

Terri Jackson     31 May