Introduction

This article is concerned with the two main forms of weather dependent Renewable Energy, Wind Power (Onshore and Offshore) and Photovoltaic solar power.  In the UK this amounts to ~75{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of all installed Renewable Energy.  The other renewable energy  inputs are traditional Hydro power ~8{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} and the remainder are other sources such as biomass, waste and landfill gas amounting to ~17{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.

The capacity percentage of any power generating installation is calculated as the actual electrical output achieved divided by the nominal Nameplate output.  This article uses both stated estimates from the USA  EIA and real measures of capacity in Europe as of 2014. It thus provides reasonably correct comparisons of the efficacy of Renewable installations.

A decade has passed since TIME magazine published a famous cover and report on “global warming,” and even though one organization says TIME got it right, another says it couldn’t be further from the truth.

In 2006, TIME published a “special report” on global warming. The cover showed a polar bear standing on a patch of ice and snow while gazing down at a large span of water. TIME went on to argue that, among other things, “climate change” is not some vague future problem, claiming that it is already damaging the planet at an alarming pace.

Over the past week, ThinkProgress.org hailed the cover and said the main story was an accurate portrayal.

“[The TIME story presents a] very solid, even prescient, piece of reporting – warning about polar ice loss, sea level rise, severe drought, and other extreme weather,” ThinkProgress stated.

Meanwhile, Marc Morano of Climate Depot says TIME’s 10-year-old was mere doom and gloom.

By 2014 European Union countries had invested approximately €1.1 trillion, €1,100,000,000,000, in large scale Renewable Energy installations.

This has provided a nominal nameplate electrical generating capacity of about 216 Gigawatts, or nominally about ~22{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the total European generation needs of about 1000 Gigawatts.

The actual measured output by 2014 from data supplied by the Renewables Industry has been 38 Gigawatts or 3.8{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of Europe’s electricity requirement, at a capacity factor of ~18{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} overall.

Since the early 1980s, grave concerns have been raised about the process by which scientific evidence gets produced.

Two months ago, I embarked on a research project that veered off in unexpected directions, metamorphosing into a more time-consuming and labour-intensive exercise than anticipated.

Along the way, I learned a great deal about how science gets practiced in the real world – as opposed to the idealized “Science” of my imagination. Yes, I’d known full well that climate science was a mess. Rather than inspiring confidence, legions of its practitioners act as though they’re selling something. On the one hand, they’re quick to dismiss alternative perspectives. On the other, they grasp at every half-baked rationale available to advance their own worldview. And yes, I’d already begun to notice parallels to the scientific debate concerning cholesterol, dietary fat, and heart disease.

But my recent adventure has persuaded me that the scientific enterprise, as it is now conducted in government-funded universities, is far more dubious than I had hitherto appreciated. I’m currently reading a book that was published in 1982, the year I left high school. William Broad and Nicholas Wade, two New York Times journalists, had figured out 34 years ago something with which I am only now coming to terms: the reality of science is so far removed from the ideal that vast swaths of what we think we know may be nonsense.

Online researcher William Kay provides a comprehensive new list of 356 Enviro-Critical and/or Climate-Sceptical Websites; 78 Funded Enviro-Critical Organizations; 115 Philanthropic Donors to the Enviro-Critical Movement and 2 Concluding Criticisms.

Kay writes: The starting place for compiling this list were the “blogrolls” or “links” sections of the better known climate-sceptical and/or enviro-critical websites. Many of the websites listed there have blogrolls of their own, which were also surveyed. Overall, about 100 such lists were perused. Only websites appearing on these lists were selected for the list below. 

About 20 blogrolls contain over 100 entries each but there is a lot overlapping content. Moreover, the lists tend to be poorly maintained and thus include many broken links and dud sites. They also include websites with little enviro-content.

The Lord Monckton Foundation website has an impressive 300 hyperlinks, but over half of these link not to websites but to individual articles, papers, and data-sets, or to pro-global warming sites including one that calls Lord Monckton a “purple crested crackpot.” In fairness to Lord Monckton, he is not advertising his list as being exclusively a roll call of enviro-critical/climate-sceptical sites. Only about 70 of his entries fit this definition, which still makes it one of the longest such lists on the Internet.

The long-controversial notion that there’s an as-yet-undiscovered “ninth planet*” has had a boost from the best kind of science: a prediction of its effects, borne out by observation.

The boffins that re-opened the debate in January this year, Caltech’s Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown, are feeling vindicated after a presentation (video below story) by astronomer Michelle Bannister at the SETI Institute.

That presentation included a slide showing an as-yet-uncatalogued Kuiper Belt object (KBO) with an alignment Batygin and Brown say fits with their predictions.

New study of previously overlooked U.S. government records from World War Two of data of human emissions of industrial (war-time) carbon dioxide (CO2) casts further doubt on the ‘greenhouse gas’ theory promoted by climate alarmists.

Independent research by Seldon B. Graham Jr. analysed the known and vastly-increased output of industrial CO2 emissions during World War Two, as obtained via the U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) to determine its impacts on climate. By comparing the data with the known levels of CO2 in the atmosphere it is shown there was neither any increase on global temperatures nor (surprisingly) any increase in measured atmospheric CO2 levels.

These findings are at odds with claims routinely made by alarmist academic climate experts who say more human emissions equals more ‘dangerous’ heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere leading to higher global temperatures.

That is what the mainstream theory of a supposed ‘enhanced’ greenhouse gas effect (GHE) due to raised emissions of industrial CO2 tells us. But no such outcome is detected for the entire wartime decade, according to NASA.

The facts continue to discredit the left’s fraudulent “consensus of experts.” This time, it is in the form of a recent survey of climate scientists by George Mason University. More than four thousand American Meteorological Society (AMS) members were recently asked about their positions on global warming (or ‘climate change,’ now that we know zero actual warminghas occurred for decades). And the results predictably fly in the face of everything we have been told.

Approximately one-third acknowledged that global warming “is not occurring, is mostly natural, or is at most half-natural and half man-made … or simply think we ‘don’t know.'” This number explodes to the vast majority once climate scientists are asked about catastrophic global warming—the absurdly hysterical Al Gore branch of alarmist fear-mongering, in which liberals relentlessly insist that their ideological war on science is about a full-blown crisis that somehow urgently threatens all of humanity.

Periodic mass extinctions on Earth, as indicated in the global fossil record, could be linked to a suspected ninth planet, according to research published by a faculty member of the University of Arkansas Department of Mathematical Sciences.

Daniel Whitmire, a retired professor of astrophysics now working as a math instructor, published findings in the January issue of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society that the as yet undiscovered “Planet X” triggers comet showers linked to mass extinctions on Earth at intervals of approximately 27 million years.

Though scientists have been looking for Planet X for 100 years, the possibility that it’s real got a big boost recently when researchers from Caltech inferred its existence based on orbital anomalies seen in objects in the Kuiper Belt, a disc-shaped region of comets and other larger bodies beyond Neptune. If the Caltech researchers are correct, Planet X is about 10 times the mass of Earth and could currently be up to 1,000 times more distant from the sun.

What follows are the 3 newly published papers and their abstracts which flat out conclude IPCC alarmist science may be fatally flawed. Hat-tip Kenneth Richard.

The main points are emphasized in bold print.

1. Trends in Extreme Weather Events since 1900 – An Enduring Conundrum for Wise Policy Advice

“It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change. The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years’ time scale and the current predictions provides a real conundrum when any engineer tries to make a professional assessment of the real future value of any infrastructure project which aims to mitigate or adapt to climate change. What is the appropriate basis on which to make judgements when theory and data are in such disagreement?

Our desire for must-have gadgets is leading to ‘fertility decline’

Keeping up with the Jones’ by spending on flashy status symbols is pushing down childbirth rates, new research claims.

Striving for a new car, house, or the latest must-have gadget is the main reason why many people in the West are delaying having even one child – or abandoning the idea altogether.   

Our brains – which evolved to live in much smaller societies – are now ‘misfiring’ as we ‘overinvest’ in accumulating high-status items, it is claimed. 

Paul Hooper, an anthropologist at Emory University, Atlanta, developed a mathematical model to simulate the effect growth of striving for material goods has on fertility.

Scientists in Japan have successfully transplanted mice with lab-grown skin that has more of the organ’s working parts in place than ever before.

Starting with stem cells made from a mouse’s gums, they managed to craft skin with multiple layers – as well as hair follicles and sweat glands.

When implanted into a “nude mouse” with a suppressed immune system, it integrated well and sprouted hairs.

Researchers say this success will take 5-10 years to translate into humans.

But eventually, the team hopes their system will lead to perfectly functioning skin that can be grown from the cells of burns victims and transplanted back on to them.

Few people cherish the idea of having to spend time at a laundromat to clean their undies. Rejoice, help is nigh – in the form of “self-cleaning laundry.” Two days ago, even the American Chemical Society chirped in with a post about the new laundry’s environmental effects.

Needless to say, the textilian Laundromat Index on the stock exchange is already in freefall.

This revolutionary development comes to you thanks to the invention of “nano”-technology. Nano, of course, is a scientific term, a common prefix, based on the ancient Greek word for dwarf and generally describing something that is one billionth (10^-9) of the reference unit.

Down to Nitty-Gritty

So, for example, a “nano-mile” (a mile being roughly 1,600 meter) would be around 1.6 micrometer.  As the average thickness of a strand of human hair is only 0.00394 inches ( or 100 micrometer) that would equate a nano-mile to approximately 0.00006 inches or 1/70th the diameter of a human hair. In other words, anything “nano” is small, very small! Now, how does that relate to your laundry?

Many ancient civilizations came up with lime-based cement like materials to use as mortar in construction, from the gypsum-based plaster used on the pyramids in Egypt to sticky rice/lime mortar employed in parts of the Great Wall of China, but it was the Greeks and Romans who got lucky by adding locally abundant volcanic ash to their cement mix. This formula resulted in a mortar that not only set up quickly and with great strength but could also harden under water and then survive 2,000 years of crashing seas, as the seawall in Italy’s Pozzuoli Bay has. When the Romans mixed in bits of brick and gravel, they got opus caementicium, which we now know as concrete from the Latin,concretus, which means “to grow together.” Ever visited the Pantheon in Rome? That amazing freestanding dome with a 142-foot diameter is made of the stuff. Unreinforced. It has survived 1,890 years and multiple earthquakes with little or no maintenance. So why can’t our roads and bridges survive a tiny fraction as long?

Research just released in February by MIT, Georgetown University, the French National Center for Scientific Research, and the Concrete Sustainability Hub aims to provide some answers. For all these millennia, nobody has fully understood the atomic-level crystal grain structure of this miraculous material that upon adding water becomes a paste that can flow into complex forms and then harden into a strong solid in a matter of hours or weeks depending on the formula used.

The life of a climate skeptic is no holiday. We battle against a well-entrenched public misconception that is supported by most of the media and politicians. When we are invited to lecture on our “heresy” or to debate somebody that supports the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we have to be prepared with ironclad arguments and equipped with scientific sources beyond reproach—and still we are frequently perceived as loonies. To wit, there is little fun in a skeptic’s career (but, to quote Gimli the Dwarf: “Certainty of death, small chance of success … What are we waiting for?”)—and one of the highlights of mine was being invited to contribute to the Slayer volume.

Recently (in October 2010) I published a considerably less ambitious skeptic’s book of my own in Slovenian: Podnebna prevara (The Climate Fraud, www.orbis.si). I was in the final editing process when news of the forthcoming Slayer book was announced, so I sought to establish contact with the authors to get a sneak peak at the material; I wanted to check whether I had made any blatant errors in my own work (I did not). After my book was already in print, I happened to come across the following little piece of “scientific consensus” that the IPCC flies by, so my first thought was to share it with Claes Johnson.

My involvement with the isotopic argument started when a fellow skeptic from the US became involved in a debate about the causes of global warming (a.k.a. climate change) and his opponent advanced the argument that CO2 from human activity—such as coal combustion—can be distinguished from “natural” carbon dioxide even far away from its emission, citing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as the source.

Fraud: While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven’t been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.

We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.