By Paul Homewood
I covered Matt McGrath’s report last week on the then ongoing discussions re the IPCC report. Tucked away right at the end was this paragraph:
A new analysis by a group of environmental organisations says that 1,380 new coal plants or units are planned, or under development, in 59 countries. If built, these plants would add 672,124 megawatts of energy capacity to the global coal plant fleet – an increase of 33%.
I doubt whether any of these new plants contradict anything pledged in INDCs at Paris, which rather underlines the whole futility of the exercise there.
And while some of the plants may replace older polluting ones, countries who are building them certainly will not be prepared to close these new ones prematurely.
Globally, coal power generation currently accounts for about 47% of total power, so an increase in capacity of 33% will add signficantly…
View original post 21 more words
This post is a reblog of the Manhattan Contrarian Quiz — Climate Tipping Points Edition
October 11, 2018/ by Francis Menton. Text in italics with my bolds.
On Monday the UN IPCC came out with its latest Special Report, this one supposedly addressed specifically to the allegedly dire consequences of allowing world temperatures to increase by more than an arbitrarily-selected threshold. Here is a copy of the “Summary for Policymakers,” and here is a copy of the accompanying press release. But I urge you not to peek at those until you have taken today’s very important Manhattan Contrarian Climate Tipping Points Quiz.
Many have noted that this latest Report seems to step up the level of hysteria and shrieking about the threat of climate change to a whole new level. The gist is, we are doomed, doomed, doomed unless mankind takes immediate drastic action to reduce and then eliminate carbon…
View original post 1,722 more words
Occasionally, the Nobel Committee gives a prize which is unexpected, surprising, yet deft in how it points out underappreciated research. This year, they did no such thing. Both William Nordhaus and Paul Romer have been running favorites for years in my Nobel betting pool with friends at the Federal Reserve. The surprise, if anything, is that the prize went to both men together: Nordhaus is best known for his environmental economics, and Romer for his theory of “endogenous” growth.
On reflection, the connection between their work is obvious. But it is the connection that makes clear how inaccurate many of today’s headlines – “an economic prize for climate change” – really is. Because it is not the climate that both winners build on, but rather a more fundamental economic question: economic growth. Why are some places and times rich and others poor? And what is the impact of these differences?…
View original post 3,487 more words
In my previous post here I explained why the Google memo is fundamentally right in its factual claims about the broad population, which in turn explains the proportion of women in Google itself. Here I discuss some arguments against what has already been explained.
View original post 4,326 more words