The Climate Change Hoax

[LesPalenik]

One of the biggest on the market in Denmark DONG has stated "We are in the process of rebuilding a number of central power stations to burn wood chips or pellets instead of coal and gas, as they contribute to Denmark's green transition. It is our core competency and we should focus on. Our goal is that at least half of the electricity and heat coming from our power plants, must come from biomass by 2020, "says Thomas Dalsgaard.

How clean is burning of the wood chips and pellets?

[Hans Kruse]

How clean is burning of the wood chips and pellets?

It is seen as a temporary solution until completely clean energy can be provided. The CO2 is neutral except for the production and transport (I believe I have heard a number like 20% of the energy is spent on transport and production). Emissions other than that I don't know. I would expect that there are filters to capture particles etc. You can see in the links that teh wind power installed is quite a lot. Almost as much as all central powerplants together.

One possible project between Holland, Germany and Denmark of a huge windmill farm at 70GW is here https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=da&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=da&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energinet.dk%2FDA%2FANLAEG-OG-PROJEKTER%2FNyheder%2FSider%2FKaempe-kunstig-oe-midt-i-Nordsoeen.aspx&edit-text=&act=url

Of course a big interest from the Danish side is the worlds largest windmill company Vestas which is Danish https://www.vestas.com and Siemens windpower which also has a major Danish component with a long tradition.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I am not against all medications, many of them save indeed millions of lives. All I'm saying that some medications are harmful, and many medications are prescribed needlessly, without doctors knowing their side effects or long term dangers. Many doctors keep practising the conventional "medicine" (albeit with new drugs) and don't have the slightest clue about healthy nutrition and how it affects human bodies.

You have morphed this into a discussion about medical practice.  Yes, there are a lot of doctors who are irresponsible (look at all the opiate prescriptions that are written each year when the actual medically needed number should be 1/100 of that).

I also believe that currently more medications are prescribed to increase profits for pharma industry than to help patients.

  Please provide an example or two.

Before you accuse respectable scientists of being fools, maybe you heard of Ray Kurzweil, the famous futurist, writer, and inventor and recently hired by Google. He writes, "I was diagnosed with type II diabetes when I was 35 (1983). The conventional treatment (insulin) made it worse by causing me to gain weight. I then developed my own program based on nutrition, exercise, weight management, and supplements.   

  Every diabetic responds differently.  Some have an absolute requirement for insulin that no modification of diet & exercise can change.

Similar examples are quoted about succesful prevention or reversal of heart diseases, osteoarthristis, and various cancers. Regretably, but understandably, cases like these are being burried by millions of advertisements and promotions of dubious pharmaceutical products.

Lots of regional hospitals and managed care organizations have a myriad of educational programs to help people improve their health.  I got a flyer from the hospital right down the road from me that is part of the Johns Hopkins healthcare system.  It contained three pages of courses to help patients.  My daughter belongs to Kaiser Permanente in Oakland CA and she said there are a huge number of courses available for free or at a very nominal cost.  Nothing is being buried. 

And maybe you've heard that even Aspirin would not gain FDA approval if it were introduced today.
 

Aspirin would be approved.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Already if you have a child with special needs in public school in the USA, you're screwed.

Both my daughters work with special needs kids and my wife is a professor of education.  Your assessment is spot on.

[Alan Goldhammer]

It is seen as a temporary solution until completely clean energy can be provided. The CO2 is neutral except for the production and transport (I believe I have heard a number like 20% of the energy is spent on transport and production). Emissions other than that I don't know. I would expect that there are filters to capture particles etc.

The key issue with all fuels is the energy balance which is a combination of the efficiency of conversion and the amount of processing that is required.  Natural gas is very good as the extraction costs are low, it is easy to ship, and the conversion to energy is quite high.  We have been in our house for just over 30 years and have had three central heating furnaces.  The first one came with the home and I don't know what the specifications were for it.  The next one we had installed and it was 80 percent efficient.  Three years ago we had that replaced with a model that was half the size and 92 percent efficient.  You can see the trend in savings over time here.

Natural gas power plants are more efficient than coal plants and require fewer emission controls as it has virtually no pollutants (heavy metals and sulfur & nitrogen oxides).  I think wood is not as efficient (you have to include a much higher processing cost for cutting, processing into pellets which includes drying, and transportation as you cannot do this via a pipeline; because of those reasons it will always be a "local" fuel, one would not want to truck large quantities of pellets to a power plant in the desert).  As Hans noted, you would have to have filters to scrub fly ash and you would also have maintenance of the plant for the ashes left after combustion (as anyone with a fireplace is well aware).

[Alan Goldhammer]

Nice analysis of employment in the coal industry:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/?utm_term=.3b744b7d92a1  The fast food chain Arby's employs more people than coal mining in the US!!!

[LesPalenik]

I also believe that currently more medications are prescribed to increase profits for pharma industry than to help patients.

Please provide an example or two.

Let’s start with ineffectiveness of the flu shots.
We have over-promoted and overhyped this vaccine. It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations.” — Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, University of Minnesota, 2012
In the 2014-15 flu season it worked less than seven per cent of the time — or was 93 per cent ineffective.
In 2015-16, the flu shot was “Overall, just shy of 45 to 50 per cent” effective. In fact, in the 10 years between 2004 and 2014, the flu shot’s effectiveness has only once been over 50 per cent.

Bone building and osteoarthritis
Calcium pills don't work. Dairy products don't strengthen bones. Drugs may be dangerous.
For years, doctors have been telling us to drink milk, eat dairy products, and take calcium pills to improve our bone vitality. The problem is, they're wrong.
https://www.amazon.ca/Building-Bone-Vitality-Revolutionary-Osteoporosis-Without/dp/0071600191

Heart disease and statins
Statin side effects can be uncomfortable, making it seem like the risks outweigh the benefits of these powerful cholesterol-lowering medications.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/in-depth/statin-side-effects/art-20046013


And maybe you've heard that even Aspirin would not gain FDA approval if it were introduced today.

Aspirin would be approved.

"We posed this question to Professor Peter Rothwell from the University of Oxford... Peter - No. Chris - Why? Peter - It's probably got too many side effects. Even though it's an effective drug, the drug companies would worry that they'd be sued because of the risk of bleeding, and that it wouldn't be commercially viable because the lawsuits would offset their profits."
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/would-aspirin-be-approved-today

[Alan Goldhammer]

Let’s start with ineffectiveness of the flu shots.
We have over-promoted and overhyped this vaccine. It does not protect as promoted. It’s all a sales job: it’s all public relations.” — Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, University of Minnesota, 2012
In the 2014-15 flu season it worked less than seven per cent of the time — or was 93 per cent ineffective.
In 2015-16, the flu shot was “Overall, just shy of 45 to 50 per cent” effective. In fact, in the 10 years between 2004 and 2014, the flu shot’s effectiveness has only once been over 50 per cent.

The Centers for Disease Control as well as other folks recommend the flu shot as a preventative particularly for the elderly.  A lot of the 'failure' of the vaccine depends on what strains are selected for incorporation.  If a new strain suddenly appears, the current season's vaccine will not be effective.  This is Mother Nature at work and what happened a couple of years ago with the new mutation that arose in Southeast Asia.  I can tell you from personal experience that I've been getting vaccinated for over 30 years not and have not had a major case of the flu.  Prior to that my body was a magnet and I usually had the flu before anyone else.  Even if the vaccine is 50% effecting it can still help out via herd immunity particularly in areas where there are lots of elderly.

Bone building and osteoarthritis
Calcium pills don't work. Dairy products don't strengthen bones. Drugs may be dangerous.
For years, doctors have been telling us to drink milk, eat dairy products, and take calcium pills to improve our bone vitality. The problem is, they're wrong.
https://www.amazon.ca/Building-Bone-Vitality-Revolutionary-Osteoporosis-Without/dp/0071600191

Not my area of expertise other than to note that the medical literature is inconsistent on this subject.

Heart disease and statins
Statin side effects can be uncomfortable, making it seem like the risks outweigh the benefits of these powerful cholesterol-lowering medications.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/in-depth/statin-side-effects/art-20046013

All drugs have risks and benefits.  Long term studies have shown the value of statins in preventing cardiac disease.  Patients will have to weigh the impact of the side effects.

As someone who spent over 30 years in drug regulatory affairs, I stand by my statement on aspirin.  I think I'll let this be the end of this discussion on my part as this thread was on a different topic. 

[PeterAit]

How clean is burning of the wood chips and pellets?

Here in North Carolina we provide huge amounts of wood chips to Europe. It's very impressive to see the enormous piles of logs and chips on the docks at the Morehead City port waiting to be loaded.

But, I believe the point with burning wood chips is not that it is necessarily cleaner than coal (although it is) but that it is renewable. When trees are cut for chips, new trees will eventually grow and absorb the CO2 that burning the chips released. Over the long run, in theory, burning chips is carbon-neutral.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

But, I believe the point with burning wood chips is not that it is necessarily cleaner than coal (although it is) but that it is renewable. When trees are cut for chips, new trees will eventually grow and absorb the CO2 that burning the chips released. Over the long run, in theory, burning chips is carbon-neutral.

That's the argument, but it is not a sound argument. Surely one can understand that there is a difference between several decades of slow absorption/transformation of CO2 during tree growth, and the sudden release of huge amounts of CO2 (and sulfur and heavy metals) into the atmosphere and oceans when burning. When equilibrium is disrupted, which triggers other accelerations (like melting land ice), which triggers other accelerations, ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

"... identify 1997 (±5 years) as a tipping point for GICs mass balance. That year marks the onset of a rapid deterioration in the capacity of the GICs firn to refreeze meltwater."

A tipping point in refreezing accelerates mass loss of Greenland’s glaciers and ice caps:
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14730

Hoax? Doesn't look like it, it's really getting worse, and it's accelerating.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Both my daughters work with special needs kids and my wife is a professor of education.  Your assessment is spot on.

My understanding is that it was the no kid left behind program that attempted to give special needs kids the same program as regular kids.  Since they couldn't keep up, the filed.  They should have been given special courses.

So, if this is true, wouldn't special needs kids be better off if we did away with no child be left behind and let local education departments assess their kids and provide special  programs for them.  The Feds could turn the money over to the states for this or frankly, just get out of the school business entirely and let local communities handle education.

[Alan Klein]

Nice analysis of employment in the coal industry:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/?utm_term=.3b744b7d92a1  The fast food chain Arby's employs more people than coal mining in the US!!!

Less employees per BTU of coal means it's more efficient.  Creating loads of jobs for less BTU production isn't as productive, wastes money and raises costs of the product.  A rich economy isn't based on the number of people working.  Rather, is how much each worker produces.  It's about productivity.  The more he does, the richer he and the country is.  Otherwise you could argue that China should go back to pick and shovels and let millions of people dig ditches rather than as it is today when they use modern backhoes and other heavy and efficient construction equipment.  China is rich today because they have become very productive per unit of work.  The best fuel would be one where only one person could produce the complete supply for the entire country. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

My understanding is that it was the no kid left behind program that attempted to give special needs kids the same program as regular kids.  Since they couldn't keep up, the filed.  They should have been given special courses.

So, if this is true, wouldn't special needs kids be better off if we did away with no child be left behind and let local education departments assess their kids and provide special  programs for them.  The Feds could turn the money over to the states for this or frankly, just get out of the school business entirely and let local communities handle education.

I don't know all the ins and outs of No Child Left Behind.  I can tell you that charter schools and school voucher programs do not have to accept special needs kids.  Public schools do.  the longest voucher program in the country is in the city of Milwaukee that has had vouchers since 1990.  The vouchers can be used at any school including parrochial schools.  The get around the religious establishment clause by allowing any student to opt out of the religious study and chapel requirements as needed.  There are a large number of Lutheran, Catholic and even two Jewish schools that qualify for the voucher program.  There were a lot of startup schools in the early days but most of them have been closed as they were sub-standard.  The Catholic schools because of the voucher program are keeping a number of Parrish churches alive as without the income from the schools they would close (not enough contributions from the parishioners).  Special needs kids all attend Milwaukee city schools as there is no alternative.

[Alan Klein]

I don't know all the ins and outs of No Child Left Behind.  I can tell you that charter schools and school voucher programs do not have to accept special needs kids.  Public schools do.  the longest voucher program in the country is in the city of Milwaukee that has had vouchers since 1990.  The vouchers can be used at any school including parrochial schools.  The get around the religious establishment clause by allowing any student to opt out of the religious study and chapel requirements as needed.  There are a large number of Lutheran, Catholic and even two Jewish schools that qualify for the voucher program.  There were a lot of startup schools in the early days but most of them have been closed as they were sub-standard.  The Catholic schools because of the voucher program are keeping a number of Parrish churches alive as without the income from the schools they would close (not enough contributions from the parishioners).  Special needs kids all attend Milwaukee city schools as there is no alternative.

Charters seems to be pretty successful in NYC.  There are about 50,000 kids, mainly minority, trying to get into these schools.  Curious about the establishment clause.  Vouchers are given to individuals, not the schools directly.  So it's the parents who decide where to spend the money, just like if it was a tax rebate.  AS long as the school meets some state standard of curriculum, I don't see it as a US constitutional issue unless Wisconsin has some special issue.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Charters seems to be pretty successful in NYC.  There are about 50,000 kids, mainly minority, trying to get into these schools.  Curious about the establishment clause.  Vouchers are given to individuals, not the schools directly.  So it's the parents who decide where to spend the money, just like if it was a tax rebate.  AS long as the school meets some state standard of curriculum, I don't see it as a US constitutional issue unless Wisconsin has some special issue.

My wife has done visits to a number of charter schools in the DC area.  There are some good ones but there has to be careful examination that they are performing.  Michigan where our Sec of Education is from had a great deal of difficulty implementing their charter school system because they did so in the absence of standards.  the state had to totally redo the program because the kids were failing miserably in standardized achievement tests.

The religious issue has to do with separation of church and state.  Vouchers can be used but the school cannot mandate religious education if the student wants to opt out.  Otherwise it is coercion and against the Constitution.  It was just curious to me that the vouches in Milwaukee was keeping Catholic churches alive when they had no other means of money.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Anti-climate science think tank trying to get textbooks into US schools:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/anti-climate-science-think-tank-trying-to-get-textbooks-into-us-schools/

"Even as the federal government did its best to pretend that climate change didn't exist, the push against it expanded out into the school system this week. The state legislature in Idaho removed mention of climate change from its science education standards, even as a "think" tank sent school teachers copies of a text that promotes a plethora of non-scientific ideas about climate change."

Disgusting.

Time for naming and shaming of those who poison even the discussion about climate science.

Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’:
https://secure.politico.com/story/2017/03/energy-department-climate-change-phrases-banned-236655

"A supervisor at the Energy Department's international climate office told staff this week not to use the phrases "climate change," "emissions reduction" or "Paris Agreement" in written memos, briefings or other written communication, sources have told POLITICO."

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

Anti-climate science think tank trying to get textbooks into US schools:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/anti-climate-science-think-tank-trying-to-get-textbooks-into-us-schools/

Disgusting.

Time for naming and shaming of those who poison even the discussion about climate science.

Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’:
https://secure.politico.com/story/2017/03/energy-department-climate-change-phrases-banned-236655

Cheers,
Bart

It might be disgusting, Bart, but no more disgusting than what the climate change alarmists having been doing for many years, trying to conflate natural climate change with their hypothesis that increased CO2 levels are the main driving force of the current change in climate, and that such a change is for the worse.

An obvious example is the 'Hockey Stick' graph produced by Michael Mann which made it appear that the Medieval Warming Period never existed. There have been attempts by the alarmists to justify the Hockey Stick by claiming the MWP was a local event confined to Northern Europe, which sounds very reasonable until one discovers that such an idea was based upon a lack of evidence. The evidence now exists that the MWP was indeed a global change in climate.

Expressing a high level of confidence in something without an appropriate degree of evidence and back-up data, is another of the disgusting tricks that have been employed by the AGW alarmists for many years. I suspect the reason why the IPCC, in their latest report, admitted that there was 'low confidence' that certain types of extreme weather events had been increasing during the last century or so, is because they had been heavily criticised by scientists for creating the impression in their past reports that certain trends were certain, without providing clear evidence to support their certainty.

Some years ago, a past Prime Minister in Australia, Julia Gillard, coined the term. 'Climate Change is Real', which she repeated frequently in order to counter the claims of so-called deniers. I couldn't help wondering what percentage of the population would have been totally ignorant of the history of the fairly recent changes in climate, such as the Roman Warm Period, MWP and LIA, and would have been unaware of the reality that climate is always changing and that no honest scientist disputes that, although some appear to have tried.

The practice of conflating the terms, 'Climate Change' with 'Anthropogenic Climate Change', (or Human Induced Climate Change), is probably the reason for the Energy Department's reluctance to use the term 'Climate Change'.

It would be better if there were less biased reporting on the issue of climate change, but the nature of the news media is to focus on bad news, which is more attention-grabbing. It's why almost every extreme weather event in Australia is initially reported as the worst on record. That's much more attention-grabbing than reporting the facts, which are usually the 3rd or 4th or even 7th worst on record.

[Hans Kruse]

The key issue with all fuels is the energy balance which is a combination of the efficiency of conversion and the amount of processing that is required.  Natural gas is very good as the extraction costs are low, it is easy to ship, and the conversion to energy is quite high.  We have been in our house for just over 30 years and have had three central heating furnaces.  The first one came with the home and I don't know what the specifications were for it.  The next one we had installed and it was 80 percent efficient.  Three years ago we had that replaced with a model that was half the size and 92 percent efficient.  You can see the trend in savings over time here.

Natural gas power plants are more efficient than coal plants and require fewer emission controls as it has virtually no pollutants (heavy metals and sulfur & nitrogen oxides).  I think wood is not as efficient (you have to include a much higher processing cost for cutting, processing into pellets which includes drying, and transportation as you cannot do this via a pipeline; because of those reasons it will always be a "local" fuel, one would not want to truck large quantities of pellets to a power plant in the desert).  As Hans noted, you would have to have filters to scrub fly ash and you would also have maintenance of the plant for the ashes left after combustion (as anyone with a fireplace is well aware).

The reason the Danish power plants are using the wood is to decrease the CO2 emissions. Natural gas is used but will be decreased in use for that reason. http://www.dongenergy.com/en/media/newsroom/news/articles/denmarks-largest-power-station-replaces-coal-with-wood-pellets The future is to use heat pumps for the heating and in conjunction with the other sources in a transition period. There are some geothermal plants in operation as well today with competitive prices compared to traditional heat sources.

Natural gas has one important emission CO2, so not an option for the longer term, but certainly better than coal. The wood burning is being questioned by green groups in my country. Some considerations here https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=da&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=da&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fing.dk%2Fartikel%2Fdanske-kraftvaerker-i-historisk-ombygning-fra-kul-til-traepiller-129750&edit-text=&act=url

For transportation it seems pretty clear in which direction this is going although it will take quite some time. All big car manufacturers have learned the Tesla lesson and are planning to bring out lots of car models which are either PHEV or pure EV's. For trucks it is less clear if the solution is pure EV or hybrid. One startup https://nikolamotor.com is working on a hybrid using hydrogen. This makes sense in contrast to personal vehicles since much fewer pumping stations are needed. Nikola will establish the needed hydrogen stations themselves and include the fuel in the leasing price of the truck. Still early days and for mass market EV's subsidies or should we rather say compensation for the massive subsidies to fossil burning that occurs today without the compensations will be slow with the uptake. But even without compensation (just slower) I have no doubt that pure EV's will take over and in tens years time be not only cheaper to buy but also much cheaper in running costs (which is already the cost). The model of owning a car will also be challenged at that time due to self driving technology that will enough for a large percentage of car use. I'm not sure that complete self driving in all cases will ever happen, but I could easily be wrong I think one of the drivers for going self driving where this will work 100% will be insurance costs for those who are not using a self driving car. Converting a large percentage of kilometers/miles driven will be a huge benefit in reducing climate gas emissions and also particle emissions that is so bad in our cities today. There is already serious talk about banning diesel cars in some big European cities soon (Berlin, Paris, etc. )

There are lots of other areas to solve also like e.g. transport on the sea like these huge container ships. Maersk which is the largest container shipping company has already lowered their CO2 emissions and have agressive goals short term http://www.maersk.com/en/the-maersk-group/sustainability/our-commitment-to-reduce-co2 There are some ferries that are hybrid now and some pure electric. Here is one https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=da&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=da&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scandlines.dk%2Fom-scandlines%2Fbatteridrevne-farger.aspx&edit-text=&act=url for the ferries between Denmark and Sweden which are in operation on the narrow strait at Helsingør (Elsinore) and Helsingborg. This is in parallel with the bridge between Denmark and Sweden just south of Copenhagen which has been in operation for about 15 years now.

[Alan Goldhammer]

The practice of conflating the terms, 'Climate Change' with 'Anthropogenic Climate Change', (or Human Induced Climate Change), is probably the reason for the Energy Department's reluctance to use the term 'Climate Change'.

It would be better if there were less biased reporting on the issue of climate change, but the nature of the news media is to focus on bad news, which is more attention-grabbing. It's why almost every extreme weather event in Australia is initially reported as the worst on record. That's much more attention-grabbing than reporting the facts, which are usually the 3rd or 4th or even 7th worst on record.

Ray, two questions:  1) do you believe the earth is getting warmer?  if so, 2a) what is responsible for this?  if not, 2b) what is causing the melting of the Arctic ice cap, breaking of Antarctic ice shelves, and melting away in Greenland?