iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-01--Ottawa’s latest climate plan bets on expensive and unproven carbon capture technologies

Last week , the federal government released its long awaited plan to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and climate change .
Bill C-12 , if passed , commits Canada to “ binding ” targets every five years as of 2030 with the goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 .
The bill is thin on details , due to its focus on establishing an independent 15-member advisory board .
This is both a strength , in that it will hopefully include climate scientists , Indigenous people and other expert stakeholders , and a weakness , because it pushes the timeline for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future , with 2030 the first target date .
What is most concerning is that by dragging its feet on specific measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions , the Trudeau government is shoehorning Canadians into expensive , unproven and unreliable technologies .
As a researcher who studies the governance of climate-altering technologies ( such as carbon capture and storage ) , I can assure you that we are already behind on tackling climate change and catching up is going to be expensive .
The government ’ s strategy will likely rely upon technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way it hopes .
Canada has repeatedly failed to meet any of the climate targets it has set in place since 1992 .
This has left us further behind our Paris climate agreement targets and scrambling to catch up to meet our global commitments .
Not only do we need to meet these climate targets this time around — our international trade partners such as the EU and even China may see us as laggards , further eroding our international credibility — we need to make up for lost time .
The focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solutions , including technologies that remove carbon from the air or emissions and lock them away .
But carbon capture and storage ( CCS ) and carbon dioxide removal ( CDR ) are not silver bullets in the fight against climate change .
Canada is home to some of the most successful CCS projects and companies in the world , including the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line , Boundary Dam and Carbon Engineering .
However , these are expensive demonstration projects .
Their use could be targeted to specific sectors ( such as aluminium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively reduce Canadians ’ emissions at scale .
Capturing and storing carbon is expensive , and in some cases outright ineffectual .
The United States government spent US $ 5 billion from 2010 to 2018 on the technology , but it would take additional significant investments , more research and some technological breakthroughs for the technology to lower the cost of capturing carbon to US $ 94-232 per tonne .
This is staggering compared to Canada ’ s baseline carbon tax of $ 50 per tonne of emissions by 2022 , and when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canadian oil , we are left with a most unhappy conclusion .
Who is paying for this ?
Typically , companies would pay taxes or levies over time into various programs to pay for negative externalities — the side effects of products or systems they run that cause social , economic or environmental harms .
These funds would then be used to pay for those associated costs .
This solution is dubbed “ Pigouvian taxation ” ( after Arthur Pigou ) .
Ireland , for example , introduced a plastic bag tax ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which resulted in a 90 per cent decrease in their use .
The problem is that in Canada companies are not paying into any such funds — nor have they — leaving Canadians with no source to pay for this new expense .
So how would Canada find the money to pay for expensive projects such as carbon capture and storage ?
As it stands , that cost will be passed to the taxpayer .
Our current carbon tax circulates the money back into the economy .
What about Prime Minister Trudeau ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Planting trees is , after all , a natural method of carbon capture and storage .
Planting trees is a useful short-term exercise , but trees don ’ t live forever .
Although the soil in boreal forests contains carbon stored there generations ago , it can be released by logging or forest fires , which are getting more severe due to climate change .
These types of changes , if not properly managed , can lead to forests becoming carbon sources .
https : //www.youtube.com/embed/mqbJYIGx9HQ ?
wmode=transparent & start=0 As northern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forest fires are becoming more intense , meaning they burn deeper into the soil ( NASA ) .
In addition , the darkness of leaves can absorb more incoming energy than the potentially lighter ground surface .
Planting trees over areas that would otherwise be snow covered , could actually warm the planet while still absorbing carbon , though more analysis is necessary to understand this issue .
This is not to say that carbon capture and storage or carbon dioxide removal technologies do not have a role to play in the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cent of global emissions , and mandating that all concrete facilities be fitted with carbon capturing technologies could reduce their emissions .
While these are expensive , they may be necessary .
Even if the technology were applied to the energy sector , Canadian oil would likely be a net loss on every barrel produced — and who would pay for the cost of moving it to widespread use ?
The federal government is still reeling from the cost of the Trans Mountain pipeline , the private sector has no appetite to invest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profitability and despite claims of well-financed conspiracy , environmental groups aren ’ t exactly flush with cash .
The current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) models rely on the deployment of significant amounts of carbon capture and storage in the latter part of the century to meet agreed-upon targets .
To rely upon such technologies as a silver bullet for addressing Canadian climate policy , however , is flawed and doomed to fail .
When the Government of Canada releases precise details for meeting the climate targets outlined in Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon capture and storage or carbon dioxide removal if there is any hope in succeeding .
Burgess Langshaw Power , PhD Student , Global Governance program at the Balsillie School for International Affairs , University of Waterloo This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

The Trudeau government has tabled a bill that, if passed, would legally bind Canada to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick
Burgess Langshaw Power, University of Waterloo
Last week, the federal government released its long awaited plan to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Bill C-12, if passed, commits Canada to “binding” targets every five years as of 2030 with the goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
The bill is thin on details, due to its focus on establishing an independent 15-member advisory board. This is both a strength, in that it will hopefully include climate scientists, Indigenous people and other expert stakeholders, and a weakness, because it pushes the timeline for specific measures and action further into the future, with 2030 the first target date.
What is most concerning is that by dragging its feet on specific measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the Trudeau government is shoehorning Canadians into expensive, unproven and unreliable technologies.
As a researcher who studies the governance of climate-altering technologies (such as carbon capture and storage), I can assure you that we are already behind on tackling climate change and catching up is going to be expensive. The government’s strategy will likely rely upon technology that isn’t viable in the way it hopes.
Staying on target
Canada has repeatedly failed to meet any of the climate targets it has set in place since 1992. This has left us further behind our Paris climate agreement targets and scrambling to catch up to meet our global commitments.
Not only do we need to meet these climate targets this time around — our international trade partners such as the EU and even China may see us as laggards, further eroding our international credibility — we need to make up for lost time.
The focus of the federal government is on market-driven solutions, including technologies that remove carbon from the air or emissions and lock them away. But carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) are not silver bullets in the fight against climate change.
Historical greenhouse gas emissions and projections for Canada, 2005-30. Government data seems to suggest we can potentially meet our Paris Agreement targets (blue) or perhaps exceed them (green), but without drastic changes, meeting our 2030 goals (yellow) is likely impossible. (Environment and Climate Change Canada)
Canada is home to some of the most successful CCS projects and companies in the world, including the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line, Boundary Dam and Carbon Engineering. However, these are expensive demonstration projects. Their use could be targeted to specific sectors (such as aluminium manufacturing), but they will never effectively reduce Canadians’ emissions at scale.
Capturing and storing carbon is expensive, and in some cases outright ineffectual. The United States government spent US$5 billion from 2010 to 2018 on the technology, but it would take additional significant investments, more research and some technological breakthroughs for the technology to lower the cost of capturing carbon to US$94-232 per tonne. This is staggering compared to Canada’s baseline carbon tax of $50 per tonne of emissions by 2022, and when factored into the already low price of Canadian oil, we are left with a most unhappy conclusion.
Who is paying for this?
Typically, companies would pay taxes or levies over time into various programs to pay for negative externalities — the side effects of products or systems they run that cause social, economic or environmental harms. These funds would then be used to pay for those associated costs.
This solution is dubbed “Pigouvian taxation” (after Arthur Pigou). Ireland, for example, introduced a plastic bag tax (as opposed to banning them), which resulted in a 90 per cent decrease in their use.
The problem is that in Canada companies are not paying into any such funds — nor have they — leaving Canadians with no source to pay for this new expense.
So how would Canada find the money to pay for expensive projects such as carbon capture and storage? As it stands, that cost will be passed to the taxpayer. Our current carbon tax circulates the money back into the economy.
Two billion trees
What about Prime Minister Trudeau’s promise to plant two billion trees? Planting trees is, after all, a natural method of carbon capture and storage.
Planting trees is a useful short-term exercise, but trees don’t live forever. Although the soil in boreal forests contains carbon stored there generations ago, it can be released by logging or forest fires, which are getting more severe due to climate change. These types of changes, if not properly managed, can lead to forests becoming carbon sources. https://www.youtube.com/embed/mqbJYIGx9HQ?wmode=transparent&start=0 As northern summers get warmer and drier, boreal forest fires are becoming more intense, meaning they burn deeper into the soil (NASA).
In addition, the darkness of leaves can absorb more incoming energy than the potentially lighter ground surface. Planting trees over areas that would otherwise be snow covered, could actually warm the planet while still absorbing carbon, though more analysis is necessary to understand this issue.
This is not to say that carbon capture and storage or carbon dioxide removal technologies do not have a role to play in the future. Concrete produces four to eight per cent of global emissions, and mandating that all concrete facilities be fitted with carbon capturing technologies could reduce their emissions. While these are expensive, they may be necessary.
Even if the technology were applied to the energy sector, Canadian oil would likely be a net loss on every barrel produced — and who would pay for the cost of moving it to widespread use? The federal government is still reeling from the cost of the Trans Mountain pipeline, the private sector has no appetite to invest in such a venture without guarantees of profitability and despite claims of well-financed conspiracy, environmental groups aren’t exactly flush with cash.
The current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models rely on the deployment of significant amounts of carbon capture and storage in the latter part of the century to meet agreed-upon targets. To rely upon such technologies as a silver bullet for addressing Canadian climate policy, however, is flawed and doomed to fail. When the Government of Canada releases precise details for meeting the climate targets outlined in Bill C-12, it cannot rely upon carbon capture and storage or carbon dioxide removal if there is any hope in succeeding.
Burgess Langshaw Power, PhD Student, Global Governance program at the Balsillie School for International Affairs, University of Waterloo
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-01--Peak Stupid: Bizarre Plan to Carpet Australian Desert With Thousands of Wind Turbines & Solar Panels

In more proof that 2020 was the year that we reached ‘ peak stupid ’ , renewable energy rent seekers have topped them all with a plan to convert chaotically intermittent wind and solar into hydrogen , then to convert that into ammonia for shipping , and then back into hydrogen for use in a market that doesn ’ t exist .
You couldn ’ t squander cash any faster if you were shovelling it into a furnace .
Then there ’ s the location ; a vast tract of desert in the Western Australian Pilbara region , renowned for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and even more vicious flies .
Eric Worrall takes us into the wacko world that is Australia ’ s subsidised renewable energy scam .
AU $ 53 Billion to Service a Green Hydrogen Market which Does Not Exist Watts Up With That ?
Eric Worrall 14 November 2020 The Australian Federal Government has expedited approval for a $ 53 billion project and the devastation of 78 Sq KM of wilderness , to produce green hydrogen for an export market which does not exist .
All to save the planet .
Green giants : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clean energy superpower The Guardian Adam Mortom 14 November 2020 The Asian Renewable Energy Hub would have an energy content equivalent to 40 % of Australia ’ s overall electricity generation The world ’ s largest power station is planned for a vast piece of desert about half the size of greater suburban Sydney in Australia ’ s remote north-west .
Called the Asian Renewable Energy Hub , its size is difficult to conceptualise .
If built in full , there will be 1,600 giant wind turbines and a 78 sq km @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundred kilometres east of Port Hedland in the Pilbara .
This solar-wind hybrid power plant would have a capacity of 26 gigawatts , more than Australia ’ s entire coal power fleet .
The hub ’ s backers say the daytime sun and nightly winds blowing in from the Indian Ocean are perfectly calibrated to provide a near constant source of emissions-free energy around the clock .
Most of it will be used to run 14GW of electrolysers that will convert desalinated seawater into “ green hydrogen ” – a form of energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand as a replacement for fossil fuels in the years and decades ahead .
Though still five years away from construction , the hub vaulted closer to reality in recent weeks after the federal government granted it major project status – a designation that should smooth the approval processes – and the Western Australian government greenlit its first stage .
But most of the energy created will be exported .
Because hydrogen condenses from a gas into a liquid only at very low temperatures ( about -250C ) , it will be shipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to transport and created by blending hydrogen with nitrogen .
One of the questions hanging over the project will be its cost , but Star of the South maintains it makes economic sense – that the technology is becoming cheaper and the generation patterns of offshore wind will complement , rather than compete with , onshore renewables .
It is seeking environmental approval from the Victorian government and waiting on the commonwealth to complete a legal framework for offshore clean energy developments , but has a goal of starting to generate by 2025 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology is becoming cheaper ” , and the market is not expected to exist until 2035 , why jump the gun ?
Why not wait a few years , until the costs come down even further ?
The Asian Renewable Energy Hub plan has undergone several radical transformations since its inception .
The original idea was an undersea cable to Asia , but this idea seems to have quietly died .
Then it briefly morphed into a green hydrogen export facility but now seems to have evolved into a green ammonia production and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested round trip efficiency for green electricity to hydrogen to ammonia and back to electricity is 25 – 39 % , which means up to 75 % of the already hideously expensive renewable electricity is lost just in the conversion process , without even considering shipping and distribution costs .
Ammonia production from fossil fuel sourced hydrogen is a mature industrial process , so you would have to be pretty optimistic to expect significant performance gains from that part of the process .
Any dramatic cost savings will have to come from cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panels and wind turbines , but there is a limit to how far the price can fall .
Wind turbine and solar panel production are very energy intensive industrial processes .
A final straw , somehow the project will need to source vast quantities of water , for washing the solar panels .
The dust buildup in the Australian desert has to be seen to be believed .
In the dry desert environment static charges build quickly , causing the dust to stick to surfaces .
You can ’ t use unprocessed sea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heated brine is corrosive , leaves a residue , and is a very good electrical conductor – short circuits , light obstruction and corroded wiring in one easy package .
You can ’ t use compressed air to clean the panels , because the dust particles are abrasive ; compressed air would sand blast the panels .
While there is ongoing research into using electrostatic methods to remove the dust , or gently brushing the dust away without water , Chemically pure water remains one of the least damaging cleaning agents .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a highly constrained resource .
So in addition to desalinating water for hydrogen and ammonia production , the project will need to desalinate vast quantities of water to keep the 78 sq KM of solar panels clean , by giving them a regular wash. Watts Up With That ?

In more proof that 2020 was the year that we reached ‘peak stupid’, renewable energy rent seekers have topped them all with a plan to convert chaotically intermittent wind and solar into hydrogen, then to convert that into ammonia for shipping, and then back into hydrogen for use in a market that doesn’t exist.
You couldn’t squander cash any faster if you were shovelling it into a furnace.
Then there’s the location; a vast tract of desert in the Western Australian Pilbara region, renowned for its searing heat, vicious dust storms and even more vicious flies.
Eric Worrall takes us into the wacko world that is Australia’s subsidised renewable energy scam.
AU $53 Billion to Service a Green Hydrogen Market which Does Not Exist
Watts Up With That?
Eric Worrall
14 November 2020
The Australian Federal Government has expedited approval for a $53 billion project and the devastation of 78 Sq KM of wilderness, to produce green hydrogen for an export market which does not exist. All to save the planet.
Green giants: the massive projects that could make Australia a clean energy superpower
The Guardian
Adam Mortom
14 November 2020
The Asian Renewable Energy Hub would have an energy content equivalent to 40% of Australia’s overall electricity generation
The world’s largest power station is planned for a vast piece of desert about half the size of greater suburban Sydney in Australia’s remote north-west.
Called the Asian Renewable Energy Hub, its size is difficult to conceptualise. If built in full, there will be 1,600 giant wind turbines and a 78 sq km array of solar panels a couple of hundred kilometres east of Port Hedland in the Pilbara.
This solar-wind hybrid power plant would have a capacity of 26 gigawatts, more than Australia’s entire coal power fleet. The hub’s backers say the daytime sun and nightly winds blowing in from the Indian Ocean are perfectly calibrated to provide a near constant source of emissions-free energy around the clock.
Most of it will be used to run 14GW of electrolysers that will convert desalinated seawater into “green hydrogen” – a form of energy that analysts expect to be in increasing demand as a replacement for fossil fuels in the years and decades ahead.
Though still five years away from construction, the hub vaulted closer to reality in recent weeks after the federal government granted it major project status – a designation that should smooth the approval processes – and the Western Australian government greenlit its first stage.
…
But most of the energy created will be exported. Because hydrogen condenses from a gas into a liquid only at very low temperatures (about -250C), it will be shipped as green ammonia, which is safer to transport and created by blending hydrogen with nitrogen.
…
One of the questions hanging over the project will be its cost, but Star of the South maintains it makes economic sense – that the technology is becoming cheaper and the generation patterns of offshore wind will complement, rather than compete with, onshore renewables. It is seeking environmental approval from the Victorian government and waiting on the commonwealth to complete a legal framework for offshore clean energy developments, but has a goal of starting to generate by 2025.
…
The Guardian
My question – if the “technology is becoming cheaper”, and the market is not expected to exist until 2035, why jump the gun? Why not wait a few years, until the costs come down even further?
The Asian Renewable Energy Hub plan has undergone several radical transformations since its inception. The original idea was an undersea cable to Asia, but this idea seems to have quietly died. Then it briefly morphed into a green hydrogen export facility but now seems to have evolved into a green ammonia production and export facility.
A 2017 CSIRO study suggested round trip efficiency for green electricity to hydrogen to ammonia and back to electricity is 25 – 39%, which means up to 75% of the already hideously expensive renewable electricity is lost just in the conversion process, without even considering shipping and distribution costs.
Ammonia production from fossil fuel sourced hydrogen is a mature industrial process, so you would have to be pretty optimistic to expect significant performance gains from that part of the process.
Any dramatic cost savings will have to come from cost savings in the manufacturing of the solar panels and wind turbines, but there is a limit to how far the price can fall. Wind turbine and solar panel production are very energy intensive industrial processes.
A final straw, somehow the project will need to source vast quantities of water, for washing the solar panels. The dust buildup in the Australian desert has to be seen to be believed. In the dry desert environment static charges build quickly, causing the dust to stick to surfaces. You can’t use unprocessed sea water to wash the panels, because heated brine is corrosive, leaves a residue, and is a very good electrical conductor – short circuits, light obstruction and corroded wiring in one easy package. You can’t use compressed air to clean the panels, because the dust particles are abrasive; compressed air would sand blast the panels. While there is ongoing research into using electrostatic methods to remove the dust, or gently brushing the dust away without water, Chemically pure water remains one of the least damaging cleaning agents.
But in the desert, clean water is a highly constrained resource.
So in addition to desalinating water for hydrogen and ammonia production, the project will need to desalinate vast quantities of water to keep the 78 sq KM of solar panels clean, by giving them a regular wash.
Watts Up With That?


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-01--Aussie State Tasmania Declares itself 100% Renewable Energy

100 % renewable , except when Tasmania ’ s politicians run down their hydro dams to critical low levels selling green electrons to the mainland , burn out the undersea inter-connector with excessive current , and have to fire up emergency diesel generators .
Tasmania declares itself 100 per cent powered by renewable electricity The Tasmania government has declared that it has become the first Australian state , and one of just a handful of jurisdictions worldwide , to be powered entirely by renewable electricity .
In a statement released on Friday , Tasmanian energy minister Guy Barnett said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supplies of renewable electricity , supplied by the state ’ s wind and hydroelectricity projects .
“ We have reached 100 per cent thanks to our commitment to realising Tasmania ’ s renewable energy potential through our nation-leading energy policies and making Tasmania attractive for industry investment , which in turn is creating jobs across the State , particularly in our regions , ” Barnett said .
Tasmania has long had one of the greenest supplies of electricity in Australia , with the state ’ s significant hydroelectricity resources supplying the bulk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s history with hydroelectricity dates back to 1895 , with the Duck Reach power plant in Launceston becoming the first publicly owned hydroelectric power station in the southern hemisphere .
What about that burned out interconnector ?
Tasmania ’ s electricity grid is facing its biggest challenge in years , with its hydro storage about to fall to its lowest levels ever , bushfires forcing the closure of some power facilities , and a faulty cable cutting the connection between the island and the country ’ s main electricity grid .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electricity – hydro power – is being challenged by its driest ever spring , pushing reserves down to just 18.9 per cent .
The lowest level ever is 16.5 per cent , reached in 2007 , but overall storage levels are predicted to fall to a low of 14 per cent by the end of March – if normal rainfall patterns resume .
At current rates , however , some fear they may fall below those levels , although there has been some light rain in recent days .
To make matters worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s grid to the mainland has been cut by technical problems , and will probably remain closed for another two months , while the raging bushfires have threatened power lines and forced the temporary closure of at least four hydro plants .
I guess the lesson is if most of your state is a giant mountainous watershed you can build enough hydro to go 100 % renewable .
So not an option for most parts of the world .
Having said that , even the cold , rainy island state of Tasmania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their dams selling green electrons to the mainland , and the rains fail , all it takes is a little of their regular undersea inter-connector trouble at the wrong time and they ’ re back to expensive diesel power .
So not quite 100 % renewable then .
And of course we ’ re quietly ignoring the fact Tasmania imports a lot of energy intensive goods .
The saddest part of this story , most of the green campaigners who risked their lives opposing bulldozing and flooding pristine wilderness during the 70s and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sold out to the idea of big green .
Most of them are now fully on board with concreting the Tasmanian watershed .

That time when greens once opposed wilderness destruction and dams. The Anti Frankin Dam protests in Tasmania led to the formation of the Tasmanian Green Party
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
100% renewable, except when Tasmania’s politicians run down their hydro dams to critical low levels selling green electrons to the mainland, burn out the undersea inter-connector with excessive current, and have to fire up emergency diesel generators.
Tasmania declares itself 100 per cent powered by renewable electricity Michael Mazengarb
27 November 2020 The Tasmania government has declared that it has become the first Australian state, and one of just a handful of jurisdictions worldwide, to be powered entirely by renewable electricity. In a statement released on Friday, Tasmanian energy minister Guy Barnett said that state had effectively become entirely self-sufficient for supplies of renewable electricity, supplied by the state’s wind and hydroelectricity projects. “We have reached 100 per cent thanks to our commitment to realising Tasmania’s renewable energy potential through our nation-leading energy policies and making Tasmania attractive for industry investment, which in turn is creating jobs across the State, particularly in our regions,” Barnett said. Tasmania has long had one of the greenest supplies of electricity in Australia, with the state’s significant hydroelectricity resources supplying the bulk of the state’s power. Tasmania’s history with hydroelectricity dates back to 1895, with the Duck Reach power plant in Launceston becoming the first publicly owned hydroelectric power station in the southern hemisphere. … Read more: https://reneweconomy.com.au/tasmania-declares-itself-100-per-cent-powered-by-renewable-electricity-25119/
What about that burned out interconnector?
Tasmania grid struggles with drought, bushfires, lost connection Giles Parkinson 25 January 2016 Tasmania’s electricity grid is facing its biggest challenge in years, with its hydro storage about to fall to its lowest levels ever, bushfires forcing the closure of some power facilities, and a faulty cable cutting the connection between the island and the country’s main electricity grid. The Apple Isle’s main source of electricity – hydro power – is being challenged by its driest ever spring, pushing reserves down to just 18.9 per cent. The lowest level ever is 16.5 per cent, reached in 2007, but overall storage levels are predicted to fall to a low of 14 per cent by the end of March – if normal rainfall patterns resume. At current rates, however, some fear they may fall below those levels, although there has been some light rain in recent days. To make matters worse, the Basslink cable linking the island’s grid to the mainland has been cut by technical problems, and will probably remain closed for another two months, while the raging bushfires have threatened power lines and forced the temporary closure of at least four hydro plants. … Read more: https://reneweconomy.com.au/tasmania-grid-struggles-with-drought-bushfires-lost-connection-95757/
I guess the lesson is if most of your state is a giant mountainous watershed you can build enough hydro to go 100% renewable. So not an option for most parts of the world.
Having said that, even the cold, rainy island state of Tasmania suffers droughts. If they have drained their dams selling green electrons to the mainland, and the rains fail, all it takes is a little of their regular undersea inter-connector trouble at the wrong time and they’re back to expensive diesel power. So not quite 100% renewable then.
And of course we’re quietly ignoring the fact Tasmania imports a lot of energy intensive goods.
The saddest part of this story, most of the green campaigners who risked their lives opposing bulldozing and flooding pristine wilderness during the 70s and 80s hydro construction projects have pretty much sold out to the idea of big green. Most of them are now fully on board with concreting the Tasmanian watershed.
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-01--Boris Johnson’s Electric Vehicle Fantasy

Brits will all be walking before they are all driving electric cars .
There are simply not enough resources to @ @ @ @ @ mandate .
The media release below ( Web | PDF ) reports on a letter @ @ @ @ @ to the UK government ’ s Committee on Climate Change .

Brits will all be walking before they are all driving electric cars.
There are simply not enough resources to support a 100% EV mandate.
The media release below (Web | PDF) reports on a letter delivered by UK metals experts to the UK government’s Committee on Climate Change.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-01--The Story Behind The Loss Making “Subsidy Free” Solar Farm

As the Telegraph reported , Gridserve , who are launching the new EV forecourt , have recently acquired the UK ’ s first subsidy-free solar farm – the Clayhill Solar Farm in Bedfordshire – to guarantee that all of the energy used at the Braintree Electric Forecourt® comes from net zero-carbon solar power : But there is a back story to Clayhill which needs to be told .
First we need to note that new solar installations have levelled off since subsidies were withdrawn in 2017 .
In the last two years , only 444MW has been added , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this has been small scale stuff , below 50KW .
Clearly solar farms are not viable without subsidy .
Clayhill , which began operations in 2017 , was of course billed as “ subsidy free ” .
But their Annual Accounts reveal that they are actually losing half a million a year : Annual output is around 7.1 GWh , equating to an average price of £112/MWh .
( According to REF , loading is 8.2 % ) .
However , it appears that a large chunk of their income is derived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guess is that electricity sales generate less than half of the turnover : Clayhill ’ s holding company Anesco confirm that this storage revenue is largely thanks to continued growth of renewable energy .
: And of course it is consumers who have to pay the bill for balancing at the end of the day .
Anesco themselves signed an agreement with EDF in March 2019 , which helps to explain why Clayhill ’ s turnover doubled year-on-year : Despite this boost from EDF , Anesco were still desperate to offload generating assets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the assets instead : It appears likely that Gridserve picked up the Clayhill Solar Farm on the cheap .
It also enables them to have the benefit of a fixed price for power going forward .
Naturally Clayhill can not supply power directly to Braintree , so the power will be supplied to Gridserve via what is called a Sleeved Power Purchase Agreement ( PPA ) .
Urban Grid describe how this works : Crucially sleeving allows the user to still buy power when the solar farm is not available : Although the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usual network charges , the utility company may offer cut price fees , as it is acting as a facilitator , merely taking power from Clayhill on a PPA and passing it on to Braintree .
Effectively cutting out the middleman .
Such an arrangement makes sense for both parties .
In addition , Clayhill/Gridserve are able to sell the REGOs , the Renewable Energy Guarantees Origin .
So-called green energy suppliers often don ’ t buy in renewable energy , but instead buy bits of paper ( REGOs ) from renewable generators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is that solar power may make sense such as this , where Gridserve both own the asset and “ buy ” its electricity , effectively cutting out the middle man , while at the same time still being able to source all the power it needs from the grid 24/7 , whether the solar farm is generating or not .
But all the evidence suggests that the Clayhills of this world can not make money when left to fend for themselves in the open market , without subsidies and guaranteed sales .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ THAT

By Paul Homewood
As the Telegraph reported, Gridserve, who are launching the new EV forecourt, have recently acquired the UK’s first subsidy-free solar farm – the Clayhill Solar Farm in Bedfordshire – to guarantee that all of the energy used at the Braintree Electric Forecourt® comes from net zero-carbon solar power:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/12/01/britains-first-electric-forecourt-paid-for-by-taxpayers/
But there is a back story to Clayhill which needs to be told.
First we need to note that new solar installations have levelled off since subsidies were withdrawn in 2017. In the last two years, only 444MW has been added, just 3% of the total. Almost of this has been small scale stuff, below 50KW.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/solar-photovoltaics-deployment
Clearly solar farms are not viable without subsidy. Clayhill, which began operations in 2017, was of course billed as “subsidy free”. But their Annual Accounts reveal that they are actually losing half a million a year:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08662024/filing-history
Annual output is around 7.1 GWh, equating to an average price of £112/MWh. (According to REF, loading is 8.2%). However, it appears that a large chunk of their income is derived from the energy storage side. My guess is that electricity sales generate less than half of the turnover:
Clayhill’s holding company Anesco confirm that this storage revenue is largely thanks to continued growth of renewable energy.:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07443091/filing-history
And of course it is consumers who have to pay the bill for balancing at the end of the day.
Anesco themselves signed an agreement with EDF in March 2019, which helps to explain why Clayhill’s turnover doubled year-on-year:
https://anesco.co.uk/edf-energy/
Despite this boost from EDF, Anesco were still desperate to offload generating assets, and concentrate on operating and servicing the assets instead:
It appears likely that Gridserve picked up the Clayhill Solar Farm on the cheap. It also enables them to have the benefit of a fixed price for power going forward.
Naturally Clayhill cannot supply power directly to Braintree, so the power will be supplied to Gridserve via what is called a Sleeved Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). Urban Grid describe how this works:
https://www.urbangridsolar.com/what-is-a-sleeved-ppa/
Crucially sleeving allows the user to still buy power when the solar farm is not available:
Although the sleeving arrangement ensures the buyer pays the usual network charges, the utility company may offer cut price fees, as it is acting as a facilitator, merely taking power from Clayhill on a PPA and passing it on to Braintree. Effectively cutting out the middleman.
Such an arrangement makes sense for both parties.
In addition, Clayhill/Gridserve are able to sell the REGOs, the Renewable Energy Guarantees Origin. So-called green energy suppliers often don’t buy in renewable energy, but instead buy bits of paper (REGOs) from renewable generators.
The bottom line to all of this is that solar power may make sense such as this, where Gridserve both own the asset and “buy” its electricity, effectively cutting out the middle man, while at the same time still being able to source all the power it needs from the grid 24/7, whether the solar farm is generating or not.
But all the evidence suggests that the Clayhills of this world cannot make money when left to fend for themselves in the open market, without subsidies and guaranteed sales.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/3o91Ldy
December 1, 2020 at 03:36PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-01--Was that a 780% voter turn-out in North Muskegon, Michigan

You ’ ve heard of impossible voter turnouts in the USA and you were wondering why no one just listed the counties with the counts .
Well here they are .
Thanks to David E for finding them .
Many precincts of Michigan had a 100 % turn out which is impressive in itself , but it was the 200 , 400 and 800 % turnouts that really take the cake .
Ponder the kind of brazen cheating ( or perhaps rushed panicked mistakes ) that takes .
Even if there was a record high turnout of 80 % in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would imply there were 36,812 extra zombie voters .
Below , see how one audit suggests that nearly one in ten absentee voters lives on a vacant lot or in a cemetery .
Audit shows 9 % of absentee votes in Michigan were not legal Dead voters and people who live in vacant lots were keen for Joe Biden to win .
1,000 volunteers went through 30,000 votes of the 172,000 absentee votes Deceased voters 229 Invalid addresses 2,660 8.9 % of those votes were illegal .
If these patterns occur across @ @ @ @ @ @

You’ve heard of impossible voter turnouts in the USA and you were wondering why no one just listed the counties with the counts. Well here they are. Thanks to David E for finding them.
Many precincts of Michigan had a 100% turn out which is impressive in itself, but it was the 200, 400 and 800% turnouts that really take the cake. Ponder the kind of brazen cheating (or perhaps rushed panicked mistakes) that takes. Even if there was a record high turnout of 80% in Michigan — 15% above normal — that would imply there were 36,812 extra zombie voters.
Below, see how one audit suggests that nearly one in ten absentee voters lives on a vacant lot or in a cemetery.
Exhibit Exhibit 104 — Document #1, Attachment #14
Affadavit of Russell James Ramsland
Audit shows 9% of absentee votes in Michigan were not legal
Dead voters and people who live in vacant lots were keen for Joe Biden to win.
1,000 volunteers went through 30,000 votes of the 172,000 absentee votes
Deceased voters 229 Invalid addresses 2,660 8.9% of those votes were illegal.
If these patterns occur across the 172,000 Absentee […]
Rating: 8.3/10 (7 votes cast)
via JoNova
https://ift.tt/3lsuEzK
December 1, 2020 at 03:00PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-01--Massachusetts AG Tells Bloomberg Group of Plan to Use its Attorneys to Enforce Paris Climate Treaty

Miracle “ Not a Treaty ” Paris Climate Deal Apparently to be Subject of Law Enforcement Pursuits It was one thing when , academics being academics , some immediately invoked President Obama ’ s purported unilateral ratification of the Paris climate agreement as reason to compel imposition — indeed , judicial commandeering — of the “ climate ” /energy suppression agenda through federal policy .
( This was because “ The Paris Agreement reflects the broader global recognition that climate change poses significant threats to fundamental human rights and all governments have obligations to address these threats under established principles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in the Climate Kidz case , Juliana v. United States ( dismissed by the 9th Cir .
on other grounds ) .
Depending on how things proceed in coming weeks , it won ’ t be the last time we see a court presented with that issue .
It is another thing entirely to see that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey has promised Michael Bloomberg ’ s group that , if it provided her Office with privately hired lawyers she would name as “ Special Assistant Attorneys General ” , they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and neighboring states meet the long-term commitments set forth…in the Paris Agreement.
” Wait huh ?
You may be wondering , um , what long-term commitments are states bound to meet under the Paris climate treaty ?
A good question .
And given Healey ’ s activist use of her office and the courts to impose this agenda , the absence of a good answer doesn ’ t mean the threat is not a serious one .
Indeed , the eagle-eyed reader no doubt spotted another “ innovative ” vow there , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which Healey did .
At the request of tort lawyers and activists .
Pretty ugly stuff .
And pretty relevant , in another one of those coincidences the climate litigation industry is quite full of .
As Energy Policy Advocates informed a court this very day , in a filing against Healey ’ s Office for its refusal to let the public know more about these promises made to an activist , deep-pocketed donor : The Bloomberg Center/SEEIC placed two SAAGs to pursue this agenda out of OAG , one of whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a former staff attorney with The Conservation Law Foundation , which is the group that – records released in this matter demonstrate – coordinated with Matt Pawa on “ the Exxon issue ” and [ “ climate nuisance ” lawyer Matt ] Pawa ’ s briefing of [ Healey ’ s Office ] .
[ FN : “ I have been in discussions with Brad Campbell of CLF about the Exxon issue and we are coordinating on this.
” January 4 , 2016 email from Pawa to OAG ’ s Christophe Courchesne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warming , released by OAG on September 11 , 2019 after Plaintiff filed this suit . ]
The second SAAG , Nora J. Chorover , also has professional ties to CLF .
[ FN : See , e.g.
, https : //casetext.com/case/conservation-law-found-inc-v-roland-teiner-co ] .
Small world .
And — barring President Trump at long last transmitting the Paris climate treaty to the Senate — a world in which we should soon expect to see what we have all been assured would never happen : law enforcement suing to compel compliance with a purely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ binding and , you can be assured , “ not a treaty ” .

Reposted from Government Accountability and Oversight
CHRIS HORNER GAO
Miracle “Not a Treaty” Paris Climate Deal Apparently to be Subject of Law Enforcement Pursuits
It was one thing when, academics being academics, some immediately invoked President Obama’s purported unilateral ratification of the Paris climate agreement as reason to compel imposition — indeed, judicial commandeering — of the “climate”/energy suppression agenda through federal policy. (This was because “The Paris Agreement reflects the broader global recognition that climate change poses significant threats to fundamental human rights and all governments have obligations to address these threats under established principles of international law.”).
That was in the Climate Kidz case, Juliana v. United States (dismissed by the 9th Cir. on other grounds). Depending on how things proceed in coming weeks, it won’t be the last time we see a court presented with that issue.
It is another thing entirely to see that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey has promised Michael Bloomberg’s group that, if it provided her Office with privately hired lawyers she would name as “Special Assistant Attorneys General”, they would “be focused on ensuring that Massachusetts and neighboring states meet the long-term commitments set forth…in the Paris Agreement.”
…
Wait huh? You may be wondering, um, what long-term commitments are states bound to meet under the Paris climate treaty? A good question. And given Healey’s activist use of her office and the courts to impose this agenda, the absence of a good answer doesn’t mean the threat is not a serious one.
Indeed, the eagle-eyed reader no doubt spotted another “innovative” vow there, to pursue consumer fraud claims against disfavored targets, which Healey did. At the request of tort lawyers and activists. Pretty ugly stuff.
And pretty relevant, in another one of those coincidences the climate litigation industry is quite full of. As Energy Policy Advocates informed a court this very day, in a filing against Healey’s Office for its refusal to let the public know more about these promises made to an activist, deep-pocketed donor:
The Bloomberg Center/SEEIC placed two SAAGs to pursue this agenda out of OAG, one of whom is named Megan Herzog. Ms. Herzog is a former staff attorney with The Conservation Law Foundation, which is the group that – records released in this matter demonstrate – coordinated with Matt Pawa on “the Exxon issue” and [“climate nuisance” lawyer Matt] Pawa’s briefing of [Healey’s Office]. [FN: “I have been in discussions with Brad Campbell of CLF about the Exxon issue and we are coordinating on this.” January 4, 2016 email from Pawa to OAG’s Christophe Courchesne and Melissa Hoffer, Subject: global warming, released by OAG on September 11, 2019 after Plaintiff filed this suit.]
The second SAAG, Nora J. Chorover, also has professional ties to CLF. [FN: See, e.g., https://casetext.com/case/conservation-law-found-inc-v-roland-teiner-co].
Small world. And — barring President Trump at long last transmitting the Paris climate treaty to the Senate — a world in which we should soon expect to see what we have all been assured would never happen: law enforcement suing to compel compliance with a purely voluntary pact that most definitely is not binding and, you can be assured, “not a treaty”.
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-01--UAH Global Temperature Update for November 2020: +0.53 deg. C

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature ( LT ) anomaly for November , 2020 was +0.53 deg .
C , essentially unchanged from the October , 2020 value of +0.54 deg .
C. The linear warming trend since January , 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade ( +0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans , and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land ) .
For comparison , the CDAS global surface temperature anomaly for the last 30 days at Weatherbell.com was +0.52 deg .
C. With La Nina in the Pacific now officially started , it will take several months for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the tropospheric temperatures .
Typically , La Nina minimum temperatures ( and El Nino maximum temperatures ) show up around February , March , or April .
The tropical ( 20N-20S ) temperature anomaly for November was +0.29 deg .
C , which is lower than it has been in over 2 years .
In contrast , the Arctic saw the warmest November ( 1.38 deg .
C ) in the 42 year satellite record , exceeding the previous record of 1.22 deg .
C in 1996 .
Various regional LT departures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the last 23 months are : The full UAH Global Temperature Report , along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for November , 2020 should be available within the next few days here .
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations :

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2020 was +0.53 deg. C, essentially unchanged from the October, 2020 value of +0.54 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).
For comparison, the CDAS global surface temperature anomaly for the last 30 days at Weatherbell.com was +0.52 deg. C.
With La Nina in the Pacific now officially started, it will take several months for that surface cooling to be fully realized in the tropospheric temperatures. Typically, La Nina minimum temperatures (and El Nino maximum temperatures) show up around February, March, or April. The tropical (20N-20S) temperature anomaly for November was +0.29 deg. C, which is lower than it has been in over 2 years.
In contrast, the Arctic saw the warmest November (1.38 deg. C) in the 42 year satellite record, exceeding the previous record of 1.22 deg. C in 1996.
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 23 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.14 +1.14
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.03 +1.05 +0.05
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.97 +0.58
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.49 +0.93 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.99 +0.38
2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35
2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.10 +0.34 +0.87
2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.23
2019 09 +0.61 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57
2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.27 +0.30 -0.03 +1.00 +0.49
2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.37
2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
2020 01 +0.56 +0.60 +0.53 +0.61 +0.73 +0.13 +0.65
2020 02 +0.76 +0.96 +0.55 +0.76 +0.38 +0.02 +0.30
2020 03 +0.48 +0.61 +0.34 +0.63 +1.09 -0.72 +0.16
2020 04 +0.38 +0.43 +0.33 +0.45 -0.59 +1.03 +0.97
2020 05 +0.54 +0.60 +0.49 +0.66 +0.17 +1.16 -0.15
2020 06 +0.43 +0.45 +0.41 +0.46 +0.38 +0.80 +1.20
2020 07 +0.44 +0.45 +0.42 +0.46 +0.56 +0.40 +0.66
2020 08 +0.43 +0.47 +0.38 +0.59 +0.41 +0.47 +0.49
2020 09 +0.57 +0.58 +0.56 +0.46 +0.97 +0.48 +0.92
2020 10 +0.54 +0.71 +0.37 +0.37 +1.10 +1.23 +0.24
2020 11 +0.53 +0.67 +0.39 +0.29 +1.57 +1.38 +1.41
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for November, 2020 should be available within the next few days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
via Roy Spencer, PhD.
https://ift.tt/3mFoaPi
December 1, 2020 at 12:07PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-01--LIVE STREAM: Al Gore on using satellite data to measure climate change

Ironic , since the idea of satellite temperature data from Spencer and Christy et al is rejected by people like @ @ @ @ @ This panel discussion will examine ways in which new technological developments in satellites , artificial @ @ @ @ @ work towards an international data set to support implementation of the Paris Agreement .
Innovators @ @ @ @ @ on the lastest developments climate change data .
The panel will discuss the impacts of @ @ @ @ @ climate change regime.Moderator , Dr. Timiebi Aganaba-Jeanty , Arizona State University , Speakers : Al @ @ @ @ @ President , Matthew Gray , Climate TRACE , Brigitte Hoyer Gosselink , Director , Product @ @ @ @ @ Fagbeja , Head , Space Education Outreach Programme , National Space Research and Development Agency @ @ @ @ @ Stephane Germain , CEO at GHGSat

Ironic, since the idea of satellite temperature data from Spencer and Christy et al is rejected by people like Al Gore.
Description: This panel discussion will examine ways in which new technological developments in satellites, artificial intelligence and big data could work towards an international data set to support implementation of the Paris Agreement.
Innovators will present a multi-stakeholder perspective on the lastest developments climate change data. The panel will discuss the impacts of these technologies to the UN climate change regime.Moderator, Dr. Timiebi Aganaba-Jeanty, Arizona State University,
Speakers: Al Gore, Former USA Vice President, Matthew Gray, Climate TRACE, Brigitte Hoyer Gosselink, Director, Product Impact at Google.org, Mofoluso Fagbeja, Head, Space Education Outreach Programme, National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA) Nigeria, Stephane Germain, CEO at GHGSat
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-01--Sheldon Whitehouse’s Climate Inquisition continues

“ Senator Sheldon Whitehouse wants to jail those who dissent from his alarmist views on climate.
” – Paul Driessen __________ “ Senator Sheldon Whitehouse ( D-RI ) is again behaving like Tomas de Torquemada , using Inquisition-like tactics to harass “ manmade climate crisis ” skeptics , and saying Democrat control of the Senate would enable him and his colleagues to launch investigations , haul climate realists before committees , and even employ grand juries and criminal prosecutions – to intimidate , silence and punish climate crisis nonbelievers , says Paul Driessen .
It is reprehensible , dictatorial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world do not need more censorship .
They need open , robust debate : over the validity of climate crisis claims , over the impacts that literally millions of wind turbines and billions of solar panels and battery modules would have on our environment and wildlife , over the effects that an expensive , weather-dependent energy system would have on jobs , living standards and working class families .
My article examines these issues.
” Senator Torquemada wants to jail those who dissent from his alarmist views on climate Five years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D-RI ) behaves like Torquemada , using Inquisition-like tactics to harass “ manmade climate crisis ” skeptics , and threatening to prosecute them for racketeering .
Tomas de Torquemada was the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition that interrogated , tortured , imprisoned and executed thousands for religious heresy .
The senator took great umbrage , and denounced me in Senate chambers where I once worked .
But he didn ’ t change his ways .
If anything , he has become more intolerant and vindictive .
He recently said Democrat control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues to launch investigations , haul climate realists before committees ( for star-chamber show trials ) , and even employ grand juries and criminal prosecutions – to intimidate , silence and punish climate crisis nonbelievers .
People could certainly conclude that the thin-skinned senator would feel right at home in Inquisition Spain , Stalinist Russia , Red Guard and Xi Jinping China , or book-burning pre-Holocaust fascist Europe .
Their history of silencing dissenters , erasing them from history , and sending them off to gulags and salt mines ( or worse ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideology is classic fascism : an extreme , intolerant system , under which an authoritarian government does not own businesses and industries outright , but does dictate what they can make , do , sell and say – while controlling citizens ’ thoughts , speech and choices – through intimidation , silencing , arrest , prosecution , and fear of being fined , jailed , fired , sent to penal or reeducation colonies , and being beaten or executed .
These tactics are reprehensible and dictatorial .
They are un-American and anti-science .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissent , discussion and debate .
It requires not just hypotheses , theories and computer models , but solid , empirical evidence to confirm or disprove hypotheses , models and predictions .
Discussion , debate , dissent and evidence are especially vital in addressing the assertion that humanity faces an unprecedented manmade climate crisis .
That assertion is being used to justify demands that the United States , Europe and developed world eliminate the fossil fuels that provide over 80 % of our energy , petrochemical and pharmaceutical raw materials , fertilizers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to justify demands that we replace this reliable , affordable energy and raw material base with wind , solar , battery and biofuel power .
Not only are these alternatives intermittent , weather-dependent and far more expensive .
They involve extensive mining , land use , wildlife , pollution and other environmental impacts .
They are not renewable , sustainable , environment-friendly or climate-safe .
In the United States alone , we would have to replace some 7.5 billion megawatt-hours of electricity and electricity-equivalent fossil fuel use per year ; replace enormous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ materials ; and overhaul our transportation , home heating and other systems .
That would require millions of wind turbines , billions of solar panels , billions of 1000-pound battery modules , tens of millions of acres of corn , canola , soybean and other biofuel crops – and tens of trillions of dollars .
Democrat urban population and voter centers will likely oppose those industrial-scale installations in their backyards .
They would have little objection to locating them in what many ruling , media and Hollywood elites imperiously and derisively refer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Midwestern and southern states .
This “ transformation ” – under the Paris climate treaty , a Green New Deal or a Biden-Harris regulatory program – would massively disrupt America ’ s economy , jobs , living standards , health and wellbeing , especially for poor , minority , blue-collar , fixed-income and flyover country families and communities .
Climate alarmists insist that any lost jobs would be replaced with “ green ” jobs .
But those would be mostly minimum-wage positions : hauling , installing , maintaining , dismantling , removing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moreover , most of those green technologies would be manufactured overseas , especially in China , because environmentalists battle any mining in the USA , and a climate-focused energy system would provide insufficient reliable , affordable power for factories .
Those huge and unprecedented amounts of mining and manufacturing would require fossil fuels .
So the only thing that would change is where the fossil fuel use and emissions occur .
It would be mostly in Asia and Africa , in countries that are not obligated under the Paris climate treaty to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( GHG ) emissions ; countries that will build as many hundreds or thousands of coal and gas-fired power plants as needed to lift their people out of poverty … and make “ green energy ” technologies they will happily sell to America , Australia , Canada and Europe .
That means , even if the US went cold-turkey on fossil fuels , it would make no difference to global GHG emissions or global atmospheric concentrations .
And that means , even if carbon dioxide is the primary factor in climate change , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring no climate benefits .
The EU ’ s and UK ’ s unwavering belief in human-caused climate cataclysms is already hammering its industries , workers and families , as numerous articles attest : here , here , here and here , for instance .
Thankfully , however , it is becoming increasingly clear that assertions of Climate Armageddon have been miscalculated , exaggerated or fabricated .
Average global temperatures are rising far less rapidly than predicted by climate models : by at least a half-degree F. Violent ( F4-F5 ) US tornadoes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 35 years ( 1985-2020 ) versus the previous 35 years ( 1950-1984 ) ; and in 2018 not one F5 tornado touched down in the United States .
For a record twelve years , from Wilma in 2005 until Harvey and Irma in 2017 , no Category 3 to 5 hurricane struck the US mainland .
Overall , there is little or no trend in tropical cyclone activity or intensity .
All that is not surprising in light of new research by Drs .
William Happer and Willem van Wijngaarden that strongly indicates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greenhouse gases ) in Earth ’ s atmosphere would have minuscule effects on global temperatures and climate ( but would benefit plant growth ) .
Indeed , it is impossible to distinguish human influences from natural factors , fluctuations and cycles regarding temperatures , polar ice , storms and droughts .
Some scientists certainly claim otherwise – and generally just blame humans .
But they have little or no actual , empirical evidence to support their claims , predictions and models .
They simply say the science is settled , and we must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With so much at stake for America and the world , this is completely intolerable .
At the very least , those claiming we face a climate calamity must be required to present solid empirical evidence to support their assertions – and engage in in robust , transparent debates with manmade climate change skeptics .
That is precisely what Senator Torquemada seems determined to prevent and punish , while transforming “ the world ’ s greatest deliberative body ” into a Russian Politburo or Chinese National People ’ s Congress – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate Industrial Complex .
In that quest he would certainly be aided by the Big Media and Big Tech moguls who share his views on climate change , silencing scientists and evidence that contradicts climate cataclysm catechism , and blacklisting “ climate heretics ” in government , academic and corporate circles .
People have been conditioned to kowtow to government lockdown edicts , to save humanity from Covid .
Climate alarmists assume we will now be sufficiently compliant about banning fossil fuels to “ save the planet , ” when we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their Torquemadas will make us compliant .
It ’ s time to reject politicized junk science , demand debate , and resist green climate and energy edicts .
Perhaps most of all , the US Senate must assert its Advice and Consent responsibilities on the Paris climate treaty , the most far-reaching international agreement Americans were ever asked to ratify .
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org ) and author of books and articles on energy , environment , climate and human rights issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dominican friar and first Grand Inquisitor in Spain ’ s movement to homogenize religious practices with those of the Catholic Church in the late 15th century , otherwise known as the Spanish Inquisition .
Owing to his widespread use of torture to extract confessions , and advocacy of burning at the stake those deemed guilty , Torquemada ’ s name has become synonymous with cruelty , religious intolerance and fanaticism .
[ 7 ] https : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom % C3 % A1s_de_Torquemada The post Sheldon Whitehouse ’ s Climate Inquisition continues appeared first on @ @ @ @

“Senator Sheldon Whitehouse wants to jail those who dissent from his alarmist views on climate.”
– Paul Driessen
__________
“Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is again behaving like Tomas de Torquemada, using Inquisition-like tactics to harass “manmade climate crisis” skeptics, and saying Democrat control of the Senate would enable him and his colleagues to launch investigations, haul climate realists before committees, and even employ grand juries and criminal prosecutions – to intimidate, silence and punish climate crisis nonbelievers, says Paul Driessen. It is reprehensible, dictatorial, un-American and anti-science.
“America and the world do not need more censorship. They need open, robust debate: over the validity of climate crisis claims, over the impacts that literally millions of wind turbines and billions of solar panels and battery modules would have on our environment and wildlife, over the effects that an expensive, weather-dependent energy system would have on jobs, living standards and working class families. My article examines these issues.”
___________
Sheldon Whitehouse’s Climate Inquisition continues
Senator Torquemada wants to jail those who dissent from his alarmist views on climate
Paul Driessen
Five years ago, I said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) behaves like Torquemada, using Inquisition-like tactics to harass “manmade climate crisis” skeptics, and threatening to prosecute them for racketeering. Tomas de Torquemada was the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition that interrogated, tortured, imprisoned and executed thousands for religious heresy.
The senator took great umbrage, and denounced me in Senate chambers where I once worked. But he didn’t change his ways. If anything, he has become more intolerant and vindictive.
He recently said Democrat control of the Senate would enable him and his colleagues to launch investigations, haul climate realists before committees (for star-chamber show trials), and even employ grand juries and criminal prosecutions – to intimidate, silence and punish climate crisis nonbelievers.
People could certainly conclude that the thin-skinned senator would feel right at home in Inquisition Spain, Stalinist Russia, Red Guard and Xi Jinping China, or book-burning pre-Holocaust fascist Europe. Their history of silencing dissenters, erasing them from history, and sending them off to gulags and salt mines (or worse) is legendary. Their economic and governing ideology is classic fascism:
an extreme, intolerant system, under which an authoritarian government does not own businesses and industries outright, but does dictate what they can make, do, sell and say – while controlling citizens’ thoughts, speech and choices – through intimidation, silencing, arrest, prosecution, and fear of being fined, jailed, fired, sent to penal or reeducation colonies, and being beaten or executed.
These tactics are reprehensible and dictatorial. They are un-American and anti-science. Indeed, science achieves no progress without dissent, discussion and debate. It requires not just hypotheses, theories and computer models, but solid, empirical evidence to confirm or disprove hypotheses, models and predictions.
Discussion, debate, dissent and evidence are especially vital in addressing the assertion that humanity faces an unprecedented manmade climate crisis. That assertion is being used to justify demands that the United States, Europe and developed world eliminate the fossil fuels that provide over 80% of our energy, petrochemical and pharmaceutical raw materials, fertilizers and countless other benefits.
It is being used to justify demands that we replace this reliable, affordable energy and raw material base with wind, solar, battery and biofuel power. Not only are these alternatives intermittent, weather-dependent and far more expensive. They involve extensive mining, land use, wildlife, pollution and other environmental impacts. They are not renewable, sustainable, environment-friendly or climate-safe.
In the United States alone, we would have to replace some 7.5 billion megawatt-hours of electricity and electricity-equivalent fossil fuel use per year; replace enormous amounts of oil and natural gas raw materials; and overhaul our transportation, home heating and other systems. That would require millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of 1000-pound battery modules, tens of millions of acres of corn, canola, soybean and other biofuel crops – and tens of trillions of dollars.
Democrat urban population and voter centers will likely oppose those industrial-scale installations in their backyards. They would have little objection to locating them in what many ruling, media and Hollywood elites imperiously and derisively refer to “flyover country” – western, Midwestern and southern states.
This “transformation” – under the Paris climate treaty, a Green New Deal or a Biden-Harris regulatory program – would massively disrupt America’s economy, jobs, living standards, health and wellbeing, especially for poor, minority, blue-collar, fixed-income and flyover country families and communities.
Climate alarmists insist that any lost jobs would be replaced with “green” jobs. But those would be mostly minimum-wage positions: hauling, installing, maintaining, dismantling, removing and landfilling turbines, panels and batteries. Moreover, most of those green technologies would be manufactured overseas, especially in China, because environmentalists battle any mining in the USA, and a climate-focused energy system would provide insufficient reliable, affordable power for factories.
Those huge and unprecedented amounts of mining and manufacturing would require fossil fuels. So the only thing that would change is where the fossil fuel use and emissions occur.
It would be mostly in Asia and Africa, in countries that are not obligated under the Paris climate treaty to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; countries that will build as many hundreds or thousands of coal and gas-fired power plants as needed to lift their people out of poverty … and make “green energy” technologies they will happily sell to America, Australia, Canada and Europe.
That means, even if the US went cold-turkey on fossil fuels, it would make no difference to global GHG emissions or global atmospheric concentrations. And that means, even if carbon dioxide is the primary factor in climate change, destroying US and other modern economies would bring no climate benefits.
The EU’s and UK’s unwavering belief in human-caused climate cataclysms is already hammering its industries, workers and families, as numerous articles attest: here, here, here and here, for instance.
Thankfully, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that assertions of Climate Armageddon have been miscalculated, exaggerated or fabricated. Average global temperatures are rising far less rapidly than predicted by climate models: by at least a half-degree F.
Violent (F4-F5) US tornadoes have actually declined in number the past 35 years (1985-2020) versus the previous 35 years (1950-1984); and in 2018 not one F5 tornado touched down in the United States. For a record twelve years, from Wilma in 2005 until Harvey and Irma in 2017, no Category 3 to 5 hurricane struck the US mainland. Overall, there is little or no trend in tropical cyclone activity or intensity.
All that is not surprising in light of new research by Drs. William Happer and Willem van Wijngaarden that strongly indicates even doubling carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) in Earth’s atmosphere would have minuscule effects on global temperatures and climate (but would benefit plant growth).
Indeed, it is impossible to distinguish human influences from natural factors, fluctuations and cycles regarding temperatures, polar ice, storms and droughts. Some scientists certainly claim otherwise – and generally just blame humans. But they have little or no actual, empirical evidence to support their claims, predictions and models. They simply say the science is settled, and we must ban fossil fuels, so shut up.
With so much at stake for America and the world, this is completely intolerable. At the very least, those claiming we face a climate calamity must be required to present solid empirical evidence to support their assertions – and engage in in robust, transparent debates with manmade climate change skeptics.
That is precisely what Senator Torquemada seems determined to prevent and punish, while transforming “the world’s greatest deliberative body” into a Russian Politburo or Chinese National People’s Congress – and an integral part of the $multi-trillion-per-year Climate Industrial Complex.
In that quest he would certainly be aided by the Big Media and Big Tech moguls who share his views on climate change, silencing scientists and evidence that contradicts climate cataclysm catechism, and blacklisting “climate heretics” in government, academic and corporate circles.
People have been conditioned to kowtow to government lockdown edicts, to save humanity from Covid. Climate alarmists assume we will now be sufficiently compliant about banning fossil fuels to “save the planet,” when we’re trying to recover from Covid. Or their Torquemadas will make us compliant.
It’s time to reject politicized junk science, demand debate, and resist green climate and energy edicts. Perhaps most of all, the US Senate must assert its Advice and Consent responsibilities on the Paris climate treaty, the most far-reaching international agreement Americans were ever asked to ratify.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.
_________
Tomás de Torquemada was a Castilian Dominican friar and first Grand Inquisitor in Spain’s movement to homogenize religious practices with those of the Catholic Church in the late 15th century, otherwise known as the Spanish Inquisition.
Owing to his widespread use of torture to extract confessions, and advocacy of burning at the stake those deemed guilty, Torquemada’s name has become synonymous with cruelty, religious intolerance and fanaticism.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada
The post Sheldon Whitehouse’s Climate Inquisition continues appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
https://ift.tt/3ohbvmn
December 1, 2020 at 11:11AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-01--EU Regulators Resume Attacks on HCQ

EU Regulators Resume Attacks on HCQ

The recent spike in the COVID-19 hospitalizations is caused by seasonality , and , probably , by hydroxychloroquine denial to the patients .
The EU regulators attempted to link HCQ to psychiatric disorders , based on historical cases of chloroquine ( usually overdosed ) , and fake science .
The following Newsweek article has an appropriately ambiguous title : Hydroxychloroquine for COVID Treatment Linked to Suicidal Behavior by European Regulators The article is based on the Meeting Highlights from the latest PRAC meeting .
This meeting was held by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee ( PRAC ) on November 23-26 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published Meeting Highlights.
, claiming that PRAC conducted “ a review of all available data that confirmed a link between the use of these medicines and the risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior.
” No link , nor any reference to the alleged review was provided .
The same document also claimed that “ chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have not shown any beneficial effects in treating COVID-19 in large randomized clinical trials.
” In addition to disparaging HCQ and providing no corresponding evidence , this same committee also ignored ample evidence of Remdesivir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment , causing serious kidney damage .
PRAC published notes from its October meeting : Meeting Highlights from October , where they discussed “ reports of acute kidney injury in some patients with COVID-19 taking Veklury ( remdesivir ) ” .
Kidney injury is a well-known side-effect of this drug , yet , PRAC still failed to provide any warnings and concluded : “ At this stage , it has not been determined whether there is a causal relationship between Veklury and the reports of acute kidney injury .
… Kidney injury can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , e.g .
diabetes ; importantly , COVID-19 is itself known to be a cause .
The PRAC will now carefully assess all available data to evaluate if the medicine may have been responsible for the kidney problems and if there is a need to update the existing information for Veklury .
Recommendations for the use of this medicine have not changed.
” The alleged review was not provided by PRAC or anyone else and could not be found in any peer-reviewed literature .
Since no links or evidence was provided , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relevant review : Brandon S. Hamm , Lisa J. Rosenthal , Psychiatric Aspects of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine Treatment in the Wake of Coronavirus Disease-2019 : Psychopharmacological Interactions and Neuropsychiatric Sequelae , Psychosomatics Journal , July 8 , 2020 This review points to the completely opposite conclusion about HCQ – that it is safe .
After decades of use , and more than a hundred million patients , there are only a few anecdotal cases of neuropsychiatric side effects .
Severe COVID-19 causes psychiatric and/or neurological symptoms very frequently .
Below are some quotes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side effects [ of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine ] are very uncommon but possible and include a potentially prolonged phenomenon of ‘ psychosis after chloroquine ’ [ not hydroxychloroquine ] ” “ No studies were found regarding the incidence of hydroxychloroquine-induced psychotic symptoms .
“ “ psychiatric presentations are expected to be common in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 because of etiologies other than chloroquine- or hydroxychloroquine-induced neuropsychiatric side effects .
Delirium has , anecdotally , been frequent in patients requiring intensive care … Prevalence of neurological symptoms was increased to 45.5 % in severe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study of 58 patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome showed that 69 % of patients had agitation… “ “ Psychiatric symptom presentation during hospitalization for COVID-19 infection is much more likely to be due to delirium and adjustment disorder than neuropsychiatric side effects of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine.
” After additional research , I stumbled upon one study that may have been used to substantiate the PRAC allegations .
Garcia , P. , Revet , A. , Yrondi , A. et al .
Psychiatric Disorders and Hydroxychloroquine for Coronavirus Disease 2019 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drug Safety , October 19 , 2020 This is a typical “ database study.
” It used VigiBase , a World Health Organization database containing reports of adverse drug side effects .
The database currently has more than 20 million reports .
Reporting is voluntary , and there appear to be no quality controls .
The authors of this study do not distinguish between cases in which HCQ was dosed correctly and cases of overdoses .
Even so , from January to June 16 , there were only 3 ( three ) reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptoms and HCQ for COVID-19 , in all Americas ( Table 1 in the cited study ) .
Additionally , the authors found only 751 reports of psychiatric side effects “ associated ” with HCQ , throughout the world , before 2020 .
Since more than one hundred million patients have been treated with HCQ , 751 cases is consistent with the definition of “ anecdotal evidence ” ( Table 3 in the cited study ) .
The “ suicidal behavior ” mentioned by the Newsweek article likely arose form 48 reported suicides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the total 751 adverse reports .
48 cases of suicides , out of over one hundred million patients , is not a factor .
But there are reasons to suspect that most of these reports are phony .
The majority of these self-harm cases lack information about the time and the diagnosis for which HCQ was supposedly prescribed .
Less then 5 out of the 92 reports include the time since beginning of taking HCQ to the self-harm incident .
On the other hand , most of these patients ( up to 68 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This study makes an allegation of four suicides of COVID-19 patients , “ linked ” to HCQ , but the referenced documents do not confirm this claim .
The reporting odds ratios ( RORs ) , used in the study , are unsuitable statistics for the claimed purpose .
Many citations do not support or even contradict the study ’ s claims .
Despite all the efforts , the authors concluded with a noon-statement : “ Our findings imply that during the COVID-19 pandemic , some patients may have experienced psychiatric symptoms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Considering the complete lack of any evidence provided by PRAC and the subsequent lack of evidence throughout peer review literature to support their conclusions , the media is yet again engaging on unsubstantiated HCQ attacks .

The recent spike in the COVID-19 hospitalizations is caused by seasonality, and, probably, by hydroxychloroquine denial to the patients. The EU regulators attempted to link HCQ to psychiatric disorders, based on historical cases of chloroquine (usually overdosed), and fake science. The following Newsweek article has an appropriately ambiguous title:
Hydroxychloroquine for COVID Treatment Linked to Suicidal Behavior by European Regulators
The article is based on the Meeting Highlights from the latest PRAC meeting. This meeting was held by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) on November 23-26, 2020. The European Medicines Agency published Meeting Highlights., claiming that PRAC conducted “a review of all available data that confirmed a link between the use of these medicines and the risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidal behavior.” No link, nor any reference to the alleged review was provided. The same document also claimed that “chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have not shown any beneficial effects in treating COVID-19 in large randomized clinical trials.”
In addition to disparaging HCQ and providing no corresponding evidence, this same committee also ignored ample evidence of Remdesivir (Veklury), a competing COVID-19 treatment, causing serious kidney damage. PRAC published notes from its October meeting: Meeting Highlights from October, where they discussed “reports of acute kidney injury in some patients with COVID-19 taking Veklury (remdesivir)”. Kidney injury is a well-known side-effect of this drug, yet, PRAC still failed to provide any warnings and concluded:
“At this stage, it has not been determined whether there is a causal relationship between Veklury and the reports of acute kidney injury. … Kidney injury can be caused by other factors as well, e.g. diabetes; importantly, COVID-19 is itself known to be a cause. The PRAC will now carefully assess all available data to evaluate if the medicine may have been responsible for the kidney problems and if there is a need to update the existing information for Veklury. Recommendations for the use of this medicine have not changed.”
See a list of PRAC’s Meeting Highlights.
The alleged review was not provided by PRAC or anyone else and could not be found in any peer-reviewed literature. Since no links or evidence was provided, I used Google Scholar to find the most relevant review:
Brandon S. Hamm, Lisa J. Rosenthal, Psychiatric Aspects of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine Treatment in the Wake of Coronavirus Disease-2019: Psychopharmacological Interactions and Neuropsychiatric Sequelae, Psychosomatics Journal, July 8, 2020
This review points to the completely opposite conclusion about HCQ – that it is safe. After decades of use, and more than a hundred million patients, there are only a few anecdotal cases of neuropsychiatric side effects. Severe COVID-19 causes psychiatric and/or neurological symptoms very frequently.
Below are some quotes form the HCQ review:
“neuropsychiatric side effects [of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine] are very uncommon but possible and include a potentially prolonged phenomenon of ‘psychosis after chloroquine’ [not hydroxychloroquine]”
“No studies were found regarding the incidence of hydroxychloroquine-induced psychotic symptoms. “
“psychiatric presentations are expected to be common in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 because of etiologies other than chloroquine- or hydroxychloroquine-induced neuropsychiatric side effects. Delirium has, anecdotally, been frequent in patients requiring intensive care … Prevalence of neurological symptoms was increased to 45.5% in severe COVID-19 cases. In addition, a study of 58 patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome showed that 69% of patients had agitation… “
“Psychiatric symptom presentation during hospitalization for COVID-19 infection is much more likely to be due to delirium and adjustment disorder than neuropsychiatric side effects of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine.”
After additional research, I stumbled upon one study that may have been used to substantiate the PRAC allegations.
Garcia, P., Revet, A., Yrondi, A. et al. Psychiatric Disorders and Hydroxychloroquine for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A VigiBase Study. Drug Safety, October 19, 2020
This is a typical “database study.” It used VigiBase, a World Health Organization database containing reports of adverse drug side effects. The database currently has more than 20 million reports. Reporting is voluntary, and there appear to be no quality controls.
The authors of this study do not distinguish between cases in which HCQ was dosed correctly and cases of overdoses. Even so, from January to June 16, there were only 3 (three) reported cases with a suspected association between psychiatric symptoms and HCQ for COVID-19, in all Americas (Table 1 in the cited study). Additionally, the authors found only 751 reports of psychiatric side effects “associated” with HCQ, throughout the world, before 2020. Since more than one hundred million patients have been treated with HCQ, 751 cases is consistent with the definition of “anecdotal evidence” (Table 3 in the cited study).
The “suicidal behavior” mentioned by the Newsweek article likely arose form 48 reported suicides and 44 other self-injuries, out of the total 751 adverse reports. 48 cases of suicides, out of over one hundred million patients, is not a factor. But there are reasons to suspect that most of these reports are phony. The majority of these self-harm cases lack information about the time and the diagnosis for which HCQ was supposedly prescribed. Less then 5 out of the 92 reports include the time since beginning of taking HCQ to the self-harm incident. On the other hand, most of these patients (up to 68 out of 92) received psychotropic drugs.
This study makes an allegation of four suicides of COVID-19 patients, “linked” to HCQ, but the referenced documents do not confirm this claim.
The reporting odds ratios (RORs), used in the study, are unsuitable statistics for the claimed purpose. Many citations do not support or even contradict the study’s claims. Despite all the efforts, the authors concluded with a noon-statement:
“Our findings imply that during the COVID-19 pandemic, some patients may have experienced psychiatric symptoms associated with the use of hydroxychloroquine.”
Considering the complete lack of any evidence provided by PRAC and the subsequent lack of evidence throughout peer review literature to support their conclusions, the media is yet again engaging on unsubstantiated HCQ attacks.
via Science Defies Politics
https://ift.tt/37ECxgT
December 1, 2020 at 09:10AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-02--Roger Pielke Jr: The unstoppable momentum of outdated science

Much of climate research is focused on implausible scenarios of the future , but implementing a course correction will be difficult A 2015 literature review found almost 900 peer-reviewed studies published on breast cancer using a cell line derived from a breast cancer patient in Texas in 1976 .
But in 2007 it was confirmed that the cell line that had long been the focus of this research was actually not a breast cancer line , but was instead a skin cancer line .
Whoops .
Even worse , from 2008 to 2014 — after the mistaken cell line was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peer-reviewed articles putatively on breast cancer that were published using the misidentified skin cancer cell line .
A cursory search of Google Scholar indicates that studies continue to be published in 2020 mistakenly using the skin cell line in breast cancer research .
The lesson from this experience is that science has momentum , and that momentum can be hard to change , even when obvious and significant flaws are identified .
This is particularly the case when the flaws exist in databases that underlie research across an entire discipline .
In 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar situation to that of breast cancer research in 2007 .
Evidence indicates the scenarios of the future to 2100 that are at the focus of much of climate research have already diverged from the real world and thus offer a poor basis for projecting policy-relevant variables like economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions .
A course-correction is needed .
In a new paper of ours just out in Environmental Research Letters we perform the most rigorous evaluation to date of how key variables in climate scenarios compare with data from the real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population , economic growth , energy intensity of economic growth and carbon intensity of energy consumption ) .
We also look at how these variables might evolve in the near-term to 2040 .
We find that the most commonly-used scenarios in climate research have already diverged significantly from the real world , and that divergence is going to only get larger in coming decades .
You can see this visualized in the graph below , which shows carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels from 2005 , when many scenarios begin , to 2045 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the most commonly used climate scenarios ( called SSP5-8.5 and RCP8.5 , with labels on the right vertical axis ) , along with other scenario trajectories .
Actual emissions to date ( dark purple curve ) and those of near-term energy outlooks ( labeled as EIA , BP and ExxonMobil ) all can be found at the very low end of the scenario range , and far below the most commonly used scenarios .
Our paper goes into the technical details , but in short , an important reason for the lower-than-projected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been slower than expected across the scenarios , and rather than seeing coal use expand dramatically around the world , it has actually declined in many regions .
It is even conceivable , if not likely , that in 2019 the world has passed “ peak carbon dioxide emissions.
” Crucially , the projections in the figure above are pre-Covid19 , which means that actual emissions 2020 to 2045 will be even less than was projected in 2019 .
Our study builds upon a growing literature — notably that led by our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ British Columbia — indicating that commonly used climate scenarios are already well off track and will become increasingly off track .
As Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters write in Nature , the highest emissions scenario commonly used in research to represent a “ business as usual ” trajectory into the future “ becomes increasingly implausible with every passing year.
” Another new paper , led by Brian O ’ Neill at the University of Denver and co-authored by many involved in scenario development , has also recognized that the real world and scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the scenarios were first developed .
That is of course not surprising , as projecting the future is always challenging .
Correspondingly , the authors “ recommend establishing a process for regular updates ” to the scenarios and recommend that key variables in the scenarios “ be updated now to be consistent with new historical data.
” While it is excellent news that the broader community is beginning to realize that scenarios are increasingly outdated , voluminous amounts of research have been and continue to be produced based on the outdated scenarios @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The unstoppable momentum of outdated science appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

Much of climate research is focused on implausible scenarios of the future, but implementing a course correction will be difficult
A 2015 literature review found almost 900 peer-reviewed studies published on breast cancer using a cell line derived from a breast cancer patient in Texas in 1976. But in 2007 it was confirmed that the cell line that had long been the focus of this research was actually not a breast cancer line, but was instead a skin cancer line. Whoops.
Even worse, from 2008 to 2014 — after the mistaken cell line was conclusively identified — the review identified 247 peer-reviewed articles putatively on breast cancer that were published using the misidentified skin cancer cell line. A cursory search of Google Scholar indicates that studies continue to be published in 2020 mistakenly using the skin cell line in breast cancer research.
The lesson from this experience is that science has momentum, and that momentum can be hard to change, even when obvious and significant flaws are identified. This is particularly the case when the flaws exist in databases that underlie research across an entire discipline.
In 2020, climate research finds itself in a similar situation to that of breast cancer research in 2007. Evidence indicates the scenarios of the future to 2100 that are at the focus of much of climate research have already diverged from the real world and thus offer a poor basis for projecting policy-relevant variables like economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions. A course-correction is needed.
In a new paper of ours just out in Environmental Research Letters we perform the most rigorous evaluation to date of how key variables in climate scenarios compare with data from the real world (specifically, we look at population, economic growth, energy intensity of economic growth and carbon intensity of energy consumption). We also look at how these variables might evolve in the near-term to 2040.
We find that the most commonly-used scenarios in climate research have already diverged significantly from the real world, and that divergence is going to only get larger in coming decades. You can see this visualized in the graph below, which shows carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels from 2005, when many scenarios begin, to 2045. The graph shows emissions trajectories projected by the most commonly used climate scenarios (called SSP5-8.5 and RCP8.5, with labels on the right vertical axis), along with other scenario trajectories. Actual emissions to date (dark purple curve) and those of near-term energy outlooks (labeled as EIA, BP and ExxonMobil) all can be found at the very low end of the scenario range, and far below the most commonly used scenarios.
Our paper goes into the technical details, but in short, an important reason for the lower-than-projected carbon dioxide emissions is that economic growth has been slower than expected across the scenarios, and rather than seeing coal use expand dramatically around the world, it has actually declined in many regions. It is even conceivable, if not likely, that in 2019 the world has passed “peak carbon dioxide emissions.” Crucially, the projections in the figure above are pre-Covid19, which means that actual emissions 2020 to 2045 will be even less than was projected in 2019.
Our study builds upon a growing literature — notably that led by our co-author Justin Ritchie of the University of British Columbia — indicating that commonly used climate scenarios are already well off track and will become increasingly off track. As Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters write in Nature, the highest emissions scenario commonly used in research to represent a “business as usual” trajectory into the future “becomes increasingly implausible with every passing year.”
Another new paper, led by Brian O’Neill at the University of Denver and co-authored by many involved in scenario development, has also recognized that the real world and scenario architecture have drifted apart in the years since the scenarios were first developed. That is of course not surprising, as projecting the future is always challenging. Correspondingly, the authors “recommend establishing a process for regular updates” to the scenarios and recommend that key variables in the scenarios “be updated now to be consistent with new historical data.”
While it is excellent news that the broader community is beginning to realize that scenarios are increasingly outdated, voluminous amounts of research have been and continue to be produced based on the outdated scenarios.
The post Roger Pielke Jr: The unstoppable momentum of outdated science appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/39yAP2Z
December 2, 2020 at 06:12AM