iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-09--Setting the Global Temperature Record Straight

The CO2 Coalition does the world a service by publishing a brief public information about the temperature claims trumpeted in the media to stir up climate alarms .
The pdf pamphlet is The Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record How it works and why it is misleading by Richard S. Lindzen and John R. Christy .
H/T John Ray .
Excerpts in italics with my bolds .
At the center of most discussions of global warming is the record of the global mean surface temperature anomaly—often somewhat misleadingly referred to as the global mean temperature record .
This paper addresses two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we note that this record is only one link in a fairly long chain of inference leading to the claimed need for worldwide reduction in CO2 emissions .
Second , we explore the implications of the way the record is constructed and presented , and show why the record is misleading .
This is because the record is often treated as a kind of single , direct instrumental measurement .
However , as the late Stan Grotch of the Laurence Livermore Laboratory pointed out 30 years ago , it is really the average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the actual data points are almost evenly spread between large positive and negative values .
The average is simply the small difference of these positive and negative excursions , with the usual problem associated with small differences of large numbers : at least thus far , the approximately one degree Celsius increase in the global mean since 1900 is swamped by the normal variations at individual stations , and so bears little relation to what is actually going on at a particular one .
The changes at the stations are distributed around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single station had recorded this increase itself , this would take a typical annual range of temperature there , for example , from -10 to 40 degrees in 1900 , and replace it with a range today from -9 to 41 .
People , crops , and weather at that station would fi nd it hard to tell this difference .
However , the increase looks significant on the charts used in almost all presentations , because they omit the range of the original data points and expand the scale in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The record does display certain consistent trends , but it is also quite noisy , and fluctuations of a tenth or two of a degree are unlikely to be significant .
In the public discourse , little attention is paid to magnitudes ; the focus is rather on whether this anomaly is increasing or decreasing .
Given the noise and sampling errors , it is rather easy to “ adjust ” such averaging , and even change the sign of a trend from positive to negative .
The Global Temperature Record and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system is notoriously complex .
We know , for example , that this system undergoes multiyear variations without any external forcing at all other than the steady component of the sun ’ s radiation ( for example , the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Quasibiennial Oscillation of the tropical stratosphere ) .
We know , moreover , that these changes are hardly describable simply by some global measure of temperature .
Indeed , what is presented is actually something else .
You may have noticed that it is referred to as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being averaged is the deviation of the surface temperature from some 30-year mean at stations non-randomly scattered around the globe .
As we will soon see , this average bears rather little relation to the changes at the individual stations .
Moreover , as noted by Christy and McNider ( 2017 ) , the temperature anomaly of the lower troposphere ( measured by satellites ) relative to the surface temperature is much better sampled and represents the “ more climate-relevant quantity of heat content , a change in which is a [ theorized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However imprecise and lightly-relevant the surface temperature is to the physics of the issue , the narrative of a global warming disaster uses the record as the first in a sequence of often comparably questionable assumptions .
The narrative first claims that changes in this dubious metric are almost entirely due to variations in CO2 , even though there are quite a few other factors whose common variations are as large as or larger than the impact of changes in CO2 ( for example , modest changes in the area of upper and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ height of upper level clouds ) .
Then the narrative asserts that changes in CO2 were primarily due to man ’ s activities .
There is indeed evidence that this link is likely true for changes over the past two hundred years .
However , over Earth ’ s history , there were radical changes in CO2 levels , and these changes were largely uncorrelated with changes in temperature .
Presentations of the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record In order to obscure the fact that the global means are small residues of large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common presentations plot the global mean anomalies without the scattered points and expand the scale so as to make the changes look large .
These expanded graphs of global means are shown in Figures 5 and 6 .
The frequently cited trends are evident in these graphs–most notably , the pre-CO2 warming from 1920-1940 and the warming that has been attributed to man from 1978-1998 .
We also see a reduced rate from 1998 ( best seen in Fig .
6 ) until the major El Niño of 2016 occurred .
Even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the increases in CO2 , the slowdown clearly shows that there is something going on that is at least as large as the response to CO2 .
This contradicts the IPCC attribution studies that assume , based on model results , that other sources of variability since 1950 are negligible .
Note that the results in Figures 5 and 6 are quite noisy , with large interseasonal and interannual fluctuations .
This noise contributes to the uncertainty of the values , in addition to the usual sampling errors .
The graphs one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than what we see in Figures 5 and 6 ; these have resulted from taking running means over 5 or more years .
The results of such smoothing are shown in Figure 7 ( smoothed over 11 years ) and 8 ( smoothed over 21 seasons , or about 5 years ) .
They look much cleaner and presumably more authoritative than the unsmoothed results or the scatter diagrams , but this tends to disguise the uncertainty , which is likely on the order of 0.1-0.2 degrees .
( For example , Figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; Figure 8 does this less because it is averaged over only about 5 years . )
Obviously , warmings or coolings of a tenth or two of a degree are without significance since possible adjustments can easily lead to changes of sign from positive to negative , yet in the popular literature much is made of such small changes .
Like with sausage , you might not want to know what went into these graphs , but , in this case , it is important that you do .
An examination of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global mean temperature anomaly clearly shows that any place on earth is almost as likely , at any given time , to be warmer or cooler than average .
The anomaly is the small residue of the generally larger excursions we saw in Figures 1 and 2 .
This residue ( which is popularly held to represent “ climate ” ) is also much smaller than the temperature variations that all life on Earth regularly experiences .
Figure 9 illustrates this for 14 major cities in the United States .
Indeed , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past 120 years , depicted as alarming in Figure 7 , is only equivalent to the thickness of the “ Average ” line in Figure 9 .
As the figure shows , the difference in average temperature from January to July in these major cities ranges from just under ten degrees in Los Angeles to nearly 30 degrees in Chicago .
And the average difference between the coldest and warmest moments each year ranges from about 25 degrees in Miami ( a 45 degree Fahrenheit change ) to 55 degrees in Denver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the very least , we should keep the large natural changes in Figure 9 in mind , and not attribute them to the small residue , the global mean temperature anomaly , or obsess over its small changes .

The CO2 Coalition does the world a service by publishing a brief public information about the temperature claims trumpeted in the media to stir up climate alarms. The pdf pamphlet is The Global Mean
Temperature Anomaly Record How it works and why it is misleading by Richard S. Lindzen and John R. Christy. H/T John Ray. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
Overview
At the center of most discussions of global warming is the record of the global mean surface temperature anomaly—often somewhat misleadingly referred to as the global mean temperature record. This paper addresses two aspects of this record. First, we note that this record is only one link in a fairly long chain of inference leading to the claimed need for worldwide reduction in CO2 emissions. Second, we explore the implications of the way the record is constructed and presented, and show why the record is misleading.
This is because the record is often treated as a kind of single, direct instrumental measurement. However, as the late Stan Grotch of the Laurence Livermore Laboratory pointed out 30 years ago, it is really the average of widely scattered station data, where the actual data points are almost evenly spread between large positive and negative values.
The average is simply the small difference of these positive and negative excursions, with the usual problem associated with small differences of large numbers: at least thus far, the approximately one degree Celsius increase in the global mean since 1900 is swamped by the normal variations at individual stations, and so bears little relation to what is actually going on at a particular one.
The changes at the stations are distributed around the one-degree global average increase. Even if a single station had recorded this increase itself, this would take a typical annual range of temperature there, for example, from -10 to 40 degrees in 1900, and replace it with a range today from -9 to 41. People, crops, and weather at that station would fi nd it hard to tell this difference. However, the increase looks significant on the charts used in almost all presentations, because they omit the range of the original data points and expand the scale in order to make the mean change look large.
The record does display certain consistent trends, but it is also quite noisy, and fluctuations of a tenth or two of a degree are unlikely to be significant. In the public discourse, little attention is paid to magnitudes; the focus is rather on whether this anomaly is increasing or decreasing. Given the noise and sampling errors, it is rather easy to “adjust” such averaging, and even change the sign of a trend from positive to negative.
The Global Temperature Record and its Role
The earth’s climate system is notoriously complex. We know, for example, that this system undergoes multiyear variations without any external forcing at all other than the steady component of the sun’s radiation (for example, the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Quasibiennial Oscillation of the tropical stratosphere). We know, moreover, that these changes are hardly describable simply by some global measure of temperature. Indeed, what is presented is actually something else. You may have noticed that it is referred to as the global mean temperature anomaly.
What is being averaged is the deviation of the surface temperature from some 30-year mean at stations non-randomly scattered around the globe. As we will soon see, this average bears rather little relation to the changes at the individual stations. Moreover, as noted by Christy and McNider (2017), the temperature anomaly of the lower troposphere (measured by satellites) relative to the surface temperature is much better sampled and represents the “more climate-relevant quantity of heat content, a change in which is a [theorized] consequence of enhanced GHG forcing.”
However imprecise and lightly-relevant the surface temperature is to the physics of the issue, the
narrative of a global warming disaster uses the record as the first in a sequence of often comparably
questionable assumptions. The narrative first claims that changes in this dubious metric are almost
entirely due to variations in CO2, even though there are quite a few other factors whose common
variations are as large as or larger than the impact of changes in CO2 (for example, modest changes
in the area of upper and lower level clouds or changes in the height of upper level clouds).
Then the narrative asserts that changes in CO2 were primarily due to man’s activities. There is
indeed evidence that this link is likely true for changes over the past two hundred years. However,
over Earth’s history, there were radical changes in CO2 levels, and these changes were largely
uncorrelated with changes in temperature.
Presentations of the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record
In order to obscure the fact that the global means are small residues of large numbers whose precision is questionable, the common presentations plot the global mean anomalies without the scattered points and expand the scale so as to make the changes look large. These expanded graphs of global means are shown in Figures 5 and 6.
The frequently cited trends are evident in these graphs–most notably, the pre-CO2 warming from 1920-1940 and the warming that has been attributed to man from 1978-1998. We also see a reduced rate from 1998 (best seen in Fig. 6) until the major El Niño of 2016 occurred. Even if one could attribute all the 1978-1998 warming to the increases in CO2 , the slowdown clearly shows that there is something going on that is at least as large as the response to CO2 . This contradicts the IPCC attribution studies that assume, based on model results, that other sources of variability since 1950 are negligible.
Note that the results in Figures 5 and 6 are quite noisy, with large interseasonal and interannual fluctuations. This noise contributes to the uncertainty of the values, in addition to the usual sampling errors. The graphs one usually sees are a lot smoother looking than what we see in Figures 5 and 6; these have resulted from taking running means over 5 or more years. The results of such smoothing are shown in Figure 7 (smoothed over 11 years) and 8 (smoothed over 21 seasons, or about 5 years). They look much cleaner and presumably more authoritative than the unsmoothed results or the scatter diagrams, but this tends to disguise the uncertainty, which is likely on the order of 0.1-0.2 degrees. (For example, Figure 7 substantially disguises the pause following 1998; Figure 8 does this less because it is averaged over only about 5 years.)
Obviously, warmings or coolings of a tenth or two of a degree are without significance since possible adjustments can easily lead to changes of sign from positive to negative, yet in the popular literature much is made of such small changes. Like with sausage, you might not want to know what went into these graphs, but, in this case, it is important that you do.
Some Concluding Remarks
An examination of the data that goes into calculating the global mean temperature anomaly clearly shows that any place on earth is almost as likely, at any given time, to be warmer or cooler than average. The anomaly is the small residue of the generally larger excursions we saw in Figures 1 and 2. This residue (which is popularly held to represent “climate”) is also much smaller than the temperature variations that all life on Earth regularly experiences. Figure 9 illustrates this for 14 major cities in the United States.
Indeed, the 1.2 degree Celsius global temperature change in the past 120 years, depicted as alarming in Figure 7, is only equivalent to the thickness of the “Average” line in Figure 9. As the figure shows, the difference in average temperature from January to July in these major cities ranges from just under ten degrees in Los Angeles to nearly 30 degrees in Chicago. And the average difference between the coldest and warmest moments each year ranges from about 25 degrees in Miami (a 45 degree Fahrenheit change) to 55 degrees in Denver (a 99 degree Fahrenheit change)
At the very least, we should keep the large natural changes in Figure 9 in mind, and not attribute them to the small residue, the global mean temperature anomaly, or obsess over its small changes.
via Science Matters
https://ift.tt/3a22VUJ
December 9, 2020 at 10:22AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-09--I got to ruminating again; a third WUWT retrospective post

My first recent ‘ ruminative ’ post was about basic climate science misconceptions .
My second was about their resulting failed basic climate predictions over now 4 decades ( e.g .
Viner 2000–children will soon not know snow ! )
.
This third ruminative post ( celebrating roughly my 10th WUWT anniversary post here ) introspects climate ‘ science ’ misconduct in the dubious service of posts 1 & 2 .
Like my first here long ago , just more examples like that first , decade old provable NRC US crop canard .
• This will have catastrophic consequences , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refugees , a 6th major extinction , and worse .
• Therefore , we must repent in energy ashes with a Green New Deal .
The Warmunist ( my two recent previous ruminative posts ) basic problems are : • They can not prove GAST is rising above natural variation rates .
• There are no catastrophic consequences yet , despite ‘ yet ’ being now since 1988 , so over four decades of abject prediction failures .
• Their GND ‘ solutions ’ fail both technically and economically .
So , how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation continue to be ?
The answer , I believe , lies in the Peter Ridd Great Barrier Reef lawsuit against Cook University in Australia , which he politely titles ‘ Lack of quality control.
’ I give it another more precise name , with many proofs to follow : academic misconduct in pursuit of government grant dollars .
Simply , it is scientific financial corruption .
There are many ways to prove this thesis , all already in the general literature .
For this ruminative post we will extract the essence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are from Steve McIntyre , myself , or ( once ) both .
( I am , again lazily , not providing many links since the ruminative details are all easily accessible on the Internet or via WUWT or CE search functions—or via my cheap old book . )
1 .
MBH1999 Hockey Stick , the featured graph of AR3 .
There are at least 3 problems collectively bordering on scientific misconduct : • His paleoclimate data are in part spurious ( Biffa ’ s single Yamal larch , the inverted Tilander sediment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pines , … all comprising a Hockey Stick Blade .
• His paleoclimate data also contradict the well-known Medieval Warming Period ( –the faux Hockey Stick Handle , a worse data sin ) .
• His novel Mann mathematical method is fatally flawed , always producing some hockey stick from any red noise .
For those not climate/statistics literate , red noise in a time series is very different from white noise .
Red noise has a ‘ memory ’ , aka some degree of autocorrelation .
So it is not purely random @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a normal random distribution .
He redid his thesis by grossly redating selected core tops to produce his infamous Science paper .
I PROVED his ‘ disavowed ’ redating scientific misconduct IN DETAIL a few weeks after publication over at Judith Curry ’ s , then rewrote the visual proof ( just by comparing his thesis to his Science paper for essay “ A High Stick Foul ’ in ebook Blowing Smoke .
Submitted the book draft with backup evidence to then Science editor Marcia McNutt in 2013 ; her admin acknowledged receipt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my ‘ disappointed surprise ’ .
3 .
Fabricious claimed in Nature Climate Change ( 1 : 165-169 ) 2011 that ocean acidification was killing corals in Milne Bay .
The scientific misconduct found in her SI was that her single location ‘ killed ’ coral transects also had a volcanic H S of 163 ppm—lethal to sea creatures at below 50ppm no different than hydrogen cyanide to humans at Auschwitz .
4 .
NOAA PMEL claimed that the spawn failure at Whiskey Creek oyster Hatchery on Netarts Bay , Oregon , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Examples 3 and 4 are both explained with footnotes and illustrations in essay Shell Games in my ebook Blowing Smoke , foreword Judith Curry ) .
5 .
There have been many claims that the Antarctic ice sheet has collapsed before , and so may again giving rise to a very sudden catastrophic sea level rise .
One of the most recent ‘ proofs ’ was during the Eemian in Australia .
Except this paper misrepresented the West Australian data found in its own SI , and provably deliberately misinterpreted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own data proved .
Details with images , graphics , and footnotes in essay ‘ By Land or by Sea ’ in ebook Blowing Smoke .
Clear scientific misconduct .
And for those thinking this is just an old ebook advert , wrong .
I spent almost three years on this ebook , and it now sells for about $ 7 on Amazon Kindle ( still $ 9 on iBooks ) .
I have not made , nor did not plan to make , anything .
My publisher has made a little ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for publishing it at all .
Getting the climate truth out was the whole and only point .
Still is .
We just reiterate here some of the obvious scientific misconducts previously proven in writing but perhaps not well known to recent newcomers .

By Rud Istvan
My first recent ‘ruminative’ post was about basic climate science misconceptions. My second was about their resulting failed basic climate predictions over now 4 decades (e.g. Viner 2000–children will soon not know snow!). This third ruminative post (celebrating roughly my 10th WUWT anniversary post here) introspects climate ‘science’ misconduct in the dubious service of posts 1&2.
Like my first here long ago, just more examples like that first, decade old provable NRC US crop canard.
The standard climate science religious cannon claims:
Anthropogenic global warming is causing GAST to rise. This will have catastrophic consequences, including islands disappearing, millions of climate refugees, a 6th major extinction, and worse. Therefore, we must repent in energy ashes with a Green New Deal.
The Warmunist (my two recent previous ruminative posts) basic problems are:
They cannot prove GAST is rising above natural variation rates. There are no catastrophic consequences yet, despite ‘yet’ being now since 1988, so over four decades of abject prediction failures. Their GND ‘solutions’ fail both technically and economically.
So, how can this awful Warmunist Climate Change PR situation continue to be?
The answer, I believe, lies in the Peter Ridd Great Barrier Reef lawsuit against Cook University in Australia, which he politely titles ‘Lack of quality control.’ I give it another more precise name, with many proofs to follow: academic misconduct in pursuit of government grant dollars. Simply, it is scientific financial corruption.
There are many ways to prove this thesis, all already in the general literature. For this ruminative post we will extract the essence of just a few examples. All examples are from Steve McIntyre, myself, or (once) both. (I am, again lazily, not providing many links since the ruminative details are all easily accessible on the Internet or via WUWT or CE search functions—or via my cheap old book.)
1. MBH1999 Hockey Stick, the featured graph of AR3. There are at least 3 problems collectively bordering on scientific misconduct:
His paleoclimate data are in part spurious (Biffa’s single Yamal larch, the inverted Tilander sediment, the US strip bark bristle cone pines,… all comprising a Hockey Stick Blade.
His paleoclimate data also contradict the well-known Medieval Warming Period (–the faux Hockey Stick Handle, a worse data sin).
His novel Mann mathematical method is fatally flawed, always producing some hockey stick from any red noise. For those not climate/statistics literate, red noise in a time series is very different from white noise. Red noise has a ‘memory’, aka some degree of autocorrelation. So it is not purely random like white noise in classical statistics around a normal random distribution.
2. Marcott 2013 Hockey Stick.
He redid his thesis by grossly redating selected core tops to produce his infamous Science paper. I PROVED his ‘disavowed’ redating scientific misconduct IN DETAIL a few weeks after publication over at Judith Curry’s, then rewrote the visual proof (just by comparing his thesis to his Science paper for essay “A High Stick Foul’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. Submitted the book draft with backup evidence to then Science editor Marcia McNutt in 2013; her admin acknowledged receipt, nothing else ever happened. Imagine my ‘disappointed surprise’.
3. Fabricious claimed in Nature Climate Change (1: 165-169) 2011 that ocean acidification was killing corals in Milne Bay.
The scientific misconduct found in her SI was that her single location ‘killed’ coral transects also had a volcanic H 2 S of 163 ppm—lethal to sea creatures at below 50ppm no different than hydrogen cyanide to humans at Auschwitz.
4. NOAA PMEL claimed that the spawn failure at Whiskey Creek oyster Hatchery on Netarts Bay, Oregon, was an ‘ocean acidification’ smoking gun.
Wrong. A complete academic misstatement of Pacific Coast ocean upwellings and estuarine oyster biology. Provable USG misinformation.
(Examples 3 and 4 are both explained with footnotes and illustrations in essay Shell Games in my ebook Blowing Smoke, foreword Judith Curry).
5. There have been many claims that the Antarctic ice sheet has collapsed before, and so may again giving rise to a very sudden catastrophic sea level rise.
One of the most recent ‘proofs’ was during the Eemian in Australia. Except this paper misrepresented the West Australian data found in its own SI, and provably deliberately misinterpreted the results of an ancient earthquake that its own data proved. Details with images, graphics, and footnotes in essay ‘By Land or by Sea’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. Clear scientific misconduct.
And for those thinking this is just an old ebook advert, wrong. I spent almost three years on this ebook, and it now sells for about $7 on Amazon Kindle (still $9 on iBooks). I have not made, nor did not plan to make, anything. My publisher has made a little; my plan was in thanks to them for publishing it at all. Getting the climate truth out was the whole and only point. Still is. We just reiterate here some of the obvious scientific misconducts previously proven in writing but perhaps not well known to recent newcomers.
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-09--Vaccines & Informed Consent

Vaccines & Informed Consent

Adverse reactions to a 2009 swine flu vaccine profoundly harmed a small minority of those who received it .
In 2009 , when swine flu ( also known as H1N1 ) was spreading around the world , vaccines to counteract it were developed quickly , then fast-tracked through the approval process .
One of those vaccines , Pandemrix – manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline – had an unexpected side effect .
An estimated 1 out of every 58,000 people who received it developed narcolepsy .
The website of the US Centers for Disease Control makes this sound like no big deal : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illness .
Patients are apt to fall asleep at a moment ’ s notice , and to collapse without warning due to a sudden loss of muscle control .
For many , this means they ’ ll never drive a car again , or hold down the same kind of job .
In 2018 , investigative medical reporter Shaun Lintern wrote a lengthy article about UK health care workers then fighting for financial compensation .
It began this way : When nurse Meleney Gallagher was told to line up with her colleagues on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for her swine flu vaccination , she had no idea the injection she was about to have had not gone through the usual testing process .
It had been rushed into circulation after the swine flu virus had swept across the globe in 2009 , prompting fears thousands of people could die…Eight years later , her career in the [ National Health Service ] is a memory and she ’ s living with incurable , debilitating narcolepsy… The article quotes Shane Keenan , a nurse practitioner , who says narcolepsy “ completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked damned hard to get to the pinnacle of my career .
I lectured at Oxford University ; now I can ’ t even stack shelves.
” We ’ re introduced to ICU nurse Hayley Best who began suffering ill effects shortly after receiving the 2009 vaccination .
Initially misattributed to fatigue and depression , it took nearly five years before her symptoms were recognized as narcolepsy .
Soon afterward , she “ was medically retired…just before her 40th birthday.
” We also read about Katie Clack , a daycare worker who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She developed narcolepsy , and then experienced disturbing side affects from the drugs used to treat it .
At age 23 , she committed suicide , reportedly leaving behind a note explaining that her poor quality of life had made matters unbearable .
None of these people gave their informed consent to this vaccine .
Told to get the shot by their employers , they weren ’ t warned it was riskier than other vaccines .
Quite the opposite .
Lintern points to statements made in early October 2009 by the UK ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was then responding to reports that some nurses felt hesitant : We ’ ve gone through exactly the same procedures as we do with seasonal flu vaccine and it ’ s as safe as a vaccine can be…I ’ ve got a lot of confidence that [ nurses ] can look at the evidence and really think very carefully about what it means for them , their colleagues and indeed for their patients…Even if it ’ s only a very mild illness , you ’ re likely to be off three or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So I would encourage nurses not just to take my word for it but to go and look at the evidence around the vaccine so they separate out the myths from the reality .
[ bold added ] As one physician quoted by Lintern admits , “ at the time we didn ’ t know that [ GlaxoSmithKline ’ s ] Pandemrix was associated with narcolepsy in comparison to the other vaccine.
” Indeed .
Dots need to be connected before officials realize something unusual is happening .
That process can take months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and real people lost .
Swine flu emerged in January 2009 .
As Lintern reports , What else was happening in October 2009 ?
Switzerland declined to approve the Pandemrix vaccine for pregnant women , as well as for people in certain age groups .
In Germany , the president of that country ’ s College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians was telling the British Medical Journal testing wasn ’ t extensive enough to consider Pandemrix safe .
He himself would be refusing it .
In other words , 11 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get an unnecessary vaccine .
A small number of those workers experienced life-altering adverse reactions .
Rather than helping them rebuild their lives , the UK government then added insult to injury .
It compelled these people to seek financial compensation through the courts .

Adverse reactions to a 2009 swine flu vaccine profoundly harmed a small minority of those who received it.
In 2009, when swine flu (also known as H1N1) was spreading around the world, vaccines to counteract it were developed quickly, then fast-tracked through the approval process. One of those vaccines, Pandemrix – manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline – had an unexpected side effect. An estimated 1 out of every 58,000 people who received it developed narcolepsy.
The website of the US Centers for Disease Control makes this sound like no big deal:
This disorder is caused by the brain’s inability to regulate sleep-wake cycles normally, but it can be treated with medication and behavior modification. [bold added]
In fact, narcolepsy is a life-altering illness. Patients are apt to fall asleep at a moment’s notice, and to collapse without warning due to a sudden loss of muscle control. For many, this means they’ll never drive a car again, or hold down the same kind of job.
In 2018, investigative medical reporter Shaun Lintern wrote a lengthy article about UK health care workers then fighting for financial compensation. It began this way:
When nurse Meleney Gallagher was told to line up with her colleagues on the renal ward at Sunderland Royal Hospital, for her swine flu vaccination, she had no idea the injection she was about to have had not gone through the usual testing process. It had been rushed into circulation after the swine flu virus had swept across the globe in 2009, prompting fears thousands of people could die…Eight years later, her career in the [National Health Service] is a memory and she’s living with incurable, debilitating narcolepsy…
The article quotes Shane Keenan, a nurse practitioner, who says narcolepsy “completely destroyed my life and career. I worked damned hard to get to the pinnacle of my career. I lectured at Oxford University; now I can’t even stack shelves.”
We’re introduced to ICU nurse Hayley Best who began suffering ill effects shortly after receiving the 2009 vaccination. Initially misattributed to fatigue and depression, it took nearly five years before her symptoms were recognized as narcolepsy. Soon afterward, she “was medically retired…just before her 40th birthday.”
We also read about Katie Clack, a daycare worker who was given the vaccine at age 18. She developed narcolepsy, and then experienced disturbing side affects from the drugs used to treat it. At age 23, she committed suicide, reportedly leaving behind a note explaining that her poor quality of life had made matters unbearable.
None of these people gave their informed consent to this vaccine. Told to get the shot by their employers, they weren’t warned it was riskier than other vaccines. Quite the opposite. Lintern points to statements made in early October 2009 by the UK’s chief nurse, Christine Beasley, who was then responding to reports that some nurses felt hesitant:
We’ve gone through exactly the same procedures as we do with seasonal flu vaccine and it’s as safe as a vaccine can be…I’ve got a lot of confidence that [nurses] can look at the evidence and really think very carefully about what it means for them, their colleagues and indeed for their patients…Even if it’s only a very mild illness, you’re likely to be off three or four days, probably a week. So I would encourage nurses not just to take my word for it but to go and look at the evidence around the vaccine so they separate out the myths from the reality. [bold added]
As one physician quoted by Lintern admits, “at the time we didn’t know that [GlaxoSmithKline’s] Pandemrix was associated with narcolepsy in comparison to the other vaccine.” Indeed. Dots need to be connected before officials realize something unusual is happening. That process can take months, or years.
The authorities gambled, and real people lost. Swine flu emerged in January 2009. As Lintern reports,
Nationwide vaccinations started in the UK on 21 October 2009, despite the fact that experts at the [Department of Health] had known since May the flu was milder than first thought. On 22 October, ministers agreed to revise down the worst-case scenario from 19,000 deaths to 1,000. [bold added]
What else was happening in October 2009? Switzerland declined to approve the Pandemrix vaccine for pregnant women, as well as for people in certain age groups. In Germany, the president of that country’s College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians was telling the British Medical Journal testing wasn’t extensive enough to consider Pandemrix safe. He himself would be refusing it.
In other words, 11 years ago, UK health workers were urged to get an unnecessary vaccine. A small number of those workers experienced life-altering adverse reactions. Rather than helping them rebuild their lives, the UK government then added insult to injury. It compelled these people to seek financial compensation through the courts.
please support this blog
LINKS:


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-10--Committee on Climate Change’s Net Zero advice to government is “a political suicide note”

London , 10 December : Energy experts at the Global Warming Policy Forum have called the Committee on Climate Change ( CCC ) advice to government on Net Zero decarbonisation “ a political suicide note ” .
The criticism follows the publication of the Sixth Carbon Budget outlining how the government can achieve Net Zero and at what cost .
Claims by the CCC that the cost of Net Zero will be “ surprisingly low ” are based on fallacious assumptions and magical thinking that is simply not credible .
The magnitude of the CCC costing errors can be seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on which they rely , and the reality known from audited accounts : The GWPF ’ s own economic analysis reveals that the decarbonisation of the electricity system , housing and private transport alone is estimated to cost more than £3 trillion in the next three decades .
The central cost assumptions used in the Sixth Carbon Budget are entirely divorced from reality .
Some of them are out by several hundred percent , meaning that the claim that we can decarbonise painlessly doesn ’ t stand up to even cursory scrutiny.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build as the CCC assumes , and two to four times more expensive to operate .
The resulting electricity will be many , many times more expensive than they claim , making the use of heat pumps and Electric Vehicles utterly unaffordable.
” Worse still , these mistaken assumptions aren ’ t even their own errors ; the CCC itself admits that all it has done is accept the generation cost estimates of Alok Sharma ’ s Department of Business .
Far from being an independent advisor , the CCC is nothing more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeating government nonsense.
” GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser warned that if the major parties continue to go along with the government ’ s plans they face an existential crisis and political realignment : The 6th Carbon Budget is just sales-talk designed to fool the public into signing on the dotted line and sacrificing their futures and those of their families .
The CCC analysis is an attempt to conceal true costs and trick the public into committing to a policy that will ruin lives across society , with truly terrible effects on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to buy a high-price heat pump rather than a cheap gas-fired boiler , every time they are forced to replace their cheap car with an expensive electric one and every time they get their ever more expensive electricity bill , they will remember who lied to them about the cost of Net Zero.
” The post Committee on Climate Change ’ s Net Zero advice to government is “ a political suicide note ” appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

London, 10 December: Energy experts at the Global Warming Policy Forum have called the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) advice to government on Net Zero decarbonisation “a political suicide note”.
The criticism follows the publication of the Sixth Carbon Budget outlining how the government can achieve Net Zero and at what cost.
Claims by the CCC that the cost of Net Zero will be “surprisingly low” are based on fallacious assumptions and magical thinking that is simply not credible.
The magnitude of the CCC costing errors can be seen in this comparison of the BEIS estimates on which they rely, and the reality known from audited accounts:
Source: Gordon Hughes, Wind Power Economics: Rhetoric & Reality (2020).
The GWPF’s own economic analysis reveals that the decarbonisation of the electricity system, housing and private transport alone is estimated to cost more than £3 trillion in the next three decades.
Dr John Constable, GWPF energy editor, said:
The central cost assumptions used in the Sixth Carbon Budget are entirely divorced from reality. Some of them are out by several hundred percent, meaning that the claim that we can decarbonise painlessly doesn’t stand up to even cursory scrutiny.”
Offshore wind is twice as expensive to build as the CCC assumes, and two to four times more expensive to operate. The resulting electricity will be many, many times more expensive than they claim, making the use of heat pumps and Electric Vehicles utterly unaffordable.”
Worse still, these mistaken assumptions aren’t even their own errors; the CCC itself admits that all it has done is accept the generation cost estimates of Alok Sharma’s Department of Business. Far from being an independent advisor, the CCC is nothing more than a passive and uncritical sock puppet repeating government nonsense.”
GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser warned that if the major parties continue to go along with the government’s plans they face an existential crisis and political realignment:
The 6th Carbon Budget is just sales-talk designed to fool the public into signing on the dotted line and sacrificing their futures and those of their families. The CCC analysis is an attempt to conceal true costs and trick the public into committing to a policy that will ruin lives across society, with truly terrible effects on low income households.”
Every time someone has to buy a high-price heat pump rather than a cheap gas-fired boiler, every time they are forced to replace their cheap car with an expensive electric one and every time they get their ever more expensive electricity bill, they will remember who lied to them about the cost of Net Zero.”
This plan is a political suicide note. Any party supporting this economic and social disaster will be punished ruthlessly at the polls in coming elections.”
The post Committee on Climate Change’s Net Zero advice to government is “a political suicide note” appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2Lkzcfb
December 10, 2020 at 05:16AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-10--NSF-funded deep ice core to be drilled at Hercules Dome, Antarctica

Antarctica ’ s next deep ice core , drilling down to ice from 130,000 years ago , will be carried out by a multi-institutional U.S. team at Hercules Dome , a location hundreds of miles from today ’ s coastline and a promising site to provide key evidence about the possible last collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet .
The National Science Foundation has funded the roughly five-year , $ 3 million project involving the University of Washington , the University of New Hampshire , the University of California , Irvine and the University of Minnesota .
Work has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but drilling the 1.5-mile ice core likely will begin in 2024 .
“ The ice at this site goes back to a time when sea level was about 6 meters ( 20 feet ) higher than it is now , ” said project leader Eric Steig , a UW professor of Earth and space sciences .
“ One of the most likely reasons that sea level was higher is that a large area of Antarctic , known as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet , was gone.
” Scientists hope to understand the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sheet in order to better gauge its potential risk in today ’ s warming climate .
Deeper ice layers at this site reach back to Eemian times — the most recent period that , like now , was between ice ages .
The Eemian was even warmer than today ’ s climate and oceans were higher .
“ This location , which is now hundreds of miles from the ocean , may have been waterfront property 125,000 years ago , ” Steig said .
“ We should be able to determine this from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , the salt concentration may be higher if there was open water nearby , instead of more than a thousand miles away .
Understanding that event will help guide our understanding of how quickly sea level may rise in the future due to ongoing anthropogenic climate change.
” The Hercules Dome site , remote even by Antarctic standards , lies near a mountain range that divides East and West Antarctica .
UW researchers visited the site in early 2020 to survey potential locations for drilling .
They used ice-penetrating radar to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uninterrupted back more than 125,000 years , when oceans rose dramatically .
Ice and air bubbles trapped in the ice layers can provide researchers with various information about past conditions The most recent deep ice core in Antarctica was completed in 2016 at the South Pole by many of the same team members .
“ The Hercules Dome ice core will be the first U.S. ice core with the potential to yield a detailed climate record during the last interglacial period , ” said principal investigator Murat Aydin at the University of California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with online workshops over the next year to seek new collaborators and work to broaden participation in polar science .
The initial investment by the National Science Foundation covers the costs of the drilling project , but over the next few years , many more scientists can seek additional funding to analyze the core .
The delays caused by the pandemic offer more time to try to bring new people into the discipline .
“ Earth sciences is known for being particularly white and male , and polar Earth sciences is even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s well established that having a more diverse community leads to better outcomes — that is , we ’ ll do better science with more kinds of people involved .
But also it ’ s the right thing to do .
Anyone who is interested in being involved in this science should have the opportunity to do it.
” The University of New Hampshire will provide logistics and science support planning for the field project .
Researchers will live in tents on the ice sheet hundreds of miles from any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Our planning will detail , for example , how we will get ourselves and all of the required science cargo and camp materials to Hercules Dome , likely through a combination of overland traverse and aircraft support ; specifics on the field camp , such as camp population , camp structures and layout , power and fuel requirements , camp equipment ; and the fieldwork schedule , ” said Joe Souney , research project manager at the University of New Hampshire .
The project has plans to coordinate with artists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations and museums to share the effort and the science of climate change .
Heidi Roop , a climate scientist at the University of Minnesota , will lead the engagement programming and will work to connect the science through this project to different audiences including those who are actively planning and preparing for the impacts sea level rise — from coastal planners and water utility engineers to homeowners and elected officials .
“ This is the first U.S. deep ice core drilling project with a lead researcher dedicated to the integration of community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the project , ” Roop said .
“ With this investment by NSF , we are confident we can more effectively connect this science to action .
”

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Science Business
IMAGE: THE NEW ICE CORE WILL BE DRILLED AT HERCULES DOME AT 86 DEGREES SOUTH, ABOUT 400 KILOMETERS (250 MILES) FROM THE SOUTH POLE AND 1,000 KM (650 MILES) FROM TODAY’S… view more CREDIT: UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Antarctica’s next deep ice core, drilling down to ice from 130,000 years ago, will be carried out by a multi-institutional U.S. team at Hercules Dome, a location hundreds of miles from today’s coastline and a promising site to provide key evidence about the possible last collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
The National Science Foundation has funded the roughly five-year, $3 million project involving the University of Washington, the University of New Hampshire, the University of California, Irvine and the University of Minnesota. Work has been delayed by the novel coronavirus, but drilling the 1.5-mile ice core likely will begin in 2024.
“The ice at this site goes back to a time when sea level was about 6 meters (20 feet) higher than it is now,” said project leader Eric Steig, a UW professor of Earth and space sciences. “One of the most likely reasons that sea level was higher is that a large area of Antarctic, known as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, was gone.”
Scientists hope to understand the most recent collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet in order to better gauge its potential risk in today’s warming climate. Deeper ice layers at this site reach back to Eemian times — the most recent period that, like now, was between ice ages. The Eemian was even warmer than today’s climate and oceans were higher.
“This location, which is now hundreds of miles from the ocean, may have been waterfront property 125,000 years ago,” Steig said. “We should be able to determine this from the chemistry of the ice — for example, the salt concentration may be higher if there was open water nearby, instead of more than a thousand miles away. Understanding that event will help guide our understanding of how quickly sea level may rise in the future due to ongoing anthropogenic climate change.”
The Hercules Dome site, remote even by Antarctic standards, lies near a mountain range that divides East and West Antarctica. UW researchers visited the site in early 2020 to survey potential locations for drilling. They used ice-penetrating radar to find places where the layers of ice are uninterrupted back more than 125,000 years, when oceans rose dramatically.
Ice and air bubbles trapped in the ice layers can provide researchers with various information about past conditions The most recent deep ice core in Antarctica was completed in 2016 at the South Pole by many of the same team members.
“The Hercules Dome ice core will be the first U.S. ice core with the potential to yield a detailed climate record during the last interglacial period,” said principal investigator Murat Aydin at the University of California, Irvine.
The project will begin with online workshops over the next year to seek new collaborators and work to broaden participation in polar science. The initial investment by the National Science Foundation covers the costs of the drilling project, but over the next few years, many more scientists can seek additional funding to analyze the core. The delays caused by the pandemic offer more time to try to bring new people into the discipline.
“Earth sciences is known for being particularly white and male, and polar Earth sciences is even more that way,” Steig said. “It’s well established that having a more diverse community leads to better outcomes — that is, we’ll do better science with more kinds of people involved. But also it’s the right thing to do. Anyone who is interested in being involved in this science should have the opportunity to do it.”
The University of New Hampshire will provide logistics and science support planning for the field project. Researchers will live in tents on the ice sheet hundreds of miles from any inhabited areas for the months-long field seasons.
“Our planning will detail, for example, how we will get ourselves and all of the required science cargo and camp materials to Hercules Dome, likely through a combination of overland traverse and aircraft support; specifics on the field camp, such as camp population, camp structures and layout, power and fuel requirements, camp equipment; and the fieldwork schedule,” said Joe Souney, research project manager at the University of New Hampshire.
The project has plans to coordinate with artists, computer scientists, media outlets, educational organizations and museums to share the effort and the science of climate change.
Heidi Roop, a climate scientist at the University of Minnesota, will lead the engagement programming and will work to connect the science through this project to different audiences including those who are actively planning and preparing for the impacts sea level rise — from coastal planners and water utility engineers to homeowners and elected officials.
“This is the first U.S. deep ice core drilling project with a lead researcher dedicated to the integration of community engagement and communication across the full lifespan of the project,” Roop said. “With this investment by NSF, we are confident we can more effectively connect this science to action.”
###
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-10--Heat-pumps: extracting power & money from the people

The climate technocrats ’ posturing over heat pumps will be expensive , impractical and invasive .
Few people will have ever seen a heat pump – a key piece of tech which the UK is counting on in our trillion-pound pursuit of ‘ Net Zero ’ carbon emissions .
A new 1,000-page report by Lord Deben ’ s carbon quango , the Committee on Climate Change ( CCC ) , claims that heat pumps are a ‘ critical technology for decarbonising space heating ’ .
Back in its June report , the CCC conceded that heat pumps would be ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes ’ .
Despite thousands of pounds of subsidies being made available since 2011 , only 30,000 units are currently being installed each year – just two per cent of the 1.5million replacement boilers sold annually .
In fact , there have been just 16million heat pumps installed in the entire world , across all sorts of buildings – not just homes .
But under the CCC ’ s ‘ Balanced Net Zero Pathway ’ scenario , it predicts that by 2030 , no fewer than 5.5million heat pumps will be in British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , significantly , almost 3.3million retrofitted in old homes .
There are broadly two sorts of heat pumps : ground-source ( GSHPs ) and air-source ( ASHPs ) .
Both extract heat from outside homes – by boring into the earth , which gets warmer the deeper one goes , or by pulling heat from the air , which works even in freezing winters .
Both are powered by a modest amount of electricity .
But , apart from the fossil fuels partly bound up with the electricity generation , both also eliminate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And , given the right kind of home insulation , some types of heat pumps are , in principle , cheaper to run than boilers .
So , why haven ’ t consumers been making the switch ?
The cons are considerable .
They are hugely costly to set up : costing £10,000 to £15,000 for GSHPs , digging and installation included .
You can pay up to £11,000 for the AHSP unit , plus another £3,000 to £11,000 for installation .
At the moment there are very few engineers trained to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 90 per cent of UK heating-systems engineers can not even properly put in and start modern condensing gas boilers , despite the fact that they have been mandatory for 15 years .
There will have to be a huge uptick in training if we are to come anywhere near the CCC ’ s targets for heat-pump installations .
The ground-source pumps are a non-starter for most consumers as you would really need to own your own land to have one installed .
For the air-source pumps , which are aimed at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually higher than regular boilers .
And compared with GSHPs , ASHPs are not nearly as durable or easy to maintain .
You will also need to buy new , bigger radiators and will have to wait a fair time for the pump to warm up on cold mornings .
And you will need to accept noise levels akin to those of air-conditioners , which will be nasty in the winter , particularly when they will need to run right through the night .
Of course , current costs aren ’ t everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost over the years – even in the low-productivity environment we find ourselves in .
But the CCC ’ s new report forecasts only a snail ’ s-paced 30 per cent reduction in the cost of heat pumps over the next 30 years .
The post Heat-pumps : extracting power & money from the people appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

The climate technocrats’ posturing over heat pumps will be expensive, impractical and invasive.
Few people will have ever seen a heat pump – a key piece of tech which the UK is counting on in our trillion-pound pursuit of ‘Net Zero’ carbon emissions. A new 1,000-page report by Lord Deben’s carbon quango, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), claims that heat pumps are a ‘critical technology for decarbonising space heating’.
Back in its June report, the CCC conceded that heat pumps would be ‘the heating solution in fewer than 200,000 homes’. Despite thousands of pounds of subsidies being made available since 2011, only 30,000 units are currently being installed each year – just two per cent of the 1.5million replacement boilers sold annually. In fact, there have been just 16million heat pumps installed in the entire world, across all sorts of buildings – not just homes.
But under the CCC’s ‘Balanced Net Zero Pathway’ scenario, it predicts that by 2030, no fewer than 5.5million heat pumps will be in British homes: 2.2million in new homes and, significantly, almost 3.3million retrofitted in old homes.
There are broadly two sorts of heat pumps: ground-source (GSHPs) and air-source (ASHPs). Both extract heat from outside homes – by boring into the earth, which gets warmer the deeper one goes, or by pulling heat from the air, which works even in freezing winters. Both are powered by a modest amount of electricity. But, apart from the fossil fuels partly bound up with the electricity generation, both also eliminate the CO2 that conventional gas boilers emit. And, given the right kind of home insulation, some types of heat pumps are, in principle, cheaper to run than boilers.
So, why haven’t consumers been making the switch? The cons are considerable. They are hugely costly to set up: costing £10,000 to £15,000 for GSHPs, digging and installation included. You can pay up to £11,000 for the AHSP unit, plus another £3,000 to £11,000 for installation. At the moment there are very few engineers trained to perform the tricky installation. In fact, 90 per cent of UK heating-systems engineers cannot even properly put in and start modern condensing gas boilers, despite the fact that they have been mandatory for 15 years. There will have to be a huge uptick in training if we are to come anywhere near the CCC’s targets for heat-pump installations.
The ground-source pumps are a non-starter for most consumers as you would really need to own your own land to have one installed. For the air-source pumps, which are aimed at the retrofitting market, the running costs are actually higher than regular boilers. And compared with GSHPs, ASHPs are not nearly as durable or easy to maintain. You will also need to buy new, bigger radiators and will have to wait a fair time for the pump to warm up on cold mornings. And you will need to accept noise levels akin to those of air-conditioners, which will be nasty in the winter, particularly when they will need to run right through the night.
Of course, current costs aren’t everything. New technologies tend to fall in cost over the years – even in the low-productivity environment we find ourselves in. But the CCC’s new report forecasts only a snail’s-paced 30 per cent reduction in the cost of heat pumps over the next 30 years.
The post Heat-pumps: extracting power & money from the people appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/33ZRJnu
December 10, 2020 at 04:33AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-10--Ross Clark: A ban on gas boilers would be yet another pointless eco catastrophe

Has the Government ’ s Climate Change Committee ( CCC ) been seized by one of those gangs which promises to tarmac your driveway for £50 and then , when it has finished its shoddy work , tells you , no , you misheard : £50 was the price per square foot ?
In its Sixth Carbon Budget , published yesterday , the CCC claims the cost of turning Britain carbon neutral by 2050 has plummeted .
It is now going to cost “ just ” £50 billion a year by 2030 .
And eventually that is all going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , anyway , so it will be free .
If something sounds too good to be true , you can be pretty sure it is .
Remember David Cameron ’ s Green Deal , introduced in 2013 to offer loans for energy improvements , the net cost of which would be zero because they would save more money than they cost ?
It was abandoned two years later when it became clear that improvements weren ’ t going to save nearly enough money to repay the loans .
A National Audit Office report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxpayer £17,000 per loan , with negligible reduction in carbon emissions .
Now , central to the Climate Change Committee ’ s ambitions are our homes , in particular a proposed ban on the sale of all new gas boilers by 2033 and oil boilers – relied upon by people in rural areas – by 2028 .
It is right to build new homes to high energy efficiency standards , but it is sadly all too easy to predict the result of a rushed scheme to retrofit all existing homes to make them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , left with damp , chilly homes .
Worse , the costs are bound to fall disproportionately on the lowest- income homeowners .
Some homes , says the CCC , may be heated with hydrogen – even though the technology to produce clean hydrogen has yet to be proven on a commercial scale .
In most cases , though , the CCC wants gas boilers to be replaced with electric heat pumps .
But these cost a lot more : between £6,000 and £8,000 for a typical air-source heat pump , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of Britain ’ s nine million older homes with solid walls , that is just the beginning .
Heat pumps operate on lower water temperatures than gas boilers .
To heat a home effectively you may need to install much larger radiators and insulate the walls , too .
Solid wall insulation , again according to Which estimates , comes in at £7,400 if stuck on the inside ( which makes all the rooms smaller ) and £13,000 if stuck on the outside .
Damp is another potential hazard : cover an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , with cladding and insulation and you are asking for trouble .
The CCC puts a timetable of 10-15 years on bringing all homes up to a grade “ C ” level on an Energy Performance Certificate .
Where , other than the bands of cowboy contractors who will already be smacking their lips , does it think we are going to find the required workforce ?
And if you can ’ t pay to upgrade your home ?
The CCC wants the sale of all new homes which don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 2028 , and mortgages on them to be stopped from 2033 .
In other words , if you can ’ t spend thousands to upgrade your home , you won ’ t be able to sell it or continue paying a mortgage .
Yes , a government quango is proposing a policy which would lead to mass repossessions .
The post Ross Clark : A ban on gas boilers would be yet another pointless eco catastrophe appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

Has the Government’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) been seized by one of those gangs which promises to tarmac your driveway for £50 and then, when it has finished its shoddy work, tells you, no, you misheard: £50 was the price per square foot?
In its Sixth Carbon Budget, published yesterday, the CCC claims the cost of turning Britain carbon neutral by 2050 has plummeted. It is now going to cost “just” £50 billion a year by 2030. And eventually that is all going to be cancelled out by lower fuel bills, anyway, so it will be free.
If something sounds too good to be true, you can be pretty sure it is. Remember David Cameron’s Green Deal, introduced in 2013 to offer loans for energy improvements, the net cost of which would be zero because they would save more money than they cost? It was abandoned two years later when it became clear that improvements weren’t going to save nearly enough money to repay the loans. A National Audit Office report concluded that the scheme had cost the taxpayer £17,000 per loan, with negligible reduction in carbon emissions.
Now, central to the Climate Change Committee’s ambitions are our homes, in particular a proposed ban on the sale of all new gas boilers by 2033 and oil boilers – relied upon by people in rural areas – by 2028.
It is right to build new homes to high energy efficiency standards, but it is sadly all too easy to predict the result of a rushed scheme to retrofit all existing homes to make them zero carbon. Homeowners will be fleeced, left with damp, chilly homes. Worse, the costs are bound to fall disproportionately on the lowest- income homeowners.
Some homes, says the CCC, may be heated with hydrogen – even though the technology to produce clean hydrogen has yet to be proven on a commercial scale. In most cases, though, the CCC wants gas boilers to be replaced with electric heat pumps. But these cost a lot more: between £6,000 and £8,000 for a typical air-source heat pump, according to Which.
Air Source Heat Pump Cost: 2020. Source TradesmenCost.co.uk
But if you live in one of Britain’s nine million older homes with solid walls, that is just the beginning. Heat pumps operate on lower water temperatures than gas boilers. To heat a home effectively you may need to install much larger radiators and insulate the walls, too. Solid wall insulation, again according to Which estimates, comes in at £7,400 if stuck on the inside (which makes all the rooms smaller) and £13,000 if stuck on the outside. Damp is another potential hazard: cover an old house, built without a damp course, with cladding and insulation and you are asking for trouble.
The CCC puts a timetable of 10-15 years on bringing all homes up to a grade “C” level on an Energy Performance Certificate. Where, other than the bands of cowboy contractors who will already be smacking their lips, does it think we are going to find the required workforce?
And if you can’t pay to upgrade your home? The CCC wants the sale of all new homes which don’t come up to standard to be banned from 2028, and mortgages on them to be stopped from 2033. In other words, if you can’t spend thousands to upgrade your home, you won’t be able to sell it or continue paying a mortgage. Yes, a government quango is proposing a policy which would lead to mass repossessions.
The post Ross Clark: A ban on gas boilers would be yet another pointless eco catastrophe appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/3m3REp8
December 10, 2020 at 01:14AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-12-10--Energy Efficiency Policy Under Trump (Part III: Litigation)

This post concludes a three-part series on the highs and lows of the DOE ’ s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology during the Trump window of opportunity .
Part I was an overview , and Part II examined EERE ’ s process rule and overhaul efforts to date .
Historically , Final Rules become that when published in the Federal Register .
Prior , such rules have been subject to change pursuant to the “ error correction ” procedure codified at 10 C.F.R .
§ 430.5 ( etc. )
.
As will be explained below , NRDC vs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2017 , the Natural Resources Defense Council , Sierra Club , and Consumer Federation of America notified DOE they will sue in 60 days over its failure to finalize standards for compressors , uninterruptible power supplies , walk-in coolers and freezers , portable air conditioners , and commercial packaged boilers .
That same day , ten “ blue ” states , the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection , and the City of New York filed a letter with DOE .
On June 13 , 2017 , these coalitions of environmental groups and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ petitioned the US District Court for the Northern District of California ( a.k.a.
, the “ 9th Circus ” ) .
As a general ( unwritten ) rule , it takes formal legal proceedings to get DOE ’ s attention .
Eceptions are Congressional inquiries from members that can influence DOE ’ s budget .
DOE could have used the information provided in the APGA/Spire error correction request to rationalize its reluctance to publish ( at least ) the commercial boiler rule ; but they chose not to .
Instead , DOE apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they had the authority to not publish , so they could win all non-published final rules .
Instead , they lost them all .
As discussed elsewhere in this series , one plausible reason for ignoring us is that it would have subjected DOE to highly controversial ( at best ) scrutiny of their methodologies to “ determine ” cost-effectiveness .
In turn , this would embarrass EERE and the “ energy efficiency ” advocates who have effectively become preferred clients of EERE .
In Natural Resources Defense Council versus Perry ( Case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , resulting in a court-ordered publication in the Federal Register of four Final Rules that were ready to go to print but were ostensibly awaiting resolution of several error correction requests .
The following is an excerpt : What is key in the above excerpt is the length of time EERE ’ s legal team took .
This was perceived by the presiding Judge as illegal stalling and emboldened NRDC to initiate more stalling-based litigation .
What was not made evident by the above excerpt was the fact that there was another error @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was ignored was because it went beyond correcting a mere typo .
Rather , it was aimed at correcting a major conceptual error in EERE ’ s Monte Carlo analyses that effectively assumed consumers ( even commercial ones ) fail to make rational economic decisions .
The end-result , unwittingly or otherwise , massively skewed EERE ’ s economic “ determinations ” in favor of stricter standards for commercial packaged boilers .
This “ error ” also exists in other proposed rulemakings .
In other words , EERE likely ignored this error correction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analytical biases within EERE , its Labs and contractors .
The American Public Gas Association ( APGA ) , the Air-Conditioning , Heating , and Refrigeration Institute ( AHRI ) , and Spire are appealing the Final Rule for commercial packaged boilers per USCA Case # 20-1068 .
The main reason for appealing is a lack of clear and compelling evidence as required by EPCA ( 42 U.S.C .
§ 6313 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A ) ( ii ) ( II ) ) .
The previously discussed “ modelling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unearned benefit of the doubt ) is a substantial part of EERE ’ s lack of “ clear and compelling evidence.
” It is important to explain that EERE ’ s use of Monte Carlo analyses for risk assessment was initiated by request of a now-defunct Federal advisory committee that wanted to perform “ what-if ” sensitivity analyses of major variables and assumptions .
Instead , EERE , its Labs and contractors weaponized this very practical idea into a massively complex and proprietary system to further obfuscate its processes and force fit its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy efficiency regulations .
It is also proper to explain that EERE is attempting to revise its Error Correction Rule per Docket Number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0015 .
EERE ’ s main purpose for this is to prevent future judicial enforcements compelling it to publish Final Rules under error correction review within 30 days .
Additionally , however , EERE is trying to limit the scope of its error correction rule to catching mere typo ’ s while simultaneously making it entirely discretionary .
This would block future error correction requests that are more substantial ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spire ) .
Of the few comments submitted for this docket , one was from NRDC ( defending a 30-day time limit ) and the rest from industry , ( with joint comments filed by AHRI being the most comprehensive ) .
Excerpt : For the sake of transparency , fairness , and basic good government procedure , the Joint Commenters recommend that the Secretary respond to all requests for error correction , even if the Secretary has decided not to act .
The requester should know whether their request was received , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for not acting on the request .
Public notice and a response are basic tenants of reasoned decision-making and should be followed during the error correction process as well .
The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) has an oversight role to play regarding EERE ’ s appliance efficiency determinations .
This includes review of agency Final Rules .
However , OMB ’ s use of such authority is minimal .
On February 25 , 2020 , OMB published Docket No .
OMB-2019-0006 to seek public comments titled Proposals , Submissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Regulatory Enforcement and Adjudication .
The broadly worded purpose of this docket was to find ways to decrease “ regulatory bullying.
” Gas industry comments were submitted to OMB .
Of particular relevance is a critique of EERE ’ s process for determining minimum efficiency standards .
The primary messages in the critique for NAS was the need for true transparency and to start accounting for energy savings validated by CMER .
Proper CMER crosschecks can efficiently provide powerful quality control cross-checks to “ average costs ” ( that are blended into non-transparent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black box ” analytical techniques historically favored by EERE .
The debate with EERE over the use of CMER started in the mid Nineties .
Before then , EERE basically used average energy cost estimates .
Since then , EERE has argued everything between it is too difficult to do CMER and it is already doing CMER .
Going forward , EERE says it will be returning to “ national average energy prices.
” If so , this will continue to inflate EERE ’ s claimed consumer energy cost savings .
Rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ click on the above NAS critique link and read it .
If you do , you will most likely be amazed at just how uneconomic forced energy efficiency investments can be when analyzed correctly .
Th letter and critique were also emailed to members of NAS Peer Review Committee ; all of which are from academia with the exception of Clark Gellings , a retired Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI ) executive who still represents the electric utility industry and has been promoting “ beneficial electrification ” for decades .
In contrast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this expert panel with a background in natural gas even though two openings went unfilled .
The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves Where will efficiency be heading given a Biden Administration ?
Consider the following graphic : Simply put , energy efficiency is poised to be phased out and replaced with carbon efficiency .
This will wean consumers off the direct use of natural gas ; either forcibly and/or through taxpayer subsidized energy efficiency rebates and tax credits .
Such “ beneficial electrification ” further assumes that renewables will inexpensively dominate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and emissions relative to natural gas .
Electrification under the guise of “ deep decarbonization ” is already well underway .
The “ electrify everything ” philosophy was on full display at EERE ’ s Building Technologies Office ( BTO ) virtual peer review conference that took place on November 16-18 , 2020 as evidenced by the following excerpt from BTO program for this event : Beneficial electrification has been a hot topic and a focus of many energy organizations for years , including utilities ; state and local governments ; regional , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; and manufacturers .
A key reason is that beneficial electrification — electrification combined with decarbonizing electricity generation — provides a strategy to meet the urgent climate crisis with existing technologies that improve energy efficiency .
It also provides a useful framework for understanding the importance of integrating technologies , especially grid-interactive efficient buildings , across the entire energy sector , from generation to electricity infrastructure and end uses .
In this future vision for the nation , solar and wind will do the heavy lifting , and electrification will continue to ramp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electricity .
The details of these evolving energy trends will vary nationwide , but there will be big changes in how we transmit , store and use electricity .
Increasingly , both the public and private sectors will look to BTO as a neutral , data-driven entity that can guide our entire country through a big transition .
[ yellow highlight added ] Does this look “ neutral ” to you ?
Regardless , EERE ’ s appliance efficiency regulations must contend with long-standing legislation that may restrict such an envisioned electric energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it remains in GOP hands .
Additionally , it appears that the far-left wing of the House majority has taken some hits in the recent election .
Some if not many Democrats blame the progressive wing for these losses .
Consequently , this collectively could slow the progress towards electrification and the war on gas ( the leading alternative to electricity ) that has continued unabated for decades .
Accordingly , consumer alternatives to electricity are not yet gone , but they are under increasing siege that is poised to intensify further under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mechanical engineer and energy policy analyst has been involved with energy efficiency design and program evaluation for more than thirty years .
He has served as an expert witness in dozens of State energy efficiency proceedings and submitted scores of Federal energy-efficiency filings .
Mark ’ s first article was in the Public Utilities Fortnightly titled “ It ’ s a War Out There : A Gas Man Questions Electric Efficiency ” ( December 1996 ) .
For more about by Mark , see his MasterResource archive .

“The end-result of the court order’s request, unwittingly or otherwise, massively skewed EERE’s economic ‘determinations’ in favor of stricter standards for commercial packaged boilers. This ‘error’ also exists in other proposed rulemakings. In other words, EERE likely ignored this correction request to avoid embarrassment by exposing deep analytical biases within EERE, its Labs and contractors.”
This post concludes a three-part series on the highs and lows of the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology during the Trump window of opportunity. Part I was an overview, and Part II examined EERE’s process rule and overhaul efforts to date.
Historically, Final Rules become that when published in the Federal Register. Prior, such rules have been subject to change pursuant to the “error correction” procedure codified at 10 C.F.R. § 430.5 (etc.). As will be explained below, NRDC vs Perry changed that.
Background
On April 3, 2017, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Consumer Federation of America notified DOE they will sue in 60 days over its failure to finalize standards for compressors, uninterruptible power supplies, walk-in coolers and freezers, portable air conditioners, and commercial packaged boilers. That same day, ten “blue” states, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and the City of New York filed a letter with DOE.
On June 13, 2017, these coalitions of environmental groups and agencies made good on their threats and petitioned the US District Court for the Northern District of California (a.k.a., the “9th Circus”).
As a general (unwritten) rule, it takes formal legal proceedings to get DOE’s attention. Eceptions are Congressional inquiries from members that can influence DOE’s budget. DOE could have used the information provided in the APGA/Spire error correction request to rationalize its reluctance to publish (at least) the commercial boiler rule; but they chose not to. Instead, DOE apparently chose to myopically chase a defense that they had the authority to not publish, so they could win all non-published final rules. Instead, they lost them all.
As discussed elsewhere in this series, one plausible reason for ignoring us is that it would have subjected DOE to highly controversial (at best) scrutiny of their methodologies to “determine” cost-effectiveness. In turn, this would embarrass EERE and the “energy efficiency” advocates who have effectively become preferred clients of EERE.
For third-party summaries see:
NRDC vs. Perry
In Natural Resources Defense Council versus Perry (Case 3:17-cv-03404-VC Document 81), NRDC won, resulting in a court-ordered publication in the Federal Register of four Final Rules that were ready to go to print but were ostensibly awaiting resolution of several error correction requests. The following is an excerpt:
For three of the four standards, the Department did not receive any requests for correction. Dkt. No. 66-12 at 3. One error was identified in the fourth standard: a table included the value “>300,000” instead of “≥300,000.” Dkt. Nos. 66-11 at 2, 66-12 at 3. A year later, the Department still has not submitted any of the four energy standards to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. There has been no explanation for this, other than a statement at oral argument by counsel that the Department is “still considering” the four energy standards.
What is key in the above excerpt is the length of time EERE’s legal team took. This was perceived by the presiding Judge as illegal stalling and emboldened NRDC to initiate more stalling-based litigation. What was not made evident by the above excerpt was the fact that there was another error correction request.
The apparent reason it was ignored was because it went beyond correcting a mere typo. Rather, it was aimed at correcting a major conceptual error in EERE’s Monte Carlo analyses that effectively assumed consumers (even commercial ones) fail to make rational economic decisions.
The end-result, unwittingly or otherwise, massively skewed EERE’s economic “determinations” in favor of stricter standards for commercial packaged boilers. This “error” also exists in other proposed rulemakings. In other words, EERE likely ignored this error correction request to avoid embarrassment by exposing deep analytical biases within EERE, its Labs and contractors.
The American Public Gas Association (APGA), the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), and Spire are appealing the Final Rule for commercial packaged boilers per USCA Case #20-1068. The main reason for appealing is a lack of clear and compelling evidence as required by EPCA (42 U.S.C. § 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)). The previously discussed “modelling error” (to give EERE an unearned benefit of the doubt) is a substantial part of EERE’s lack of “clear and compelling evidence.”
It is important to explain that EERE’s use of Monte Carlo analyses for risk assessment was initiated by request of a now-defunct Federal advisory committee that wanted to perform “what-if” sensitivity analyses of major variables and assumptions. Instead, EERE, its Labs and contractors weaponized this very practical idea into a massively complex and proprietary system to further obfuscate its processes and force fit its biased analytical determinations to justify yet more energy efficiency regulations.
It is also proper to explain that EERE is attempting to revise its Error Correction Rule per Docket Number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0015. EERE’s main purpose for this is to prevent future judicial enforcements compelling it to publish Final Rules under error correction review within 30 days. Additionally, however, EERE is trying to limit the scope of its error correction rule to catching mere typo’s while simultaneously making it entirely discretionary. This would block future error correction requests that are more substantial (like the one submitted by APGA and Spire). Of the few comments submitted for this docket, one was from NRDC (defending a 30-day time limit) and the rest from industry,(with joint comments filed by AHRI being the most comprehensive). Excerpt:
For the sake of transparency, fairness, and basic good government procedure, the Joint Commenters recommend that the Secretary respond to all requests for error correction, even if the Secretary has decided not to act. The requester should know whether their request was received, considered and the Department’s rationale for not acting on the request. Public notice and a response are basic tenants of reasoned decision-making and should be followed during the error correction process as well.
Miscellaneous Details Meet the Devil
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has an oversight role to play regarding EERE’s appliance efficiency determinations. This includes review of agency Final Rules. However, OMB’s use of such authority is minimal. On February 25, 2020, OMB published Docket No. OMB-2019-0006 to seek public comments titled Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Improving and/or Reforming Regulatory Enforcement and Adjudication. The broadly worded purpose of this docket was to find ways to decrease “regulatory bullying.” Gas industry comments were submitted to OMB. Of particular relevance is a critique of EERE’s process for determining minimum efficiency standards.
The primary messages in the critique for NAS was the need for true transparency and to start accounting for energy savings validated by CMER. Proper CMER crosschecks can efficiently provide powerful quality control cross-checks to “average costs” (that are blended into non-transparent oblivion) and various proprietary and/or “black box” analytical techniques historically favored by EERE.
The debate with EERE over the use of CMER started in the mid Nineties. Before then, EERE basically used average energy cost estimates. Since then, EERE has argued everything between it is too difficult to do CMER and it is already doing CMER. Going forward, EERE says it will be returning to “national average energy prices.” If so, this will continue to inflate EERE’s claimed consumer energy cost savings.
Rather than reiterate all of this here, please click on the above NAS critique link and read it. If you do, you will most likely be amazed at just how uneconomic forced energy efficiency investments can be when analyzed correctly.
Th letter and critique were also emailed to members of NAS Peer Review Committee; all of which are from academia with the exception of Clark Gellings, a retired Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) executive who still represents the electric utility industry and has been promoting “beneficial electrification” for decades. In contrast, there was no one appointed to this expert panel with a background in natural gas even though two openings went unfilled.
The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves
Where will efficiency be heading given a Biden Administration? Consider the following graphic:
Source: https://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/December-14-2019-BBRN-Peer-Exchange-Call-Presentation.pdf
Simply put, energy efficiency is poised to be phased out and replaced with carbon efficiency. This will wean consumers off the direct use of natural gas; either forcibly and/or through taxpayer subsidized energy efficiency rebates and tax credits. Such “beneficial electrification” further assumes that renewables will inexpensively dominate the grid and thus simultaneously provide lower cost and emissions relative to natural gas.
Electrification under the guise of “deep decarbonization” is already well underway. The “electrify everything” philosophy was on full display at EERE’s Building Technologies Office (BTO) virtual peer review conference that took place on November 16-18, 2020 as evidenced by the following excerpt from BTO program for this event:
Trends and Opportunities in Electrification (Karma Sawyer)
Beneficial electrification has been a hot topic and a focus of many energy organizations for years, including utilities; state and local governments; regional, state, and local energy efficiency organizations; and manufacturers. A key reason is that beneficial electrification — electrification combined with decarbonizing electricity generation — provides a strategy to meet the urgent climate crisis with existing technologies that improve energy efficiency. It also provides a useful framework for understanding the importance of integrating technologies, especially grid-interactive efficient buildings, across the entire energy sector, from generation to electricity infrastructure and end uses. In this future vision for the nation, solar and wind will do the heavy lifting, and electrification will continue to ramp up so that we use far more electricity. The details of these evolving energy trends will vary nationwide, but there will be big changes in how we transmit, store and use electricity. Increasingly, both the public and private sectors will look to BTO as a neutral, data-driven entity that can guide our entire country through a big transition. [yellow highlight added]
Does this look “neutral” to you? Regardless, EERE’s appliance efficiency regulations must contend with long-standing legislation that may restrict such an envisioned electric energy monoculture; as could the Senate if it remains in GOP hands.
Additionally, it appears that the far-left wing of the House majority has taken some hits in the recent election. Some if not many Democrats blame the progressive wing for these losses. Consequently, this collectively could slow the progress towards electrification and the war on gas (the leading alternative to electricity) that has continued unabated for decades. Accordingly, consumer alternatives to electricity are not yet gone, but they are under increasing siege that is poised to intensify further under a Biden Administration.
————————–
Mark Krebs, a mechanical engineer and energy policy analyst has been involved with energy efficiency design and program evaluation for more than thirty years. He has served as an expert witness in dozens of State energy efficiency proceedings and submitted scores of Federal energy-efficiency filings. Mark’s first article was in the Public Utilities Fortnightly titled “It’s a War Out There: A Gas Man Questions Electric Efficiency” (December 1996). For more about by Mark, see his MasterResource archive.