Follow Us

FacebookTwitterRSSStumble UponDigg

Tags: , , , ,

Time to tell global warming industry the party’s over

November 7, 2012

By Charlene Adam
Author
The Skeptical Housewife

WINNIPEG, MB, Nov. 7,2012/ Troy Media/ – It’s time to party like it’s 1996! According to a report from the Mail Online, the United Kingdom’s climate monitoring Met Office said that ‘from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperature.’

Shouldn’t this be party-worthy news? Many may think this is wonderful information, but it’s unlikely those living in fuel poverty are ready to break out the bubbly; they can’t afford to. A 2011 BBC report defines fuel poverty ‘as spending 10 per cent of median household income on electricity and gas.’

Fuel poverty didn’t appear out of nowhere because someone found a fossil-fuel lamp and rubbed it to release an angry green genie. This form of poverty is often tied to fuel policies. The United Kingdom aims at 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Key to this plan is green energy.

Energy companies’ hands are tied to expensive renewable policies. If companies wished to refuse to follow the stringent, green-linked regulations, they lose their license to sell energy. The Guardian recently reported that, despite an already heavy load, thousands of Britons have been handed another blow: An 11 per cent increase in fuel prices.

Some might say that faced with scientific global warming evidence, rapidly converting to renewables was an unavoidable choice. Others might argue that it was a clever attempt by green energy providers to make use of a crisis to boost their business, but that debate will have to take place elsewhere.

As a skeptic who has studied global warming, I understand that politicians, scientists and industry leaders have a vested interest in clinging to the message of climate change gloom and doom. Who can blame them? If I were a politician who lobbied for billions in carbon taxes or a tree-ring scientist who’d hung her hat on the golden goose of climate change funds, I’d cling to past reports too.

These energy policy problems aren’t reserved for the U.K. Consider the actions of the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As Congress refused to institute an energy policy similar to the U.K.’s, the EPA applied a back-door strategy that slapped fines and regulations upon selected sources in the energy industry. As a result, coal companies have been strangled. Many have shut down, which has reduced the availability of affordable energy. Some of you might cheer this news, but I doubt you’d be cheering if you couldn’t heat your frosty home or afford electricity to run your iPod.

Reports from the US Energy Information Administration shows approximately 14 per cent of America’s energy currently comes from renewable sources (eight of which from hydro), 42 per cent is generated from coal and 25 per cent stems from natural gas. Can the United States government easily replace 67 per cent of their electricity generation?

Edging out an energy industry before it’s capable of replacing it is like someone throwing out her wardrobe before she goes shopping. Granted, I admit to having had told my husband I have nothing to wear, but that wasn’t a literal comment. I didn’t wander around Sears naked, looking for a new dress. That’s essentially what the EPA is doing.

Knowing how the experiment of green energy worked in the U.K., is this a policy that should be embraced here before new forms of energy works as efficiently as conventional ones?

Energy regulations drafted to address global warming aren’t unique in government policies. They exist from politics to pedagogy. While new information may cause educational departments to unravel global warming-based science curricula and companies to stop using the words carbon footprint, it’s worse for the rest of us.

We’ll have to sever environmental issues from global-warming propaganda. Accomplishing this task will be like getting gum out of a five-year-old’s hair. By the way, if you face this situation with your kid – peanut butter does the trick. I have no simple solution for solving our global warming policy conundrum, however, other than to examine public policies carefully.

There will be resistance. As we attempt to roll back regulations, politicians will treat us as if we are removing coins from a homeless man’s begging cup.

Remember, green energy policies were fast-tracked because some thought we could solve a global disaster. Now that real world evidence shows that global warming can no longer credibly be linked to carbon dioxide caused by human’s actions, it’s time to tell politicians and the green industry that their party is over. One problem remains: Who will clean up the mess they left behind?

Charlene Adam is author of The Skeptical Housewife (www.theskepticalhousewife.com), recently published by the Frontier Centre (http://www.fcpp.org/).

ADVERTISEMENT
2 comments
patrickmisneach
patrickmisneach

The Met office - which produced the report the Mail's assertions relied upon - disagrees completely with iys conclusions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong

DaveLeaton
DaveLeaton

 @patrickmisneach , we might also add that David Rose thinks his audience is stupid.  As someone who has "studied global warming," Charlene surely realizes how silly it is to use the Hadley analysis as evidence for or against the idea that global warming has stopped.  After all, the surface/lower troposphere is all of roughly 5% of the thermal capacity of the surface climate system (oceans-surf/atmos-ice mass).  If one wants to use 5% of something to make a claim about the whole, expect to be ridiculed.   It's worse, though, because the other 95% is either storing energy as expected (Levitus et al. 2012) or is storing energy at an unexpectedly high rate (PIOMAS confirmed by CryoSat 2). It's even worse than that, because Hadley is the weakest surface analysis, because it doesn't include the poles, which are warming faster than the rest of the planet.

 

It's yet worse.  Perhaps Charlene can go to woodfortrees.org and show me where warming has "stopped."  Here, I'll help out:  http://tinyurl.com/b8lcusv

 

Note that using the starting point of 1997 perfectly captures the massive 1998 El Nino without appearing to.  That El Nino, btw, started in spring of 1997.  If we push back to the beginning of 1996, we get a linear trend that is almost exactly what is expected.  Note also that none of the trends is actually negative or flat.  Several are simply statistically insignificant, depending on how one defines significance within their analysis.