Imagine that. Scientists doing empirical work:

“The researchers say that their empirical findings (note empirical – as opposed to models on a computer) prove…”

A scientific study on the results of the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill has yielded some surprising results that appear to disprove fears of methane release as a global warming “tipping point” to catastrophic warming. The theory as currently incorporated by most climate models requires “tipping points” to go from mild anthropogenic warming to catastrophic global warming. The most plausibleand significant of these potential tipping points has always … Read More

via hauntingthelibrary

John Droz Jr. has posted a couple of brilliant little videos on MasterResource highlighting some very pertinent questions about the efficacy of wind as a source of energy.

Part 1: Dick & Jane Talk Wind Power

I found the rejoinder “compared to what?” a very effective method of countering the green mumbo jumbo that is often spouted by wind supporters. Though well meaning, they seem completely oblivious to the fact that their simplistic arguments in favour of wind do not hold up to scrutiny. Nor do they recognize that they are mindlessly repeating the talking points of self-interested green promoters. In this, Big Wind is little different from Big Oil.

Part 2: Jane Speaks With Her Town Representative

In this video, I like the way Jane turns the tables on wind developers. It should not be up to the citizen to prove the shortcomings of a particular wind project, but for the developers to prove its benefits. Of course, in the absence of any objective scientific study on the costs and benefits of wind power, the wind industry is understandably loath to go down this path. But that should not stop citizens from demanding it.

I’d put my money on the “self-appointed guru“.

Parker Gallant writes some of the most lucid commentary on Ontario energy policy. On the other hand, Brad Duguid has had extensive experience with energy issues since, well, his appointment as Minister of Energy earlier this year.



Governments just don’t seem to get it:

Green taxes to fund economic growth

Environmental taxation plans feature prominently in the Government’s growth strategy 

By Richard Tyler 6:04PM GMT 29 Nov 2010

The Government will set out in the New Year plans to raise environmental taxes to fund the country’s transformation to a low carbon economy, it has said.

The plans formed part of a joint Treasury and Business Department “growth review” launched yesterday that set out how Whitehall will “facilitate” long term economic growth.

You simply cannot tax your way to growth.

As a Canadian living in Canada, I’ve always thought that concern over global warming was misplaced. So what if it went up a few degrees. Overall, life in our northern climate might actually be more pleasant.

In a new book, The World In 2050, Lawrence C. Smith considers the upside for Canada:

By the year 2050 Canada could be enjoying newfound status as a global superpower blessed with a developed north, plenty of fresh water, a growing population and new shipping lanes through the Arctic.

That’s the theory put forward in Laurence C. Smith’s new book “The World in 2050″ — a scientific exploration of the effects of climate change over the next 40 years.

According to Smith’s 40-year projection, global warming will free up northern natural resources such as oil, gas and water. That in turn will attract immigrants and lead to new infrastructure and development for northern rim countries — NORCs, as he calls them — at a time when southern countries will be running out of resources and seeing their populations fall.

Of course, the underlying climate alarmist scenario in the book portends disaster for other parts of the world. But if this is the case, why should Canada actually pay to address the issue while forgoing these potential benefits? Maybe the other parts of the world should be paying us.

asks Christina Blizzard.

The wisest plan is to push ahead with a big honkin’ nuclear plant. They don’t spew fumes. But good luck convincing the eco warriors that nukes are green.

Now gas-fired plants are on the do-not-build list.

That leaves us with windmills, solar and a couple of hamsters running around on a treadmill to keep the lights on.

Is it any wonder, electricity prices are going up?

The disconnect between economics and the environment is a common theme among the schemes promoted by environmentalists and politicians. Take curbside recycling:

Unlike commercial and industrial recycling — a thriving voluntary market that annually salvages tens of millions of tons of metal, paper, glass, and plastic — mandatory household recycling is a money loser. Cost studies show that curbside recycling can cost, on average, 60 percent more per ton than conventional garbage disposal…

“There is not a community curbside recycling program in the United States that covers its cost,’’ says Jay Lehr, science director at the Heartland Institute and author of a handbook on environmental science. They exist primarily to make people “feel warm and fuzzy about what they are doing for the environment.’’

Voters evidently support this stuff since the guys that propose it seem to get re-elected. It is ironic though that caring about the environment is reduced to just another consumer good, one that is actually forced upon us by politicians and environmentalists. I thought consumerism was what environmentalists abhor.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.