Electric cars are not green.

There’s some work on electric cars reported in the New York Times that says:

  • People who own all-electric cars where coal generates the power may think they are helping the environment. But a new study finds their vehicles actually make the air dirtier with 3.6 times more soot and smog deaths than petrol – but they are beneficial as they produce more atmospheric plant food (aka CO2)
  • Ethanol isn’t so green, either. “It’s kind of hard to beat gasoline” for public and environmental health, said study co-author Julian Marshall, an engineering professor at the University of Minnesota. “A lot of the technologies that we think of as being clean … are not better than gasoline.”

Continue reading

Posted in Climate | 2 Comments

Survey: Which area of Engineering?

Field summary for Q10
Which of the following engineering areas have you worked in for at least a year?
Answer Count Percentage
Computer programmer, information technologist, etc. (1) 1344 49.21%
Design (2) 921 33.72%
Light (electronics, instrumentation) (3) 734 26.88%
Heavy (industrial) (4) 464 16.99%
Manufacturing (5) 741 27.13%
Teaching (6) 260 9.52%
Power (7) 397 14.54%
Civil & construction. (8) 415 15.20%
Other 461 16.88%
471758ea0567f138261c018e1662ff07

 

Posted in Survey | 2 Comments

What? "The Lima climate deal is largely voluntary. That may be its biggest strength."

Just been reading the kinds of idiotic greenspin that has been written by the drooling half demented green journalists after Lima and this headline really sums it up:

The Lima climate deal is largely voluntary. That may be its biggest strength.

These guys take an agreement for someone to do something, sometime somewhere and write it up as something great and write it up as something worthwhile! Continue reading

Posted in Climate | Comments Off on What? "The Lima climate deal is largely voluntary. That may be its biggest strength."

Marriage RIP

Apparently the politicians of Scotland today know better than thousands of years of parents and have decided that children no longer need the institution of marriage to protect children from the stupidity of their parents.
Parents will continue to be stupid, but instead of marriage being the contract by which parents agree to look after their children, now that institution of marriage does not exist.
Instead like the pied piper, they intend to round up children and gradually take them under the state’s control as the state appoints “guardians” to replace parents – cheered on by these selfish “parents” and so called “social reformers” from the side. In short, what these people hate most of all are married couples who actually do what marriage is for and care for their own children rather than farming them out to child minders or the state so that they can get on with their own selfish lives.
Unfortunately, it’s the way this PC hate-filled society is going. If you sit in Holyrood and won’t be a good parent, you hate anyone else who does care for their own children and you are damned well going to bring down the rest of society to your own selfish level.
And it’s applauded by the most selfish of modern society with their “me me me” mentality where children aren’t people with rights but are instead just a luxury consumer good to be acquired like fridge freezers by adults – and like all the optional extras they will be treated as optional extras and when they cause a problem it’ll be “out they go” – because parents no longer contract to look after children through the institution of marriage.

It’s the children that lose out,
not the the selfish ignorant “parents”
who sit in Holyrood and the anti-family BBC
and who long ago gave over their children for others to bring up.

Posted in Climate | 1 Comment

Survey: How many years have you worked in Engineering?

Field summary for Q09
How many years have you worked in Engineering
Answer Count Percentage
1 year (1) 39 1.43%
2 – 3 years (2) 146 5.35%
4 – 7 years (3) 230 8.42%
8 – 15 years (4) 417 15.27%
16+ years (5) 1861 68.14%
No answer 38 1.39%
87ca79533cb3942857f9aab3d1d1587d

 

Posted in Survey | 5 Comments

Green policies to add up to 40pc to cost of household electricity

At the Scottish parliament I berated the advisers to the parliament for presenting “options” for the future without once talking about the cost to the consumer.
And the reply I got was “it’s cheaper than it would have been”.
And what do we learn a few days later:

Green policies to add up to 40pc to cost of household electricity

Official figures – initially withheld by ministers – show steep rises in the price of electricity by the end of the decade to pay for the Government’s policies to tackle climate change

An average household is expected to pay as much as £250 more for electricity – mainly through consumer subsidies – to pay for the Government’s green energy schemes, while an electrically heated house could be as much as £440 a year worse off.

And by 2030, when thousands of planned offshore wind turbines are finally operating, the burden will be even greater, the numbers show. The average household could be paying an extra 60 per cent for electricity – equivalent to £350 more a year. (Telegraph)

Posted in Energy, Politics | Comments Off on Green policies to add up to 40pc to cost of household electricity

Lima: from weak to weaker to weakest

International Panel of Climate Clowns present their latest report.

Lima press conference.


Just typical! Yet again the WWF are overstating the “achievement” at Lima:

“Sam Smith, chief of climate policy for the environmental group WWF, said: “The text went from weak to weaker to weakest and it’s very weak indeed.” (BBC)

In reality, it’s not weak but non existent as the governments have stopped even pretending to be doing anything. Here’s what the very very pro “it’s a wonderful agreement” BBC have said the agreed document calls for:

  • An “ambitious agreement” in 2015 that reflects “differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” of each nation
  • Developed countries to provide financial support to “vulnerable” developing nations
  • National pledges to be submitted by the first quarter of 2015 by those states “ready to do so”
  • Countries to set targets that go beyond their “current undertaking”
  • The UN climate change body to report back on the national pledges in November 2015

Differentiated responsibilities”  -translation for those for whom destroying their economy is seen as a political advantage may go ahead – sane countries will do nothing.
Support for “developing nations” – so no change from the normal foreign aid (aka bribe) budget.
National pledges by “those read to do so” – LOL!
Countries to set targets “beyond their current untertakings” – translation, to re-designate expenditure and call it “green”. So, e.g. new roads to “cut down on polluting traffic jams”, would I fit this meaningless drivel
UN to report back – but they’ve been doing that for 20 years – so to get the UN to agree to do what they are doing just about sums up how pathetic this whole waste of air miles has been.
The GWPF are equally scathing:

GWPF Welcomes Non-Binding And Toothless UN Climate Deal Continue reading

Posted in Climate | Comments Off on Lima: from weak to weaker to weakest

Survey: more than one year in engineering?

Field summary for Q08
Have you worked in engineering for more than one year?
Answer Count Percentage
Yes (Y) 636 18.28%
No (N) 2822 81.09%
No answer 22 0.63%
698894313ace1423e248d4da06d99ba5

 

Posted in Survey | Comments Off on Survey: more than one year in engineering?

Survey: which area of science

Field summary for Q07
Which of the following areas of science have you worked in for at least a year?
Answer Count Percentage
Laboratory work (1) 256 10.29%
Teaching (2) 218 8.76%
Research (3) 1210 48.63%
Field work (4) 451 18.13%
Other 329 13.22%
No answer 24 0.96%
0360495d8d3e45bd79619eb7da63cf6f

 

Posted in Survey | Comments Off on Survey: which area of science

Lima: You can fool some people all the time

The annual get together of the deluded at Lima has successfully kept the greenblobbyists occupied for another few weeks dangling carrots in front of them for the next talks in Paris:

“Right now we are facing the prospect of being no further forward than we were when we left last year’s meeting in Warsaw.”

“everything is still up in the air.”

“deadlock”

” weak-willed compromise.”

etc.

And yet again having achieved nothing but empty promises, they are again triumphing the achievement of having a plan to talk about what they plan to do at the next meeting, where they will plan to plan, to talk about the talks they plan…….
You can fool some people some of the time but there really are thousands of greens at Lima who can be fooled every time.

Addendum

Just been thinking and trying to understand how the politicians can keep stringing along these greenblobbyists year after year after year.
And I thought: “Of course, if a sceptic were at these talks, they would spot within a few hours what was going on as they would be focussed on measurable outcomes.”
… then it twigged!
Alarmists don’t care much for hard and fast facts. To them even when the temperature has not warmed, it is warming if there is a general “consensus” that it is warming. To them Arctic ice is melting because that’s the “consensus”. For them CO2 is a poison and not a plant food because that’s the “consensus”.
So, these alarmists must see a “success” at these talks, not in solid progress toward a measurable goal as we sceptics would see it, but instead on the degree of “consensus”.
So, this is how I think the greenblob has been strung along so long. Each year the politicians create a scenario of disagreement that needs to be overcome – and each year they go to these talks and at the last minute (for there is always a last minute deal), they come to a “consensus”. And because the greenblob see the world only in terms of whether there is consensus or not, and not tangible progress, the mere fact that they yet again come to a consensus to carry on to the next meeting is seen by the greenblob as a huge achievement.
But of course, the disagreement is as fake as the consensus – it’s just a way to suggest progerss when there is none.

Posted in Kyoto | 3 Comments