New Peer-Reviewed study: "Calling CO2 a pollutant blatantly false!"

[skookerasbil]

More AGW k00k losing................on REALCLEARENERGY now.............



EXCLUSIVE: New Study Calls EPA’s Labeling Of CO2 A Pollutant ‘Totally False’

12:08 AM 04/24/2017

A new study published by seasoned researchers takes aim at the heart of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to issue regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions.

The study claims to have “proven that it is all but certain that EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false,” according to a press statement put out by Drs. Jim Wallace, John Christy and Joe D’Aleo.

Wallace, Christy and D’Aleo — a statistician, a climatologist and meteorologist, respectively — released a study claiming to invalidate EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, which allowed the agency to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

“This research failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that were analyzed,” the authors say in the release for the second edition of their peer-reviewed work.




EXCLUSIVE: New Study Calls EPA’s Labeling Of CO2 A Pollutant ‘Totally False’



Who's not winning?



Fake "science" is ghey.

 

[skookerasbil]

Watch the k00ks swarm to this like slugs heading for beer..........and they best they'll do is say, "They are not "real" scientists"!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Even the most hardcore of the climate crusaders has to admit.............its been a real bad year!

 

[Freewill]

The following site has both CO2 concentration and temperature graphs which seem line up time wish. It can clearly that CO2 concentration lags temperature.

CO2 vs Temperature: Last 400,000 years

 

[skookerasbil]

Been saying for 20 years that the EPA is should be called THE DEPARTMENT OF FAKERY

 

[IcebergSlim]

More AGW k00k losing................on REALCLEARENERGY now.............



EXCLUSIVE: New Study Calls EPA’s Labeling Of CO2 A Pollutant ‘Totally False’

12:08 AM 04/24/2017

A new study published by seasoned researchers takes aim at the heart of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to issue regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions.

The study claims to have “proven that it is all but certain that EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false,” according to a press statement put out by Drs. Jim Wallace, John Christy and Joe D’Aleo.

Wallace, Christy and D’Aleo — a statistician, a climatologist and meteorologist, respectively — released a study claiming to invalidate EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, which allowed the agency to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

“This research failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that were analyzed,” the authors say in the release for the second edition of their peer-reviewed work.




EXCLUSIVE: New Study Calls EPA’s Labeling Of CO2 A Pollutant ‘Totally False’



Who's not winning?



Fake "science" is ghey.

World Coal Production Just Had Its Biggest Drop on Record


This was just coincidentally a piece commissioned by industry interests lobbying against increased efficiency standards....

 

[Old Rocks]

Peer reviewed by whom?

 

[IanC]

More AGW k00k losing................on REALCLEARENERGY now.............



EXCLUSIVE: New Study Calls EPA’s Labeling Of CO2 A Pollutant ‘Totally False’

12:08 AM 04/24/2017

A new study published by seasoned researchers takes aim at the heart of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to issue regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions.

The study claims to have “proven that it is all but certain that EPA’s basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant is totally false,” according to a press statement put out by Drs. Jim Wallace, John Christy and Joe D’Aleo.

Wallace, Christy and D’Aleo — a statistician, a climatologist and meteorologist, respectively — released a study claiming to invalidate EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, which allowed the agency to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

“This research failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature data sets that were analyzed,” the authors say in the release for the second edition of their peer-reviewed work.




EXCLUSIVE: New Study Calls EPA’s Labeling Of CO2 A Pollutant ‘Totally False’



Who's not winning?



Fake "science" is ghey.

I only skimmed the article but it does seem to undercut the EPA's argument. The science is not settled. The models are wrong.

 

[mamooth]

By peer-reviewed, Skook means endorsed by some other deniers. That is, it's not a study, it's a dumb propaganda piece that rambles all over the place.

Now, we could ask him to discuss the issues the piece raises, but we all know he's not smart enough to do so. It's just the old debunked denier "There's no tropospheric hotspot!" fallacy, lots of junk statistics. Since there is a hotspot, it's all nonsense.

 

[skookerasbil]

These 5 Charts Show the Seismic Shifts Happening in Global Energy = fake news = critical statistics used for the sake of comparison purposefully left out = ghey. LOL.......and the "big drop" was 1.9%.. There are zero "seismic" shifts unless you consider a "seismic shift" a woman having a boob job that takes her from flat chested to an A-Cup.US coal still pumps out 350+ million tonnes of coal/years which is dwarfed by China that is currently opening 2-3 coal plants per month and will increase coal production by 50% by 2040!

Oh and notice.........you never see a bar graph in these lefty news outlets that display coal next to renewables in terms of total production or how much electricity is provided by which form of energy!! Ever wonder why? Because if people saw it, they would see that fossil fuel use is still staggering and will be for decades to come........70% out to 2050! ( well.......at least according to the Obama EIA report in 2016 )


And now more and more, we are seeing scientific research that does not conform with the designer science that is "climate science".

 

[skookerasbil]

Peer reviewed by whom?

Listed right before the abstract.................bah....bah....booey

 

[skookerasbil]

Lets not forget s0ns..........the whole CO2 theory comes from only a loose association of dissolved CO2 in ice cores and with historical correlations (of questionable accuracy, as shown in ‘State of Fear’ , the east Anglia IPCC emails, and the most recent evidence of scientific fakery). Its a hail Mary pass theory not rooted in any kind of provable science. We still need many decades of study before any conclusions can be made regarding CO2 being the sole driver of climate change.........its a spoof in 2017 folks.

 

[IanC]

Alberta Canada is closing a wind farm down after 23 years. 3 years better than the estimated 20 year lifespan.

I couldn't find the numbers for the total cost involved in harvesting all the 'free wind energy' or the amount of energy produced compared to the nameplate capacity.

The interesting point is that no company is willing to step in and replace the turbines even though much of the infrastructure is already in place. It isn't economically feasible without a large govt subsidy they say.

 

[Old Rocks]

Alberta Canada is closing a wind farm down after 23 years. 3 years better than the estimated 20 year lifespan.

I couldn't find the numbers for the total cost involved in harvesting all the 'free wind energy' or the amount of energy produced compared to the nameplate capacity.

The interesting point is that no company is willing to step in and replace the turbines even though much of the infrastructure is already in place. It isn't economically feasible without a large govt subsidy they say.

Which has to do with what? Looks like a lousy job of siting was done. In the meantime, Texas and Oklahoma are installing wind by the giga-watt. But then, you know how ultra liberal those two states are. LOL

 

[Wyatt earp]

Alberta Canada is closing a wind farm down after 23 years. 3 years better than the estimated 20 year lifespan.

I couldn't find the numbers for the total cost involved in harvesting all the 'free wind energy' or the amount of energy produced compared to the nameplate capacity.

The interesting point is that no company is willing to step in and replace the turbines even though much of the infrastructure is already in place. It isn't economically feasible without a large govt subsidy they say.

Which has to do with what? Looks like a lousy job of siting was done. In the meantime, Texas and Oklahoma are installing wind by the giga-watt. But then, you know how ultra liberal those two states are. LOL

Interesting....your wind turbines suck old rocks in the long run, no wonder why fossil fuel started to get out of the business


Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study


Britain’s wind farms are wearing out far more rapidly than previously thought, making them more expensive as a result, according to an authoritative new study.
The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.

The wind energy industry and the Government base all their calculations on turbines enjoying a lifespan of 20 to 25 years.

The study estimates that routine wear and tear will more than double the cost of electricity being produced by wind farms in the next decade.

Older turbines will need to be replaced more quickly than the industry estimates while many more will need to be built onshore if the Government is to meet renewable energy targets by 2020.

The extra cost is likely to be passed on to households, which already pay about £1 billion a year in a consumer subsidy that is added to electricity bills.

The report concludes that a wind turbine will typically generate more than twice as much electricity in its first year than when it is 15 years old.




.

 

[IanC]

Alberta Canada is closing a wind farm down after 23 years. 3 years better than the estimated 20 year lifespan.

I couldn't find the numbers for the total cost involved in harvesting all the 'free wind energy' or the amount of energy produced compared to the nameplate capacity.

The interesting point is that no company is willing to step in and replace the turbines even though much of the infrastructure is already in place. It isn't economically feasible without a large govt subsidy they say.

Which has to do with what? Looks like a lousy job of siting was done. In the meantime, Texas and Oklahoma are installing wind by the giga-watt. But then, you know how ultra liberal those two states are. LOL

How big are the subsidies in those States? I have even heard that they get paid to stop producing electricity when the demand is low.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Alberta Canada is closing a wind farm down after 23 years. 3 years better than the estimated 20 year lifespan.

I couldn't find the numbers for the total cost involved in harvesting all the 'free wind energy' or the amount of energy produced compared to the nameplate capacity.

The interesting point is that no company is willing to step in and replace the turbines even though much of the infrastructure is already in place. It isn't economically feasible without a large govt subsidy they say.

Lets look at this objectively...

No one will replace them... Why? Cost of maintenance and upkeep is far grater than they are letting it be known so profitability is far lower than they say it is. The Alberta power regulators reported that the output was less than 16% of name plate..

SO if you want the bottom line on this.. Its not profitable without massive government subsidies... which means its not profitable or reliable on its own...

 

[IanC]

Alberta Canada is closing a wind farm down after 23 years. 3 years better than the estimated 20 year lifespan.

I couldn't find the numbers for the total cost involved in harvesting all the 'free wind energy' or the amount of energy produced compared to the nameplate capacity.

The interesting point is that no company is willing to step in and replace the turbines even though much of the infrastructure is already in place. It isn't economically feasible without a large govt subsidy they say.

Lets look at this objectively...

No one will replace them... Why? Cost of maintenance and upkeep is far grater than they are letting it be known so profitability is far lower than they say it is. The Alberta power regulators reported that the output was less than 16% of name plate..

SO if you want the bottom line on this.. Its not profitable without massive government subsidies... which means its not profitable or reliable on its own...

Let's not forget the fossil fuel power plants idling in the background, ready to take up the slack when the wind doesn't blow. Should the cost of not running a ff power plant efficiently be added to the cost of renewables, or just left in the cost of non-renewables? I think we all know it IS tallied against fossil fuels, but should it be? Do you think we are getting an honest accounting of the costs of renewables?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Alberta Canada is closing a wind farm down after 23 years. 3 years better than the estimated 20 year lifespan.

I couldn't find the numbers for the total cost involved in harvesting all the 'free wind energy' or the amount of energy produced compared to the nameplate capacity.

The interesting point is that no company is willing to step in and replace the turbines even though much of the infrastructure is already in place. It isn't economically feasible without a large govt subsidy they say.

Lets look at this objectively...

No one will replace them... Why? Cost of maintenance and upkeep is far grater than they are letting it be known so profitability is far lower than they say it is. The Alberta power regulators reported that the output was less than 16% of name plate..

SO if you want the bottom line on this.. Its not profitable without massive government subsidies... which means its not profitable or reliable on its own...

Let's not forget the fossil fuel power plants idling in the background, ready to take up the slack when the wind doesn't blow. Should the cost of not running a ff power plant efficiently be added to the cost of renewables, or just left in the cost of non-renewables? I think we all know it IS tallied against fossil fuels, but should it be? Do you think we are getting an honest accounting of the costs of renewables?

Even in the US the cost of idling is on the grid operator and is not charged to the renewable energy producer. Its a sham. The Western Area Power Administration WAPA is not allowed to charge for the idling plants. That is changing in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and others, where the cost is now billable to the renewable operators. The renewable operators are screaming that they cant compete if they have to shoulder the cost for this. We voted to make them pay their own way.. I was looking at my power bill and the cost for wind energy tripled this month.. 0.23 cents /kwh. I opted out of "green" programs..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Alberta Canada is closing a wind farm down after 23 years. 3 years better than the estimated 20 year lifespan.

I couldn't find the numbers for the total cost involved in harvesting all the 'free wind energy' or the amount of energy produced compared to the nameplate capacity.

The interesting point is that no company is willing to step in and replace the turbines even though much of the infrastructure is already in place. It isn't economically feasible without a large govt subsidy they say.

Lets look at this objectively...

No one will replace them... Why? Cost of maintenance and upkeep is far grater than they are letting it be known so profitability is far lower than they say it is. The Alberta power regulators reported that the output was less than 16% of name plate..

SO if you want the bottom line on this.. Its not profitable without massive government subsidies... which means its not profitable or reliable on its own...

Let's not forget the fossil fuel power plants idling in the background, ready to take up the slack when the wind doesn't blow. Should the cost of not running a ff power plant efficiently be added to the cost of renewables, or just left in the cost of non-renewables? I think we all know it IS tallied against fossil fuels, but should it be? Do you think we are getting an honest accounting of the costs of renewables?

Even in the US the cost of idling is on the grid operator and is not charged to the renewable energy producer. Its a sham. The Western Area Power Administration WAPA is not allowed to charge for the idling plants. That is changing in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and others, where the cost is now bailable to the renewable operators. The renewable operators are screaming that they cant compete if they have to shoulder the cost for this. We voted to make them pay their own way.. I was looking at my power bill and the cost for wind energy tripled this month.. 0.23 cents /kwh

Wait I don't get it this?.... So wind farms are screaming because they have to pay for iddling FF plants to back them up?


Hilarious..


.