Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Wind Energy Will Cause More Environmental Impact Than Previously Thought

When it comes to energy production, there’s no such thing as a free lunch, unfortunately.

As the world begins its large-scale transition toward low-carbon energy sources, it is vital that the pros and cons of each type are well understood and the environmental impacts of renewable energy, small as they may be in comparison to coal and gas, are considered.

In two papers — published today in the journals Environmental Research Letters and Joule — Harvard University researchers find that the transition to wind or solar power in the U.S. would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought, and, if such large-scale wind farms were built, would warm average surface temperatures over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius.


“Wind beats coal by any environmental measure, but that doesn’t mean that its impacts are negligible,” said David Keith, the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and senior author of the papers. “We must quickly transition away from fossil fuels to stop carbon emissions. In doing so, we must make choices between various low-carbon technologies, all of which have some social and environmental impacts.”

Keith is also professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

One of the first steps to understanding the environmental impact of renewable technologies is to understand how much land would be required to meet future U.S. energy demands. Even starting with today’s energy demands, the land area and associated power densities required have long been debated by energy experts.

In previous research, Keith and co-authors modeled the generating capacity of large-scale wind farms and concluded that real-world wind power generation had been overestimated because they neglected to accurately account for the interactions between turbines and the atmosphere.

The direct climate impacts of wind power are instant, while the benefits of reduced emissions accumulate slowly.” — David Keith

In 2013 research, Keith described how each wind turbine creates a “wind shadow” behind it where air has been slowed down by the turbine’s blades. Today’s commercial-scale wind farms carefully space turbines to reduce the impact of these wind shadows, but given the expectation that wind farms will continue to expand as demand for wind-derived electricity increases, interactions and associated climatic impacts cannot be avoided.

What was missing from this previous research, however, were observations to support the modeling. Then, a few months ago, the U.S. Geological Survey released the locations of 57,636 wind turbines around the U.S. Using this data set, in combination with several other U.S. government databases, Keith and postdoctoral fellow Lee Miller were able to quantify the power density of 411 wind farms and 1,150 solar photovoltaic plants operating in the U.S. during 2016.

“For wind, we found that the average power density — meaning the rate of energy generation divided by the encompassing area of the wind plant — was up to 100 times lower than estimates by some leading energy experts,” said Miller, who is the first author of both papers. “Most of these estimates failed to consider the turbine-atmosphere interaction. For an isolated wind turbine, interactions are not important at all, but once the wind farms are more than five to 10 kilometers deep, these interactions have a major impact on the power density.”

The observation-based wind power densities are also much lower than important estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

For solar energy, the average power density (measured in watts per meter squared) is 10 times higher than wind power, but also much lower than estimates by leading energy experts.

This research suggests that not only will wind farms require more land to hit the proposed renewable energy targets but also, at such a large scale, would become an active player in the climate system.

The next question, as explored in the journal Joule, was how such large-scale wind farms would impact the climate system.

If your perspective is the next 10 years, wind power actually has — in some respects — more climate impact than coal or gas. If your perspective is the next thousand years, then wind power has enormously less climatic impact than coal or gas.” — David Keith

To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S. electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius, with the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of wind turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft while simultaneously extracting from the atmosphere’s motion.

This research supports more than 10 other studies that observed warming near operational U.S. wind farms. Miller and Keith compared their simulations to satellite-based observational studies in North Texas and found roughly consistent temperature increases.

Miller and Keith are quick to point out the unlikeliness of the U.S. generating as much wind power as they simulate in their scenario, but localized warming occurs in even smaller projections. The follow-on question is then to understand when the growing benefits of reducing emissions are roughly equal to the near-instantaneous impacts of wind power.

The Harvard researchers found that the warming effect of wind turbines in the continental U.S. was actually larger than the effect of reduced emissions for the first century of its operation. This is because the warming effect is predominantly local to the wind farm, while greenhouse gas concentrations must be reduced globally before the benefits are realized.

Miller and Keith repeated the calculation for solar power and found that its climate impacts were about 10 times smaller than wind’s.

“The direct climate impacts of wind power are instant, while the benefits of reduced emissions accumulate slowly,” said Keith. “If your perspective is the next 10 years, wind power actually has — in some respects — more climate impact than coal or gas. If your perspective is the next thousand years, then wind power has enormously less climatic impact than coal or gas.

“The work should not be seen as a fundamental critique of wind power,” he said. “Some of wind’s climate impacts will be beneficial — several global studies show that wind power cools polar regions. Rather, the work should be seen as a first step in getting more serious about assessing these impacts for all renewables. Our hope is that our study, combined with the recent direct observations, marks a turning point where wind power’s climatic impacts begin to receive serious consideration in strategic decisions about decarbonizing the energy system.”

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in the Indonesia:
  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Berau Coal
  5. Bukit Asam
  6. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  7. Harum Energy
  8. Mitrabara Adiperdana
  9. Samindo Resources
  10. United Tractors

Want Invest in Wind and Solar Renewable Energy? Think Again

























The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in the Indonesia:
  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Berau Coal
  5. Bukit Asam
  6. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  7. Harum Energy
  8. Mitrabara Adiperdana
  9. Samindo Resources
  10. United Tractors

Space Requirement of Renewable Energy Sources Can Take Up 40 to 100 Times Than Fossil Fuels

To generate renewable energy takes more space than one might think. New research by environmental scientist Paul Behrens and master's student John van Zalk shows how much space is needed for nine specific types of energy. Biomass, hydro and wind, while vital, take up the most space. Natural gas and nuclear take least. Publication in Energy Policy.



Different fuel types need different amounts of space, and renewable energies generally need more space than fossil fuels. One way to compare them is to use the concept of power density – the average electrical power produced in one horizontal square metre of infrastructure. For the first time, researchers at the University of Leiden, Netherlands, gathered 177 estimates of U.S. power densities across the scientific literature and compared the power density for nine specific energy types. The results can be applied to other countries as well.

More space, but less polluted

They found that power densities can vary by as much as 1000 times, with biomass the lowest (at 0.8 W/m2) and natural gas the highest (at 1000 W/m2). Solar and wind power needs around 40-50 times more space than coal and 90-100 times more space than gas. "However, the production of fossil fuels is a very dirty business," says Paul Behrens, environmental scientist at Leiden University. "So, while renewable energies take up more space, that space will be less polluted, and can be developed for multiple uses such as farming around the base of wind turbines."

Rooftop solar

The analysis also found that solar power densities are continuously increasing over time, with research suggesting that new three-dimensional designs could reach over three to five times today's figures by the middle of the century.

With an increasing population, and the need for food and housing, land will be at a premium moving into the middle of the century. "The very low power densities of biomass make it a difficult sell, especially since the land on which it is produced can sometimes be used for growing food instead," Beherens says. "To avoid competition, rooftop solar will be the best bet—providing clean power that doesn't compete with other land uses. Offshore wind will help, and future technologies such as algae farms may be another option to avoid land competition."


To investigate where the impact would be felt most intensely, the authors applied their power densities to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Renewable Electricity Futures Scenarios. Despite a near tripling in land used by the power sector in southern states, the northeast would experience the greatest visible change with over 10 percent of land devoted to energy generation in nine states.

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in the Indonesia:
  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Berau Coal
  5. Bukit Asam
  6. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  7. Harum Energy
  8. Mitrabara Adiperdana
  9. Samindo Resources
  10. United Tractors

SteamH : GE’s Next Generation of Coal Power Technology

GE’s next generation of coal power technology, which it calls SteamH, combines ultrasupercritical steam conditions with the benefits of digitalisation. As well as increased efficiency (driving towards the holy grail of 50% (net, LHV basis) and reduced emissions, it also aims at greatly increased operational flexibility. By Michael Keroull√©, chief commercial officer & MENAT regional executive, GE Steam Power.


As I talk to power producers and government officials around the world, they have four main considerations when making energy decisions for their respective countries. As you might expect, these include cost of electricity, reliability and carbon footprint. But, perhaps surprisingly, the number one thing they are looking for is flexibility.

The introduction of renewables is changing the realities of the power market. There’s no doubt this is moving us in the right direction and that it would be better to someday generate all of our electricity from renewables. I’m a huge supporter of that idea and I follow with interest every development to make it happen. But renewable power is intermittent and, as of today, needs to be supported by around-the-clock-available energy. This is where cleaner, more flexible coal power comes in.


For the past 100 years GE, with its recently acquired Alstom power businesses, has had a major role in the development of cleaner coal technology. We have played a key role in driving the industry from subcritical to ultrasupercritical (USC) technologies. And now, GE is first-to-market with what we describe as advanced ultrasupercritical (A-USC) technology, which combines ultrasupercritical steam conditions with the benefits that can be derived from digitalisation. This is the new generation of steam technology, which we call SteamH.

SteamH brings together the world’s leading steam plant technology, operating at A-USC conditions, with GE’s digital power plant software powered by Predix to help plant owner/operators achieve the highest possible efficiency, lowest emissions and most value over the life of the plant.

With flexibility being top of the agenda for our customers, SteamH is designed for maximum operational flexibility to improve start time, start fuel consumption, ramp-up and turn-down rate, and minimum load. It is ready to operate safely through transient mode and can quickly ramp up generation when operating in grid demand mode.


Even without digital enhancements, the basic ultrasupercritical power plant offering is capable of reaching full load in as little as 60 minutes (from boiler ignition). This can be reduced by up to 50% when you add the digital systems incorporated in SteamH.

The SteamH design is based on the proven USC technology being deployed in the world’s most efficient coal fired power plants in operation today including Manjung 4 in Malaysia and RDK8 in Germany. This technology already exceeds all benchmarks set by OECD in its guidelines for acceptable pressures, temperatures and emissions of coal fired power plants, delivering higher efficiency with less impact on the environment.

Today, we can deliver up to 47.5% efficiency with USC technology – significantly higher than the global coal fleet average of 34% – and now with the introduction of GE’s SteamH, we are driving towards 50% efficiency (all efficiencies net, LHV basis).

If we applied GE’s full suite of upgrade solutions to the world’s existing coal generation fleet, which is mostly operating in subcritical conditions, it would improve the average efficiency of coal plants worldwide from 34% to 38%, which would reduce CO2 emissions across the whole installed fleet by about 11% – equivalent to more than the entire CO2 emissions for Germany.

Through focused R&D efforts and rigorous materials testing, we have pushed the physical limits of our proven technology even further to achieve improved steam conditions, with temperatures reaching as high as 650°C. This is done by incorporating the most advanced materials into the SteamH design. We leverage the benefits of advanced materials such as T23 and T24, which, despite initial challenges, GE/ Alstom successfully used in the latest USC generation of large size boilers – demonstrating a level of expertise that can be regarded as unique, fully proven by tens of thousands of hours of operation. And these materials are proving capable of operating at even more onerous conditions than being employed today.

In addition, HR6W, a nickel-based material, is being employed for some boiler parts, while we have used Inconel materials for inlet components of turbines exposed to the most extreme conditions. These advanced materials have been extensively tested, with more than 30 000 hours of experience in operational USC power plants around the world. 

More than hardware

But SteamH is about more than just the hardware. When you introduce our recent digital advancements, we can ensure that plants are operating at their highest efficiency for years and maintain both their environmental performance and a competitive cost of electricity production.

GE’s Predix cloud-based platform is designed for collecting, analysing and processing data. However, today’s power plant operators are only reading approximately 2% of the available data we have from typically more than 10 000 sensors on control systems across the plant. By analysing the other 98% of the data and really optimising whole-plant operations – excess air, temperatures in the boiler, etc – efficiency and flexibility can be significantly improved.

For example, GE’s Operation Evaluation system leverages a digital twin of the physical steam plant that is continuously monitored in real time to identify pinch points or areas of the facility in need of attention. We’ve also developed a number of optimizers for critical components in the plant. For example, the Fuel Management Optimizer is an online analysis program to enable real-time tuning of the combustion and exhaust management process based on the actual coal properties.

SteamH also includes air quality control systems that can address all the sources of non-greenhouse gas emissions, such as NOx, SOx and particulate matter, from any coal-fired power plant and meet and exceed the world’s strictest regulations. Two power plant owner/operators have already chosen SteamH technology and are partnering with GE to drive the coal-fired power industry into the next phase.

Our launch customer for the full SteamH suite of offerings is Yildirim Energy in Turkey. As a pioneer in investing in the future of energy with the best available technology, Yildirim has been the first to select SteamH for the 2 x 800 MW Karaburun Imported Coal Project. The scope includes the advanced ultrasupercritical boiler and steam turbine generator combined with digital power plant software.


At the end of last year we also booked a deal for the Pingshan II power plant being developed by Huaibei Shenergy Power Generation in China, which will be the first to implement SteamH boiler technology. This plant will also have double reheat, further contributing to increased efficiency.

In partnership with Shanghai Electric, GE will manufacture the key components for the Pingshan II boiler including burner, water wall, superheaters and reheaters, at its Wuhan boiler factory in China, one of the world’s most advanced boiler making facilities.

Ultimately, for power plant owners, SteamH is about achieving enhanced value and increased flexibility at lower cost over the lifecycle of the plant. How much? 50% efficiency. 99% reliability. 96% availability. 50% start time reduction. 20-100% load flexibility. Overall, by combining the best hardware and software, SteamH can add up to $130 million in increased net present value for plant owner/operators compared to the best plants in operation today.

SteamH is the future of the coal-fired power industry, and the future is here today. 

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in the Indonesia:
  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Berau Coal
  5. Bukit Asam
  6. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  7. Harum Energy
  8. Mitrabara Adiperdana
  9. Samindo Resources
  10. United Tractors

Developing the Next Generation of Coal-Fired Thermal Power Technologies






The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in the Indonesia:
  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Berau Coal
  5. Bukit Asam
  6. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  7. Harum Energy
  8. Mitrabara Adiperdana
  9. Samindo Resources
  10. United Tractors
Source: JPower

A Country Getting All Its Electricity From Renewable Energy is a Science Fiction

New research debunks a study claiming there's a low-cost way to power America using only wind, solar, and hydropower.

Wind and solar power backed by hydropower and underground thermal storage can supply 100 percent of Americans' demand for energy by 2055 at a low cost, if you believe a 2015 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Hydrogen would supply most of our energy needs for manufacturing and transportation. No natural gas, nuclear power, biofuels, or stationary batteries would be needed.


Sound like a pipe dream? It is.

The study, put together by a team of Stanford engineers led by Mark Jacobson, was widely hailed by environmental activists as the solution to climate change. But this week a new study in the same journal makes a strong case that Jacobson's paper is mostly bunk. According to the new article, the Jacobson study "contains modeling errors; incorrect, implausible, and/or inadequately supported assumptions; and the application of methods inappropriate to the task. In short, the analysis performed [by Jacobson and his team] does not support the claim that such a system would perform at reasonable cost and provide reliable power."

When I read a similar Jacobson plan from 2013, claiming that we could "repower" America using only renewables by 2030, I reached basically the same conclusions. Electric generation alone—a 1,000-gigawatt sector that eats up 40 percent of America's primary energy consumption—couldn't be converted to zero-carbon renewable energy sources without installing 15,000 new wind turbines, 155 solar photovoltaic plants, and 190 concentrated solar power plants each year. Even assuming steep declines in the costs of each form of renewable electric power generation, such a repowering would cost roughly $7 trillion by 2030. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation calculated that the total cost of Jacobson's 2013 scheme would amount to $13 trillion.

Keep in mind that the total asset value of the entire U.S. electrical system, including generation, distribution, and transmission, amounts to less than $1 trillion.

The new version of the repowering plan would involve installing 335,000 onshore wind turbines; 154,000 offshore wind turbines; 75 million residential photovoltaic systems; 2.75 commercial photovoltaic systems; 46,000 utility-scale photovoltaic facilities; 3,600 concentrated solar power facilities with onsite heat storage; and an extensive array of underground thermal storage facilities.

Let's briefly consider a few of the damning criticisms of Jacobson's repowering scheme made in the new article:
  • The Jacobson study assumes a total of 2,604 GW of storage charging capacity, more than double the entire current capacity of all power plants in the United States.
  • It assumes that underground thermal energy storage systems will be deployed in nearly every community to provide services for every home, business, office building, hospital, school, and factory in the United States. The largest such facility today stores 0.0041 terawatt-hours of energy; the plan requires enough plants to store 514.6 terawatt-hours.
  • It assumes the ability to store in hydrogen an amount of energy equivalent to more than one month of current U.S. electricity consumption. Furthermore, hydrogen is supposed to be produced at a peak rate consuming nearly 2,000 gigawatts of electricity—nearly twice the current U.S. electricity-generating capacity. It assumes the widespread use of hydrogen to fuel airplanes, rail, shipping, and most energy-intensive industrial processes, including steel and cement manufacturing.
  • Because wind and solar power are highly variable, the repowering plan assumes that 63 percent of all energy-intensive industrial demand is highly flexible. It assumes workers and suppliers can be called in or sent home to match the availability of energy inputs any time of day or night.
  • It assumes a cost of capital at unrealistic discount rates of 3 to 4.5 percent per year rather than more realistic discount rates of 6 to 9 percent per year. The more realistic rates double the estimated cost of electricity, from 11 to 22 cents per kilowatt-hour.
  • At the average power densities, the scale of wind power envisioned by Jacobson and his colleagues would require nearly 500,000 square kilometers of land. That's roughly 6 percent of the continental United States. It also assumes there will be no delays in installing more than 150,000 wind turbines offshore, though those usually rouse public opposition.
  • Judging from how fast energy generation infrastructure has been installed in the past, the repowering plan would require a sustained installation rate that is more than 14 times the U.S. average over the last 55 years and more than six times the peak rate.
The new paper concludes that Jacobson's scenarios "can, at best, be described as a poorly executed exploration of an interesting hypothesis." Jacobson's claims, the authors continue, "are not supported by adequate and realistic analysis and do not provide a reliable guide to whether and at what cost such a transition might be achieved." As a result, "Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power."

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in the Indonesia:
  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Berau Coal
  5. Bukit Asam
  6. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  7. Harum Energy
  8. Mitrabara Adiperdana
  9. Samindo Resources
  10. United Tractors
Source: Ronald Bailey

Global Warming Just a Conspiracy for Power

A global warming conspiracy theory invokes claims that the scientific consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to produce manipulated data or suppress dissent. It is one of a number of tactics used in climate change denial to legitimize political and public controversy disputing this consensus. Conspiracy theorists typically allege that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons.

Background

As stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the largest contributor to global warming is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) since 1750, particularly from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation. The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) states:

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely (95–100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. — IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers

The evidence for global warming due to human influence has been recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from the summary conclusions of the IPCC.

Despite this scientific consensus on climate change, allegations have been made that scientists and institutions involved in global warming research are part of a global scientific conspiracy or engaged in a manipulative hoax. There have been allegations of malpractice, most notably in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy ("ClimateGate"). Eight committees investigated these allegations and published reports, each finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated that the scientists' "rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt," that the investigators "did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments," but that there had been "a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness." The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations.

Claims

In a speech given to the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on July 28, 2003, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", Senator James Inhofe (Republican, for Oklahoma) concluded by asking the following question: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?" He further stated, "some parts of the IPCC process resembled a Soviet-style trial, in which the facts are predetermined, and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific rigor." Inhofe has suggested that supporters of the Kyoto Protocol such as Jacques Chirac are aiming at global governance.

Commenting on criticism of the Lavoisier Group by Clive Hamilton, the Cooler Heads Coalition notes that "Hamilton accuses the Lavoisier Group of painting the UN's global warming negotiations as "an elaborate conspiracy in which hundreds of climate scientists have twisted their results to support the climate change theory in order to protect their research funding" and adds, "Sounds plausible to us."

William M. Gray said in 2006 that global warming became a political cause because of the lack of any other enemy following the end of the Cold War. He went on to say that its purpose was to exercise political influence, to try to introduce world government, and to control people, adding, "I have a demonic view on this." The TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle was made by Martin Durkin, who called global warming "a multi-billion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists." In the Washington Times in 2007 he said that his film would change history, and predicted that "in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bunk."

Climate change has also been called the "greatest scam in history" by John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel.[19] When questioned by the IPCC regarding his claims, he responded "The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number."

In 2012, Donald Trump claimed that "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

In 2015, The Spectator published an article by Matt Ridley describing the "climate change agenda" as a "conspiracy against the poor."

Criticism

Steve Connor links the terms "hoax" and "conspiracy," saying, "Reading through the technical summary of this draft (IPCC) report, it is clear that no one could go away with the impression that climate change is some conspiratorial hoax by the science establishment, as some would have us believe."

The documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle received criticism from several experts. George Monbiot described it as "the same old conspiracy theory that we’ve been hearing from the denial industry for the past ten years". Similarly, in response to James Delingpole, Monbiot stated that his Spectator article was "the usual conspiracy theories [...] working to suppress the truth, which presumably now includes virtually the entire scientific community and everyone from Shell to Greenpeace and The Sun to Science." Some Australian meteorologists also weighed in, saying that the film made no attempt to offer a "critical deconstruction of climate science orthodoxies", but instead used various other means to suggest that climate scientists are guilty of lying or are seriously misguided. Although the film's publicist's asserted that "global warming is 'the biggest scam of modern times'", these meteorologists concluded that the film was "not scientifically sound and presents a flawed and very misleading interpretation of the science".

Former UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs David Miliband presented a rebuttal of the main points of the film and stated "There will always be people with conspiracy theories trying to do down the scientific consensus, and that is part of scientific and democratic debate, but the science of climate change looks like fact to me."

National Geographic fact-checked 6 persistent scientific conspiracy theories. Regarding the persistent belief in a global warming hoax they note that the Earth is continuing to warm and the rate of warming is increasing as documented in numerous scientific studies. The rise in global temperature and its rate of increase coincides with the rise of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity. Moreover, global warming is causing Arctic sea ice to thaw at historic rates, many species of plants are blooming earlier than expected, and the migration routes of many birds, fish, mammals, and insects are changing.

Funding

There is evidence that some of those alleging such conspiracies are part of well-funded misinformation campaigns designed to manufacture controversy, undermine the scientific consensus on climate change and downplay the projected effects of global warming. Individuals and organisations kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists had reached their conclusions. These doubts have influenced policymakers in both Canada and the US, and have helped to form government policies.

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

— The truth about denial, S. Begley, Newsweek

Greenpeace presented evidence of the energy industry funding climate change denial in their 'Exxon Secrets' project. An analysis conducted by The Carbon Brief in 2011 found that 9 out of 10 of the most prolific authors who cast doubt on climate change or speak against it had ties to ExxonMobil. Greenpeace have said that Koch industries invested more than US$50 million in the past 50 years on spreading doubts about climate change. ExxonMobil announced in 2008 that it would cut its funding to many of the groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy, although in 2008 still funded over "two dozen other organisations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis." A survey carried out by the UK Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed US$2.9 million to 39 groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence"

Fictional representations

The novel State of Fear by Michael Crichton, published in December 2004, describes a conspiracy by scientists and others to create public panic about global warming. The novel includes 20 pages of footnotes, described by Crichton as providing a factual basis for the non-plotline elements of the story. In a Senate speech on 4 January 2005, Inhofe mistakenly described Crichton as a "scientist", and said the book's fictional depiction of environmental organizations primarily "focused on raising money, principally by scaring potential contributors with bogus scientific claims and predictions of a global apocalypse" was an example of "art imitating life."

In a piece headed Crichton's conspiracy theory, Harold Evans described Crichton's theory as being "in the paranoid political style identified by the renowned historian Richard Hofstadter," and went on to suggest that "if you happen to be in the market for a conspiracy theory today, there's a rather more credible one documented by the pressure group Greenpeace," namely the funding by ExxonMobil of groups opposed to the theory of global warming.

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in the Indonesia:
  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Berau Coal
  5. Bukit Asam
  6. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  7. Harum Energy
  8. Mitrabara Adiperdana
  9. Samindo Resources
  10. United Tractors
Source: Wikipedia

HIDUPKU BUKAN AKU LAGI | Pdt. Dr. Ersatus Sabdono - 20190728 (IRA) - YouTube

HIDUPKU BUKAN AKU LAGI | Pdt. Dr. Ersatus Sabdono - 20190728 (IRA) - YouTube

Global Warming is Not About Science, but About Politics

In Watermelons, The Green Movement's True Colors, British journalist/blogger James Delingpole promises to show that the man-made global warming is a fraud, one that has already cost billions of dollars and is a clear and present danger to our liberty and democratic traditions -- and, ironically, to the environment itself.


He largely accomplishes this task and, for the most part, does so without sounding hysterical or radical. This alone would recommend this book to all who care about the environment, the human condition and the foundations of our way of life.

Delingpole was among the leading journalists who reported the Climategate scandal, in which he analyzed e-mails among leading climate scientists that had been hacked and posted on the web.  What he discovered was a pattern of purposeful and coordinated efforts to:
  • Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earth's temperature;
  • Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;
  • Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);
  • Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;
  • Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.

Normally, disclosure of fraudulent behavior on this scale would throw the proponents of any position into disrepute and spell the end of their political power.  Not so with the advocates of global warming.

The reason: Global warming is not about science, but about politics -- that is, about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere.  Just as the governing class embraces ineffective Keynesian stimulus spending to justify expansion of government, they now extol AGW as the basis for increasing their power to rule over the rest of us.

I remember that in the 1970s, "scientists" had used computer models to "prove" that the increase in industrial activity was about to trigger another ice age.  The villains and solutions were the same as with global warming:  Economic growth, rising living standards, capitalism and increased economic activity were going to destroy the planet.  Then, as now, reduction in the use of fossil fuels, de facto restrictions on the use of automobiles, higher taxes and forced reductions in living standards were the recommended policy responses.

What makes AGW different is that the alleged pollutant is carbon dioxide -- an odorless, colorless gas that is the basis of all life and human activity.  Regulation of CO2 is the gateway for those who control government to regulate all economic and most human activity.

With the stakes this high, it should not be surprising that those who seek power have simply ignored the fraud and continue to press forward with their agenda to regulate "carbon" emissions.  Note: This language too is part of the fraud.  The emissions they seek to regulate are not dirty, sooty carbon, but carbon dioxide, that harmless gas that we exhale with every breadth.

Delingpole shows that science, itself, has been corrupted by tens of millions of dollars that governments all over the world provide in grants to scientists whose research supports global warming. "Post Normal Science" has become the new ethical standard for climate scientists.  As the late Stephen Schneider, Stanford University Professor who had been one of the leading advocates of the dangers of global cooling in the 1970s, and then, as the lead author for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was one of the leading advocates of global warming, explained in an interview with Discover magazine:

"And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.  To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination.  That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage.  So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.  This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.  Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.  I hope that means both."

There you have it.  In the name of the greater good, scientists must be political advocates otherwise they are not being effective.  The detached honesty that is the cornerstone of the scientific method?  A mere hope.

Only a few courageous scientists have spoken out publicly against this corruption.  Among them is Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace who resigned in 1986 because the organization had "abandoned scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas."

Another is Professor Frederick Seitz, formerly president of the National Academy of Sciences who in 1996 wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events which led up to this (1995) IPCC (Second Assessment) report."

Those events included the deletion of 15 passages from the document that had been approved by all 28 contributing authors who expressed considerable doubt about man-made global warming including these two:
  • "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increase in greenhouse gases."
  • "No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to  (man-made) causes."

All of this and more supports one of Delingpole's more provocative claims, that AGW has become a formidable secular religion led by zealots and supported by true believers.  What makes it sinister is that it circumvents the First Amendment prohibition against a state sponsored religion.  As a consequence, AGW is provided lavish support by government and taught as scientific fact in our schools.  Like all state religions, its tenets are imposed on believers and non-believers alike.

Already, billions of dollars have been wasted, resources squandered, and the environment put at risk by the policies of the warming alarmists. Spain has been lauded for creating 50,000 green jobs. What goes unsaid is the cost of the subsidy, $756,000 per job, likely destroyed 110,000 jobs. And Spain now is shackled with high cost "green" electricity that hobbles its economy, burdensome debt and high unemployment.

In the aftermath of terrible floods in 1974 the government of Queensland, Australia promised to build dams and other flood control systems. Instead, persuaded by green activists that drought caused by global warming was now the real threat, the government diverted the money into a $13 billion water desalinization plant program.  When heavy rains returned earlier this year, the terrible flooding killed dozens of people and caused billions in property losses.

The American Bird Conservancy estimates 100,000 to 300,000 birds are killed by wind farms in the U.S. each year – roughly equal to the estimated 250,000 birds killed in 1989 by the Exxon Valdez oil spill.  Yet, environmentalists fail to speak out, instead averting their eyes to the slaughter as unsightly windmills destroy vistas. And they remain strangely silent on the deployment of solar farms that will cover acres of ecologically sensitive desserts.

The book is a bit disorganized and full of cheeky British humor, which does not fit my taste.  But Delingpole has provided documented insight into a powerful political-scientific complex.   This complex is led and supported by "Watermelons," those whose rhetoric is green, but whose tactics and political ambitions he traces back to the national socialists and communists of earlier eras.  Their goal is to control the economy and impose their vision of human society through the coercive power of government. All who cherish liberty, treasure the environment and aspire to a better life should take note.

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in the Indonesia:
  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Berau Coal
  5. Bukit Asam
  6. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  7. Harum Energy
  8. Mitrabara Adiperdana
  9. Samindo Resources
  10. United Tractors
Source: Charles Kadlec

Top 10 Undeniable Reasons That Prove Global Warming is a Hoax

Global Warming is the name given to the current belief that the earth’s temperature has been gradually increasing over the past few hundred years since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

The human impact on this is believed to only account for 10% of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and as such, it is highly unlikely that we, as a species are having a massive negative impact on the stability of the earth’s climate. In this article, we will be giving you 10 reasons that prove global warming might be a hoax.


1. The climate of the earth is warming up rapidly

If you look at the HadCRUT3 surface temperature index which is based in the UK. Records show warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling to 2011. The increase in temperature between 1964 was the same rate as recorded between 1911 to 1941. Numerous satellites, ground stations, and weather balloons show recorded cooling since 2001.

The current warnings of a temperature increase of 0.6 degrees to 0.8 degrees are nothing irregular and fit into the natural rate of warming recorded over the last few centuries.

The placement of these global weather stations should be taken into account. They are mostly based in so-called heat islands, in cities where temperatures are normally higher, and few have been placed in rural countryside locations. Two teams have corrected the average temperature readings between all the stations and have reduced the reported increase in temperature by half since 1980. Up to today, there has never been any sort of significantly extreme event caused by warming.

2. Reports show that the global climate has been cooling for the past 1000 years and recently, temperatures have skyrocketed

Throughout history the climate of this planet has fluctuated greatly, many ancient people and religions alike talk about a great flood, which was probably caused by the ice caps or glaciers melting. Recorded history tells us of a warm period from around 1000 to 1200 AD which allowed the Vikings to farm crops on Greenland, This was followed by the little ice age.

Since the end of the 17th century, the average global temperature has been rising at a steady rate, except for the period of 1940 to 1970 in which the climate cooled off, which in turn led to a global panic about global cooling!

3. The rate of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been directly credited to the human species and greenhouse gasses, causing the current warming trend

The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere has fluctuated due to various reasons over time. Since the industrial revolution, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased on average by roughly 120 part per million. Most of this is linked to the human cause, and during the current century, the increase is approximately 0.55% per year.

Though there is absolutely no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As ancient ice core measurements have proven that CO2 levels in the past have often changed after a temperature drop or increase. Solid evidence exists that shows that as temperatures fluctuate naturally through solar radiation and other galactic and local influences, the warming of the surface levels of the planet results in more CO2 being released into the atmosphere.


4. The poles are warming and ice caps are melting, apparently

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Temperatures at the poles have not increased since 2005. In fact, apart from the Palmer Peninsula, the entire Antarctic region is cooling down. Icecap thickness in the arctic and north poles are increasing in size and will continue to do so until things naturally warm up.

5. Computer models are being used to calculate the future impacts of CO2

These computer models are programmed to assume that CO2 is the largest climate driver and that the sun has little effect on the climate. These computer models can be programmed with a large number of variables in order to come to the conclusion that the earth will cool down or warm up. A computer model is no way to measure anything, as it is purely a matter of who inputs the data for the model.

The sun is a major driver of the climate, with daily additions of solar radiation that are completely random and follow no pattern at all. These computer models do not take this into account and therefore do not give a true representation of the actual climate. And as such should not be used as a base for such claims.

6. The melting of natural glaciers proves global warming?

Glaciers have naturally receded and grown countless times throughout history. Recent glacier receding is simply an outcome of the planet warming after the little ice age of the early medieval period. Scientists have discovered evidence that the ice caps and glaciers have receded and increased in size on at least 33 occasions throughout history.

It is a normal thing for the glaciers to shrink and expand over time. Anyway, this is more driven by precipitation than temperature.

7. CO2 is a toxin?

A lot of people believe this, and it plays a part in many scientific studies from a purely theoretical standpoint. CO2 is just as important as nitrogen to the atmosphere. CO2 plays a major role in the bringing about of life on earth, it is necessary for plant growth and in some areas with higher levels of CO2, records show that some tree and plant life can grow at extraordinary rates. The assumption that CO2 is a pollutant is completely false.


8. Global warming apparently will cause storms and extreme weather

These claims are completely baseless. No evidence exists of weather being affected by global warming on a global scale. Regional variations do occur. Extreme weather can be affected by a large number of variables; things like the jet stream, for example, can change the weather for many seasons in different European countries. Even sand swept up from the Sahara desert can change the climate of the northernmost European nations.

Global warming has no impact on these weather systems. Some argue that global warming will lead to droughts across the world, but if global warming happens the way we are being told, there should be more moisture in the air all around us as the moisture evaporates due to high temperatures.

9. Does global warming cause a shorter lifespan?

Considering that the earth’s climate has been forever changing since the formation of the planet. It didn’t stop just because our human race popped up. Even during our history, the earth’s climate has fluctuated from cold to hot and back again, we do what we have always done, and what life always does, we adapt.

Due to all the major increases in scientific and medical studies, our current lifespan is vastly superior to our ancestors, and this will continue to grow as time goes on.

10. Does CO2 form the largest part of the greenhouse gases?

Greenhouse effect causing gas forms roughly 3% of the volume of the atmosphere. 97% of which is water vapor and clouds, with the remaining percentages being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone, and N20. CO2 makes up about 0.4% of our atmosphere.

The small amounts of gasses in the atmosphere are capable of retaining the heat from solar radiation, but due to the relatively small amounts of them in comparison the other 90% of water vapor. That 90% is believed to cause 75% of the greenhouse effect. At their current levels, if water vapor was to increase just 3% that would amount to the same level of the greenhouse effect as if CO2 increased by 100%.

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in the Indonesia:
  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Berau Coal
  5. Bukit Asam
  6. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  7. Harum Energy
  8. Mitrabara Adiperdana
  9. Samindo Resources
  10. United Tractors

100 Top Reasons Why Global Warming Is Natural, Not Man-Made


HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics.  Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.  

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth. 

61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature. 

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope.  Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all. 

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes. 

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82)  Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.

83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.  

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in the Indonesia:
  1. Bumi Resouces
  2. Adaro Energy
  3. Indo Tambangraya Megah
  4. Berau Coal
  5. Bukit Asam
  6. Baramulti Sukses Sarana
  7. Harum Energy
  8. Mitrabara Adiperdana
  9. Samindo Resources
  10. United Tractors