Home > Environment > Lords of Climate Change

Lords of Climate Change

July 19th, 2006

I see in this piece by Alan Wood that the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs inquiry into “The Economics of Climate Change” (which strongly questioned the science of climate change) is still getting a run in denialist circles.

I haven’t bothered posting on this before, because the main outcome of the inquiry was the establishment of the Stern Review which issued its first discussion paper back in April, stating (from the Executive Summary)

Climate change is a serious and urgent issue… There is now an overwhelming body of scientific evidence that human activity is increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and causing warming.

There’s more like this, giving an excellent summary of the mainstream scientific position.

So the House of Lords exercise was something of an own goal for the denialists. But how did a supposedly serious inquiry come up with with such nonsense in the first place?

One possibility is a snow job, with the members of the committee (not scientists) being taken in by the superficially plausible claims of people like Ross McKitrick (I don’t imagine they bothered to check whether he was talking about degrees or radians). However, I think a setup is far more likely. Looking at the list of witnesses, it’s obvious that denialists and anti-Kyoto activists from all over the world rushed to appear before this rather obscure committee, while most serious scientists didn’t find out about it until after it had reported.

Then there’s the dubious logic of the report itself, where the Commitee, admitting it had no qualifications or remit to examine scientific issues, then split the difference between the thousands of scientists who’ve worked on global warming (but did not appear) and the handful of sceptics (nearly all of whom did). This kind of bogus neutrality managed to get past the members of the Committee, and the report was then trumpeted by denialists as a complete refutation of climate science.

Looking at the membership of the committee, the obvious candidate for a setup of this kind is Nigel Lawson, Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 2004, he wrote to The Times with six other rightwing economists (most of them subsequently witnesses to the inquiry), attacking Kyoto. The arguments of the letter, including claims about “scientific uncertainties” were reproduced in the Lords report.

As a politician of longstanding, Lawson would be well aware of the adage “Never set up an inquiry unless you know what it’s going to find”. His only mistake was to succeed so well in getting the report he wanted that it necessitated a proper inquiry, the Stern Review, too well-run and well-publicised to be snowed by the denialists.

Categories: Environment Tags:
  1. August 2nd, 2006 at 13:47 | #1

    Terje – “The point Roy makes about CO2 rises lagging temperature is in fact what the ice core data shows. Hopefully you are not being a denialist about this.”

    You really have taken the denialist/skeptic thing to heart :-) .

    No I do not deny it only making the point that these are records of PAST climate change not present. Also there is an element of error as the time difference is in the hundreds of years whereas the timescale of the ice cores is in hundreds of thousands of years. It would seem that the Malankovitch cycles start warming the Earth and then this precipitates a rise in greenhouse gases causing more warming.

    Again this is not applicable today as we are near the end of an interglacial period where you would not be expecting, from the ice cores, strong warming. The warming at the moment is almost certainly from anthropogenic causes as we are swamping the natural cycles with our gigatons of greenhouse gases.

  2. StephenL
    August 2nd, 2006 at 13:50 | #2

    Ok Roy, you win. You (with the help of a few websites) have spotted the facts that every climatologist in the world has missed, along with tens of thousands of scientists in related fields. What I can’t understand is why you are mucking around here. Why have you not send your results to Nature, Science and every other prestigious scientific journal on the planet – fame and fortune awaits?

    The fact is that everything you have said is either wrong, or basically irrelevant. Climate models have not been designed to try to predict the LIA or MW. Expecting them to do so is like creating a computer program to run a wordprocessing system and then saying it is junk because it won’t run a spreadsheet (ok slightly stretched, but not much). They do an excellent job at what they were designed to do, and have been repeatedly tested and refined to do it better.

    Regarding the paleodata on CO2 and warming, there is no reason to expect or require CO2 increases to come first. The point is that there is a feedback system – an external warming (eg changes in the Earth’s orbit) leads to higher levels of CO2, which leads to more warming and so on until one of a number of factors intervenes to halt or reverse the process. This has been the case for millions of years. Of course the warming will come first – its what we would expect.

    However, what we have done is reverse the starting point – releasing the CO2 first. No reason to expect that we won’t see a similar cycle though. About 30 million years ago there was a somewhat similar situation – vast amounts of warming gasses (in that case methane rather than carbon doixide) were released, leading to drastic warming. We don’t know what triggered that release, but the climatic effects were dramatic. If the same thing happens this time hundreds of millions of people will die.

  3. Terje
    August 2nd, 2006 at 17:27 | #3

    Your supreme confidence in theories about what transpired 30 million years ago is telling. What has happened to modesty?

  4. jquiggin
    August 3rd, 2006 at 15:25 | #4

    Terje, given that you’re willing to dispute the work of thousands of scientists on this topic, it’s you who lacks modesty here.

    Science has been remarkably successfully in explaining events over timescales ranging from femtoseconds to billions of years, so 30 million years is not that striking.

    Or is your comment an indication that you think we should be “open-minded about the claim that the earth is really 6000 years old?

  5. Terje
    August 3rd, 2006 at 17:38 | #5

    John,

    Actually science is still under going constant revision on lots of thing that relate to large time scales. That’s the great thing about science, it is modest by definition.

    And nice try with the 6000 year bit. An argument by extreme example. I don’t think that the AGW theory is anywhere near as sound as the old earth theory. Although I accept that AGW is a legitament theory it still has gaps. Roy raised the issue of one of those gaps above.

    Regards,
    Terje.

  6. jquiggin
    August 3rd, 2006 at 19:19 | #6

    “Actually science is still under going constant revision on lots of thing that relate to large time scales”

    Examples? The estimated age of the earth has been around 4 billion years for as long as I can remember, and we’re talking two orders of magnitude less than that. Your claim that science has no definite knowledge of events 30 million years ago is on a par with creationism.

    Honestly, Terje, you’re not a fool so why not accept that amateurs like you and Roy, arguing on the basis of political wishful thinking, are unlikely to have a better understanding of these issues than thousands of scientists who work on it full-time.

  7. Roy Sites
    August 3rd, 2006 at 22:44 | #7

    There are a large number of climate research scientists who understand that computer models do not represent reality, theories do not represent truth until these models and/or thoeries can predict something that can be determined experimentally. Unfortunately, for you, these computer models and thoeries predict various changes along with the 1.5 to 4.5 degree warming and most of those predictions have been shown to be incorrect when compared to experimentally measured data. This puts these models and thoeries in doubt.

    Also, unfortunately, when people like you begin to lose your argument you turn to personal attacks; calling people fools who look at real data and see results differently is not conducive to civil discourse.

    Scientific consensus does not make a thoery correct either. At the end of the nineteenth century there was almost complete concensus among physicists regarding the “aether”. I’m sure you realize that mosts physcicists today find the “aether” quite amuzing. So much for concensus, let’s discuss facts.

    Computer models that try to forecast the stock market use the ability to forecast past events as beginning validation of the ability to forecast future events. This same premise is necessary with climate models, being able to replicate past events without special feedback mechanisms that are not proven would help validate the models predictions of future climates.

    One last question: when co2 concentrations were as much as 40 times what they are now, how come the earth wasn’t hotter than it was?

  8. Terje
    August 4th, 2006 at 08:14 | #8

    Roy,

    JQ did not attack me by calling me a fool. He stated that I was not a fool. It may qualify as flattery but it does not qualify as a personal attack.

    Regards,
    Terje.

    p.s. More comments latter.

  9. August 4th, 2006 at 08:32 | #9

    Roy – “There are a large number of climate research scientists who understand that computer models do not represent reality,”

    All climate reasearch scientists understand the limitations of computer models however that is not the only way that scientists understand and estimate climate sensitivity. This post on real climate discusses these limitations:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/climate-feedbacks/

    However the last study concluded this:

    “A+H combine three independently determined constraints using Bayes Theorem and come up with a new distribution that is the most likely given the different pieces of information. Specifically they take constraints from the 20th Century (1 to 10ºC), the constraints from responses to volcanic eruptions (1.5 to 6ºC) and the LGM data (-0.6 to 6.1ºC – a widened range to account for extra paleo-climatic uncertainties) to come to a formal Bayesian conclusion that is much tighter than each of the individual estimates. They find that the mean value is close to 3ºC, and with 95% limits at 1.7ºC and 4.9ºC, and a high probability that sensitivity is less than 4.5ºC. Unsurprisingly, it is the LGM data that makes very large sensitivities extremely unlikely. The paper is very clearly written and well worth reading for more of the details.”

    The whole post from RC can be read here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-plus-a-change/

    It is simplistic to think that climate scientists type “what is the climate sensitivity” into a computer model and the computer just spits out “3.5°”. There is a great deal of uncertainty here however climate scientists use AGMs as tools along with historical and present data to estimate this figure.

  10. August 4th, 2006 at 08:33 | #10

    Roy – “One last question: when co2 concentrations were as much as 40 times what they are now, how come the earth wasn’t hotter than it was?”

    When was this and how hot was it? Also how do you know how hot or cold it was then?

  11. jquiggin
    August 4th, 2006 at 08:50 | #11

    “Computer models that try to forecast the stock market use the ability to forecast past events as beginning validation of the ability to forecast future events.”

    Now you’re on my professional territory, Roy. Outside the realm of amateur hucksters, the models you describe don’t exist, for the very good reason that they can’t. Economic theory predicts very clearly that you can’t forecast future stock movements on the basis of past movements, and there is a ton of evidence to support this.

    This is not true in relation to climate change. The warming of the last decade was correctly forecast by GW models.

  12. Terje
    August 4th, 2006 at 09:26 | #12

    You can make forcasts about future stock market moves just as you can make forcasts about the weather. Maybe your point is that such stock market forcasts are without basis and are no better than random luck. A view that I would frequently agree with.

    Given this inability to make such forecasts perhaps you could explain to me some time what the central bank is doing when it seeks to slow a growing “market bubble” and such things. Does it use forecasts to make such decisions? Or does it just get bored occasionally and just do stuff for kicks? Something to think about.

    My stock prediction based on past data: on Monday morning BHP shares will open at a price similar to what they closed at yesterday (give or take a few percent).

  13. August 4th, 2006 at 11:32 | #13

    I really think that thinking of GCMs (sorry for the prev typo) as similar to stock market prediction programs is basically wrong. A GCMs primary use is not really prediction of future climate. GCMs are used to conduct experiments to investigate possible consequences of changes and to try to understand certain aspects of the climate in a controlled environment.

    They are much more akin to flow design programs used in aircraft and feed hopper/seperator design. Expecially in aircraft they are used to refine the design of an aircraft wing to eliminate expensive mistakes. However no-one would expect an aircraft designed in a computer would be OK without full scale testing and wind tunnel testing. This does not diminish the usefulness of the computer wing/body models as all modern aircraft are designed with such models.

    In exactly the same way, because we do not have a spare planet to conduct experiments on, scientists have to use computer models to investigate the Earths climate. They do not represent the exact state of the atmosphere as we do not understand the atmosphere enough at the moment to do this and computer are not fast enough. However in the same way as CFD models are good enough to design aircraft GCMs are good enough to investigate some aspect of climate and make tentative predictions about what might happen. They can definately can give risk probabilites that are often confused by the popular media as predictions.

  14. Terje
    August 4th, 2006 at 16:55 | #14

    John,

    Typing this with two thumbs on pda so sorry if it seems a bit rough.

    The scientific view about the age of the Earth has an interesting history. A hundred years ago it was thought to be more like a few hundred million years old compared to todays figure which is something like 4.5 billion and now generally uncontested. However it is not as if they got it right first time and the earlier concensus view was clearly wrong.Today the age of the universe is reasonably settled but still open to some debate. The processes by which the dinosaurs became extinct is frequently the subject of new theories and nobody tries to hang the proponents (no political imperitive I assume). The formation process associated with the moon is the subject of periodic new speculation. Perhaps in a decade or so the AGW theory will be a bit more settled but I think that it is way to early to close the book. This field of study is still relatively young.

    You are right that I am one amateur and lots of scientists with a better pedigree have looked at this issue. However most of them are specialist in one aspect of the problem and when most of them form opinions at the macro level (ie what does all this point to) I have less faith in their rigor. Even in economics agreement on microeconomic concepts has not meant we get it all right at the macro level. In engineering we have a motto called “keep it simple” which pertains to the fact that people who are brilliant with problems that are specific and can be worked on at an individual level often fail when then undertake large scale initiatives that are highly complex and original. Even when the undertaking is not original (building a highway) expensive mistakes sometimes occur. Brilliant people working together on complex tasks are on occasion capable of monumental stuff ups and even more so when they are formulating advice for other people to follow (ie when they don’t own the pain of failure). Modelling the earths climate accurately is probably an order of magnitude harder than putting a man on the moon and without the same level of final validation.

    Having said that I accept that AGW is the dominant theory to explain global warming. However there is simple no need to silence the asking of questions in relation to this theory. Even more so if the problem demands a collective responce. On the scientific front we should be open to new insights and possibilities as the science progresses and not too surprised if there are some upsets along the way. I don’t accept that such a position is automatically akin to the position adopted by creationists or young earth proponent who don’t just reject the mainstream view but also seek to discard the underlying facts, science and work that goes into the theory of evolution or earth science. In those debate the non mainstream proponent even attempt to throw out bodies of evidence (eg fossils) by almost wimsical retorts.

    I do accept that my scepticism may be misplaced. It may be that the concerns I have with the AGW theory are easily answered and that I have just failed to find such answers or encounter the right people who can communicate them to me. I am open minded to the possibility that I have got this wrong but I am not going to just roll over because a few people say rude things about me. I decide what I believe and if I change my view it will be because my concerns have been answered. So far I am not ready to embrace AGW as a revealed truth about the way the world actually is. I prefer to accept a shade of grey than to jump at shadows just because noisey people say boo.

    As to the politics of AGW. You would appear to believe that it is my libertarian leaning that prejudices my views on AGW. However the libertarian position is not so pure as the anachist position and accepts the lesser evil of enforced collective action to deal with external threats. I accept for instance the merits of organised immunisation even though it is a difficult issue in terms of liberty. I have already revealed my prefered means of reducing CO2 (cap and trade) if the body politic has made up its mind to proceed with such a reduction (which on current trends seems likely). However we already have high taxes on petrol and alternate energy technology has made great strides even before the greenhouse and peak oil panics, so I fully expect that there would be an eventual decline in our use of fossil fuels driven by economics anyway (just not this decade).

    My sceptism about AGW is not driven by some great fear of the mainstream solution on offer. If done correctly reductions in CO2 emissions will not cause recession or economic decline even though they may be suboptimal. My sceptism is driven by the nature of the topic. I would like better answers to some of the gaps.

    Yours Sincerely,
    Terje.

  15. August 4th, 2006 at 17:47 | #15

    The scientific view about the age of the Earth has an interesting history. A hundred years ago it was thought to be more like a few hundred million years old compared to todays figure which is something like 4.5 billion and now generally uncontested. However it is not as if they got it right first time and the earlier concensus view was clearly wrong.

    Terje, I was under the impression that Lord Kelvin’s calculation of the age of the earth, far from being a concensus was in fact hotly contested. In particular geologists and biologists (including Darwin) disagreed with it.

  16. August 4th, 2006 at 17:52 | #16

    There are a large number of climate research scientists who understand that computer models do not represent reality, theories do not represent truth until these models and/or thoeries can predict something that can be determined experimentally. Unfortunately, for you, these computer models and thoeries predict various changes along with the 1.5 to 4.5 degree warming and most of those predictions have been shown to be incorrect when compared to experimentally measured data. This puts these models and thoeries in doubt.

    About now would be an excellent time for you to provide some evidence for your claims.

    Climate models have in fact done a reasonable job of predicting the future. For example, them indicted that the troposphere was warming, when observations showed that it was cooling. It was only later that it was discovered that the observations were wrong.

    They have correctly estimated the effect of Mt Pinatubo.

    They have also predicted deep sea ocean warming, prior to its observation.

  17. Ken Miles
    August 4th, 2006 at 17:58 | #17

    One last question: when co2 concentrations were as much as 40 times what they are now, how come the earth wasn’t hotter than it was?

    When were CO2 levels 40 times todays levels?

    I think that you’ve got your peusdoscience muddled up.

  18. August 4th, 2006 at 18:16 | #18

    Terje – “Having said that I accept that AGW is the dominant theory to explain global warming. However there is simple no need to silence the asking of questions in relation to this theory.”

    No-one is!! All the climate scientists are asking is that the skeptics present the contrary opinions and or facts in peer reviewed journals. Except for a few notable exception such as Roger Peilke Snr and von Storch none of the prominant skeptics voice their skepticism in a scientific method and then becuause they cannot seem to publish in peer reviewed journals openly disparage the peer review process.

  19. Roy Sites
    August 8th, 2006 at 22:42 | #19

    This has been real and it has been fun but it has not been real fun. I see amatuers (myself included) discussing the points that scientists who have spent their lives studying cannot agree upon.

    The real discussion here is not science but politics. So let’s discuss politics, the Kyoto Accord will not reduce the CO2 levels in the atmosphere to any measureable amount. This almost everyone agrees upon.

    Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that all the supposed proof of GW ia true and we, as humans, must do something now or the world will come to an end. Then let’s discuss what mankind must really do to solve this problem. Let’s not mamby-pamby this thing with a simplistic Kyoto Accord and then say “oh, we were wrong we need to xyz instead”.

    Until someone, or some group, comes up with a real plan that will actually work, there is absolutely no reason to spend vast resources doing something that is known will not work.

  20. jquiggin
    August 8th, 2006 at 22:57 | #20

    “I see amatuers (myself included) discussing the points that scientists who have spent their lives studying cannot agree upon.’

    Wrong! The scientists agree, overwhelmingly. It’s only amatuers (sic) like yourself who claim otherwise, then go on to reveal that their disagreement is based on politically-driven wishful thinking.

  21. Roy Sites
    August 9th, 2006 at 00:14 | #21

    You see, I have said that let’s assume the worst.

    Now let’s talk politics!

    What would you do to save the earth, what will it cost in real dollars and human sacrifice?

    I don’t care if every scientist, and even you must agree there are some very respected scientists who disagree, agrees; consensus means nothing in science.

  22. August 9th, 2006 at 08:38 | #22

    Roy – the plan is actually very simple and may cost some of your lifestyle.

    Consume less and emit less!!!!!

    Can’t be simpler than that.

  23. Roy Sites
    August 9th, 2006 at 22:53 | #23

    Oh, real simple.

    How much less?

    If the Kyoto Accord will accomplish virtually nothing then the question of how much less is very important.

  24. Roy Sites
    August 10th, 2006 at 07:46 | #24

    That also means that if consume 1% less next year than I had planned to consume then we save the planet.

    Hmmmm. I don’t think so.

  25. August 10th, 2006 at 08:44 | #25

    Roy – “That also means that if consume 1% less next year than I had planned to consume then we save the planet.”

    No but if the largest polluting nations like the US, the EU and China instituted a massive energy saving scheme that reduced power consumption by 50% yes that would go a long way to saving the planet. Such schemes can even be profitable – it just takes political will and leadership. One of the above mentioned nations is taking some baby steps toward this goal the other 2 are not.

    If those same countries then replaced their IC cars with electric cars and plug in hybrids the storage they gain could foster a massive increase in renewable energy. The same region, the EU, is taking quite large steps toward renewable energy as are the other two to a lesser degree.

    It is fairly simple – the devil is in the details.

  26. Roy Sites
    August 10th, 2006 at 22:31 | #26

    Oh yes, the devil is in the details.

    There are no altenate fuels available would have any effect. Hydrogen fuel cells are the closest, however, it costs more in CO2 emission to produce the hydrogen than is saved in gasoline not used.

    Biodeisel will, along with hudrogen fuel cells, reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern oil but will not reduce CO2 emissions.

    There are more acres of forests in the US now than there were 200 years ago, so reforrestation probably won’t do that much.

    That leaves very few alternatives for such a drastic reduction as mentioned (50%). I suppose we could have a good war and reduce the world population by 50-60%, or maybe the politicians can come up with a scenario to just eliminate citizens, especially those who oppose them.

    I prefer to think, however, that mankind left to his own devices, unhibited by politicians, can and will come up with solutions that will both save the world and increase profits. The same way humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Mankind has done, and will continue to do, horrendous things to both themselves and the rest of the world (just look at the environment the Soviet Union left behind); but in the end has always found a way to improve conditions for everyone.

    Free market economies have always worked and will always work best.

  27. August 10th, 2006 at 22:50 | #27

    Roy Sites – “There are no altenate fuels available would have any effect.”

    What about electricity? As I said if you have electric transport then you have storage for renewables. It is called Vehicle to Grid or V2G.

    “That leaves very few alternatives for such a drastic reduction as mentioned (50%).”

    With very little effort and for not much money 40% or 50% savings on electricity use can be made just by mandating energy efficiency standards on airconditioners and refrigeration units. Buildings are another huge area where massive gains in efficiency and savings in power use can be made quite cheaply. Better yet the companies or individuals that do this save money on power.

    No need for a war unless of course you want one.

  28. Roy Sites
    August 11th, 2006 at 07:44 | #28

    Unless you are talking about nuclear power generation, as much or more CO2 is emitted creating the electricity than is saved by not burning the fossil fuels.

    Nuclear power plants, at least in the US, are not being built. Wind and solar power generators do exist but account for such a tiny fraction of the total power used that they cannot be considered.

    So, where is the 50% reduction of CO2 emissions going to come from?

  29. August 11th, 2006 at 08:25 | #29

    Roy Sites – If you don’t use the electricity or gas in the first place then you don’t emit CO2. Saving electicity with higher efficiency appliences that do the same job with half the power, or houses that are insulated and are able to be heated/cooled with half the energy reduces the amount of CO2 generated.

    Electric cars and plug in hybrids emit CO2 only at the generation plant. However even an electric car charged with electricity from a coal plant emits less than half the CO2 of an equivilent IC car. This is due to even thermal coal plants are far more efficient than a car’s IC engine. An electric drivetrain can be 85% efficient as opposed to the 15% you get at best from your IC car.

  30. Roy Sites
    August 14th, 2006 at 22:41 | #30

    Dream on.

  31. Terje (say tay-a)
    August 14th, 2006 at 23:18 | #31

    I’m really interested at a technical level to see if the Solar Tower proposed by Enviromission can be made into a bankable investment. On paper at least it looks very promising. I love the simplicity of the technology not to mention it’s boldness. I do think that with time and wits we will eventually find better alternatives to coal.

    In terms of efficiency gains I think that if governments wish to take action they would do well to look at incremental improvements in the efficiency of the coal fired power stations that they own and operate. Handing out fluro light bulbs (as they do at shopping centres in NSW) may reduce my lighting bill, but in winter it also increases my heating bill (which does very little to reduce CO2 emissions).

  32. August 15th, 2006 at 08:31 | #32

    Roy Sites – “Dream on.”

    The difference is that the people really behind the push for efficiency and electric cars dream big and dream with their eyes firmly open.

    Terje – “incremental improvements in the efficiency of the coal fired power stations that they own and operate”

    Thermal coal plants have had a long history of improvement and are stuck at about 36% with current materials. Steam can only be made so hot and at so much pressure. Any improvements now are very small.

  33. Terje (say tay-a)
    August 15th, 2006 at 08:51 | #33

    Ender,

    I read recently about technology for brown coal power stations that lowers efficiency but lowers CO2 output by more. Perhaps I was not specific enough in my suggestion.

    On a personal note. We insulated the ceiling a few weeks ago and I don’t know if we will use less power for heating, but the house is certaily more snug.

    Regards,
    Terje.

  34. August 15th, 2006 at 10:23 | #34

    Terje – “I read recently about technology for brown coal power stations that lowers efficiency but lowers CO2 output by more. Perhaps I was not specific enough in my suggestion.”

    Perhaps it was CO2 Sequestration. This does lower the efficiency as the CO2 scrubbers block the exaust for one and also require a lot of power to run the compressors and liquifiers reducing the overall efficiency. In a normal power station the CO2 is still quite dilute and cannot be completely scrubbed from the exaust so therefore applying this technology to brown coal plants will only lower the CO2 emissions not eliminate them.

    “On a personal note. We insulated the ceiling a few weeks ago and I don’t know if we will use less power for heating, but the house is certaily more snug.”

    Would not have a house without it. In Perth, where it does not really get too cold, we have had for the last 10 years only one 2400W oil radiator that heats the whole house which is double brick and has insulation. I also have all flouro lights.

  35. Terje
    August 16th, 2006 at 12:09 | #35

    Ender,

    Here is an article talking about the technology I was refering to. It involves drying the coal before burning it. I think the technology is limited to brown coal.

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/power-play-for-100m-grant/2006/07/30/1154198011142.html

    The program put forward by IP comes in a series of stages. The first is to fit coal-drying technology to two units of its eight-unit Hazelwood plant, the most greenhouse-polluting generator in Australia. That technology, IP’s LETDF submission claims, will cut emissions from its oldest two generation units by as much as 30 per cent, to about 1.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity generated.

    Regards,
    Terje.

  36. andrew
    December 17th, 2006 at 16:15 | #36

    Dear Mr Quiggin

    Regardless of the many theories surrounding global warming – it is intellectualy dishonest to compare those who raise questions with regard to this important issue with “creationists”
    Those who support the AGW hypothesis need to become more efficient and less emotive with their use of langauge.
    As for myself – I agree that GW is occurring – but I cannot agree with the rude, humourless and dismissive manner with which many of those that believe fervently in AGW correspond.
    You should know better.

Comment pages
1 2 3092
Comments are closed.