Much stronger action, including the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, is needed to transform the global energy system, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Launching its annual World Energy Outlook (WEO) report, the IEA warns that the Copenhagen Accord and policies adopted by governments around the globe are not enough to limit temperature increases through climate change by 2°C.
According to the IEA's analysis, primary energy demand will increase by 36% between 2008 and 2035 at a rate of 1.2% a year. That figure is down on the 2% average for the previous 27 years, but is only likely to stabilise greenhouse gas concentration at over 650 parts per million - resulting in a temperature rise of 3.5°C. The report indicates that non-OECD countries will account for 93% of the projected increase in primary energy demand, with fossil fuels remaining dominant.
Support for renewables is projected to increase from $57 billion in 2009 to $205 billion in 2035, but renewables will still only account for around 14% of total primary energy demand.
For further information go to www.worldenergyoutlook.org/
5 years ago
28 comments:
OK, Strong action is needed. Mass suicide it is then. You first, show us how it's done.
Adrian,
My previous comment was an attempt to counter warmist propaganda. Not to be taken more seriously than the propaganda itself.
Today I came across the website of a a Dr Roy Spencer Ph.D. a former NASA climatologist who seems to be rational about climate change. If you can bring yourself to do it I would appreciate your comments on his take on the issue: The link is:
http://www.drroyspencer.com
You seem to have very dark thoughts Sean, I suggest you call www.samaritans.org/
UK: 08457 90 90 90
'Whatever you're going through, whether it's big or small, don't bottle it up. We are here for you if you're worried about something, feel upset or confused, or just want to talk to someone.'
You think telling someone to commit suicide is funny, I do not.
I have been looking at the the Roy Spencer link you sent me. It doesn't seem very scientific.
He says:
'If a daily temperature difference between this year and last year is 100’s of degrees, it’s because one of the days has missing data.' Hundreds of degrees? Does he know how to analyse data?
'global warming experts like Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio.'
Does anyone take him seriously?
Adrian,
You think I was being serious? Ever heard of irony? Some eco-wariors seem to be more or less advocating that or at least controlling childbirth.
If you think Dr Spencer doesn't know what he's talking about, what happened to my 2nd post with the link to his site? Don't want anyone else going there?
To quote the full paragraph you refer to:
If a daily temperature difference between this year and last year is 100’s of degrees, it’s because one of the days has missing data. It’s not because we’ve been hacked by Earth First! Check out the text data…you’ll figure it out
Firstly he is talking about official data from NASA's discovery project which records
Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) satellite image data.
Secondly he is simply saying that such an anomoly as a 100C difference may occur because of missing data. It happens, but rarely admitted by those pseudo-scientists of the AGW gravy train.
Good night.
So you tell me to kill myself, then say it was a joke, thats just not funny. You say Greens want people to kill themselves, this is plain wrong. Send a link or apologise.
I don't know what happened to your post, I got the email and responded to it. Don't assume its some sort of cover up, as long as your polite you can post here.
You say he 'is simply saying that such an anomoly as a 100C difference may occur'. Imagine if a Green said that, you would jump on it as evidence of calamity. I am merely saying there must be something wrong with his data analysis for that to happen. Hard to take him seriously after that; he sounds like Delingpole (who is right about everything).
Your missing post.
Adrian,
My previous comment was an attempt to counter warmist propaganda. Not to be taken more seriously than the propaganda itself.
Today I came across the website of a a Dr Roy Spencer Ph.D. a former NASA climatologist who seems to be rational about climate change. If you can bring yourself to do it I would appreciate your comments on his take on the issue: The link is:
http://www.drroyspencer.com
OK I apologise for what was not a very funny joke. However, there are eco-loons advocating birth control as a means of reducing carbon emissions so I was only taking it one step further. Obviously nothing personal, sorry.
I would like to explain about the 100C difference thing. It is obvious to a programmer, but probably not to anyone else.
When codifying a series of numbers for input to a computer program one would could use fixed width fields or use a space as a delimiter viz:-
10.5 11.6 17.4 12.8 14.2 15.4
However, if one number in the series (say the 12.8) is missing for some reason, how best to indicate which one? If it's simply left out then the program will probably think it is the last. One way is to code in a number that is obviously outside the range of possibility. Usually a large negative number:-
10.5 11.6 17.4 -999.9 14.2 15.4
Now it would be easy to write a program which recognises the -999.9 as a missing value, but if we didn't special case the program would come up with some rather large differences. That was all he was saying. Hope I haven't been teaching grandmother to suck egss so to speak. Have another read eh?
Perhaps. But I still think its a very odd way of finding an average, but c'ese la vie.
I am still waiting to here all these Greens asking for people to suicide? The silence is telling.
Many have discussed population, perhaps most famously
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/pages/2009/03/a_sustainable_population.html
You will find a large difference between what he said and what people thought he said.
I did say it was meant as irony so I can hardly point you at examples can I? If anything makes one depressed though it is all the doomsayers telling us that the earth is going to become uninhabitable within a century unless we change our lifestyle in such a way as to make life not worth living anyway. I only need to point you at "An Inconvenient Truth" to backup that point.
Final point, social engineering, including population control, is not something that politicians should be engaged in.
On a previous post you said that wind turbines produce no energy; then you admitted that they did.
Now yousay your statement that Greens want suicide was a joke, and not true at all.
Perhaps if you stuck with telling the truth you might convince people that you were serious.
You say 'If anything makes one depressed though it is all the doomsayers telling us that the earth is going to become uninhabitable within a century unless we change our lifestyle in such a way as to make life not worth living anyway.' Is this also meant to be a joke?
You asked my opinion of a website, I gave you two reasons why it would be hard to take it seriously in the first minute o looking. You have not yet commented on my second reason.
Hi Adrian
... Is this also meant to be a joke?
No deadly serious about that one.
'global warming experts like Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio.
Does anyone take him seriously
Yes. Read it again and see if you can detect a hint of sarcasm.
Cancun delegates sign petition to destabilise US economy and to ban dihyrodgen monoxide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TzZ_Zcp4PwY#!
...and we are supposed to take these people seriously?
Is the youtube vid meant to be more irony? The US economy, like the rest of the world, is already in deep trouble, relying as it does on limited resources. The era of cheap oil is gone, not everyone has noticed.
If he fills his posts with 'irony', it is hard to take him seriously. The little I read seemed a joke like your other reference.
Very hard to take you seriously also, I expect you will next give me a reference to Jeremy Clarkson!
Warning: This post does not contain any jokes, irony, flippancy or sarcasm and only a touch of cynicism.
From a bio of Leonardo DiCaprio:
A committed environmental activist who lived up to his public opinions by driving a hybrid vehicle and installing solar panels on his house, it was no surprise that DiCaprio narrated "11th Hour" (2006), a documentary that examined global warming and possible solutions to restore the planet's decaying ecosystems.
Full bio at http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800020898/bio
The trouble for us sceptics is that apart from Clarkson there aren't any real celebs on board pushing our message out. Why? Because there's no money in it and celebs always follow the money. All we have is a few honest brokers like Dellingpole, Booker and Lords Monckton and Lawson. Fortuntely the alarmist argument is falling apart on it's own. The hypocricy of Cancun is breathtaking.
Climate Depot Special Report:
More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
The number is growing.
Had a quick look at the link. As often with your links the comments seem obsessed with Gore. Which makes me syspect the site is a political one not based on actual science. If i recall previous claims of hundreds of "scientists" turned out to be anyone who had done a science class at college.
Some of the quoted people even acknowledge the climate science and should not be included. I suspect someone put that list together to trick people.
I suspect someone put that list together to trick people.
Ah a conspiracy theorist! (joke :-))
Looking at www.ClimateDepot.com, it is obsessed with Gore!
It also makes the same mistake many times, that global warming will mean each year is a little warmer than the last. No one ever predicted this, its an average over some years that is increasing.
Also predicted is more extreme weather all consistent with climate change. http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2008/WWFPresitem9361.html
'The Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a toxic pollution front group founded by the Richard Mellon Scaife fortune, recently hired Sen. Jim Inhofe’s (R-OK) climate denier guru, Marc Morano, to set up shop at ClimateDepot.com'
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/04/07/morano-climate-depot-joke/
ClimateDepot and other climate sceptic sites bang on about Al Gore because that Nobel Prize holder (I can't bring myself to say "winner") was responsible for proposing that thankfully now defunct US Carbon Credit Exchange.
Pointing me at WWF, GreenPeace and other fake charity sites is about as meaningful as me pointing you at Bishop Hill and WUWT blogs so please don't bother.
I see that the Cancun stitch-up has been partially successful. When we are all under global governance by an unelected and undemocratic UN instead of continental governance by an unelected and undemocratic EU perhaps you will remember my posts.
So your saying anything WWF, GreenPeace ... say is automatically wrong? Nice to know how widely you seek information.
And that they are a fake charity? Check with the charity commission by all means I think they are real enough.
You will have to explain your comments about unelected bodies more fully if you want me to understand it.
Any so called charity who's income contains an element of government grant is by any definition a fake charity. They are using money stolen from taxpayers without their consent.
By their own admission that certainly includes WWF. Not sure about Greenpeace because they don't seem to publish accounts. WWF used to be a worthwhile charity once. I even donated to it on occasion, but that was before it became politicised and forgot about the wildlife it was supposed to be protecting.
My point about unelected bodies such as the UN and the EU is that they are exactly that. "No taxation without representation" as they say. Both organisations are corrupt and up to their eyeballs in the AGW scam. They demanded money from us with menaces at Cancun. The only person in Cancun that had our interests at heart was Viscount Monckton and how much have you heard about him on the news? That idiot Huhne wouldn't recognise a con-trick if it jumped up and bit him. Only a real fool would send someone like him to COP16 to represent us. But then we have a fool for a PM.
A year ago now but this is how the undemocratic and unelected UN treat someone asking a perfectly legitimate question (at COP15 I think):
Armed Response to 'Climategate' question
So if you disagree with an organisation it becomes a 'fskr charity' or undemocratic. Every organisation has good and bad points. I expect to hear you admire BP and Tesco.
Thanks for the comedy clip on youtube. Was it irony or sarcasm? Journalists often ask awkward questions, don't know why this lummox seemed unable to answer. 'Armed response is a bit strong' he was just a security guard not the SAS.
Adrian,
Neither irony nor sarcasm. That lummox, as you call him, is one of the leading authorities on climate change. Al Gore was in Copenhagen and he too ignored questioners including that one, but I won't bother with the youtube link unless you really want to see it.
Yes I do condemn any outfit that pretends to be something that it no longer is. Another example that has cottoned on to the climate change scam is Oxfam. Another so called charity I will not be donating to any longer. Latest accounts indicate voluntary donations at £49M involuntary (Government and other public bodies) £112M. 2009 accounts at:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/downloads/reports/report_accounts09_10.pdf
One of their recent propaganda videos on youtube here:
Climate change - innovative solutions from Thailand
By the patronising tone of that womans voice it is obviously aimed at brainwashing schoolkids or does she does think we are all mentally retarded?
Post a Comment