GW Science, The religion of politics.

Cartoon By Ramirez.

Viv Forbes, the Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, makes some very good points in the following press release on the real reason why Rudd is pushing for unreliable options for future power generation:

“Green Electricity– a Stealth Tax.”

Forcing power retailers to buy expensive renewable energy has negligible effect on carbon dioxide emissions and no climate benefits, so it is all about buying green votes.

The policy is obviously an insincere fraud. If politicians sincerely believed there is a critical need to cut CO2 emissions, they would investigate what France has done to generate 75% of their power using nuclear energy, or what Norway has done to get 97% of their power from hydro energy. Unlike wind power, these options generate reliable electricity cheaply, with zero CO2 emissions and without needing costly backup capacity from coal or gas plants.

But there are no green votes in nuclear or hydro, and thus no proposals to build nuclear stations in the Latrobe or hydro stations in Tasmania.

Wind farms have proved useless in critical times. During the recent frigid spell in UK, their wind turbines were becalmed and produced a ludicrous 0.4% of total UK power – reliable old coal stations were cranked up. Carbon fuels provided 81% of the heat and light for shivering Britons and nuclear, another 16%.

Then during heat waves in Southern Australia, the contribution from wind generators was small and generally in periods of low demand. Things were worse in West Texas, where a sudden wind drop on the Texas Plains caused such instability in the power grid that the whole grid shut down.

Denmark is finding its thousands of wind turbines a liability – they cannot use the unreliable power and have to sell it at a loss into the European power grid.

Already wind towers are being scrapped in Europe so why is Australia still forcing consumers and taxpayers to subsidize these expensive playthings?

Green power is just a stealth taxes on electricity consumers.

Meanwhile the NYT has an article, “Politics in the Guise of Pure Science” by John Tierney, which questions the commitment of some scientists to a true scientific attitude, in relation to the politics involved in the debate. Debate might be too strong a term to use as in the eyes of the GW Alarmists, the issue is settled and there should be no more debate on it. This seems to be a political or religious position, not a scientific one.

… Well, I suppose it never hurts to go on the record in opposition to a billion imaginary deaths. But I have a more immediate concern: Will Mr. Obama’s scientific counselors give him realistic plans for dealing with global warming and other threats? To borrow a term from Roger Pielke Jr.: Can these scientists be honest brokers?

Dr. Pielke, a professor in the environmental studies program at the University of Colorado, is the author of “The Honest Broker,” a book arguing that most scientists are fundamentally mistaken about their role in political debates. As a result, he says, they’re jeopardizing their credibility while impeding solutions to problems like global warming.

Most researchers, Dr. Pielke writes, like to think of themselves in one of two roles: as a pure researcher who remains aloof from messy politics, or an impartial arbiter offering expert answers to politicians’ questions. Either way, they believe their research can point the way to correct public policies, and sometimes it does — when the science is clear and people’s values aren’t in conflict. …

But too often, Dr. Pielke says, they pose as impartial experts pointing politicians to the only option that makes scientific sense. To bolster their case, they’re prone to exaggerate their expertise (like enumerating the catastrophes that would occur if their policies aren’t adopted), while denigrating their political opponents as “unqualified” or “unscientific.”

“Some scientists want to influence policy in a certain direction and still be able to claim to be above politics,” Dr. Pielke says. “So they engage in what I call ‘stealth issue advocacy’ by smuggling political arguments into putative scientific ones.” ….

What would honest brokers tell the president about global warming? Dr. Pielke, who calls himself an Obamite, says he’s concerned that the presidents’ advisers seem uniformly focused on cutting carbon emissions through a domestic cap-and-trade law and a new international treaty.

It’s fine to try that strategy, he says, but there are too many technological, economic and political uncertainties to count on it making a significant global difference. If people around the world can’t be cajoled — or frightened by apocalyptic scenarios — into cutting carbon emissions, then politicians need backup strategies.

One possibility, Dr. Pielke says, would be to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the future. He calculates that it could cost about the same, in the long run, as making drastic cuts in emissions today, and could be cheaper if the technology improves. It could also be a lot easier sell to the public.

Yet research into this strategy has received little financing in past budgets or the new stimulus package because it doesn’t jibe with the agenda of either side in the global-warming debate. Greens don’t want this sort of “technological fix”; their opponents don’t want to admit there’s anything to fix. And neither side’s advocates will compromise as long as they think that science will prove them right.

The statement that, “the presidents’ advisers seem uniformly focused on cutting carbon emissions through a domestic cap-and-trade law …” should be no surprise as Obama has selected them for those positions for that reason. What really jars is the similarity with Vivs argument above in the last paragraph, “…or the new stimulus package because it doesn’t jibe with the agenda of either side in the global-warming debate. Greens don’t want this sort of “technological fix”; …”