Notrickszone, posts that Professor Fritz Vahrenholt calls the green jobs machine a “labeling fraud“. The claimed level of German green jobs is many times the actual figures. This is in response to a couple of comments by “Buddy”.
Buddy,
It is not enough to point out that there is a potential problem. Effective mitigation policy requires
1. Assessing the scale of the potential problem.
2. Assessing the scale of the solution required.
3. Devising policies that will meet that solution.
4. Getting enacted the policies to meet that solution.
5. Effectively enacting those policies.
I welcome your comments, as they illustrate the failure to think the problem through by the so-called “experts”. Exaggerated claims of green jobs does nothing the tackle the alleged problems of rising emissions. Further German policy is one of failure to deliver virtually any promised reductions, but has wasted money on bogus schemes. See for instance
Germany is not alone with policy failures. Globally, renewables have failed to deliver the low-cost, reliable, on demand power of fossil fuels, hence the exaggerated claims for jobs and investment. Given the policy failures, any other country would be mad to sign up to similar policies, even if they believed that without effective carbons reductions future generations will face a climate catastrophe. Politicians will duck the issue, by signing vague agreements to tackle the problem in the future. Yet without the emerging economies successfully combatting carbon emissions, the policy countries will incur all the policy costs now, and leave future generations with practically all the projected catastrophic consequences of global warming. I discussed further here.
The issue of smog is interesting. The worst smogs are in China and India, caused by coal fired power stations. The UNIPCC reckons that the aerosols that make up the smog have a net cooling effect (AR5 and AR4). So tackling air pollution from the dirtiest coal-fired power stations may actually increase warming. Yet in Britain the Clean Air Act had a huge difference on air quality. According to a Centre for Policy Studies Report, globally the policy could save millions of lives.
Kevin Marshall
ManicBeancounter 
Barry Woods
/ 23/03/2014Hi Kevin
Lewandowsky always claimed that his US study replicated LOG12
Here is ( I think) the data for that US study..
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/PLOSONE2013Data.csv
could you try the same pivot table analysis as LOG12
ie exactly how many people (number of, not %) agreed with Moon Hoax and more importantly (?) how many did not?
I have just read your Shaping Tomorrows World comment.
all the best.
please contact me via my blog:
http://unsettledclimate.org/about-2/
found via this comment in the Guardian
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/33394479
“Unfortunately the Lewandosky stuff isn’t very good at any level – a simple survey dressed up with too much statistics that even basic data checks weren’t carried out. His data for his US study is available online: http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/PLOSONE2013Data.csv
Lewandosky had five statements to measure belief in climate change. Classifying climate skeptics as those taking a skeptic view on 3+ of those statements (18% of the sample) and AGWers as taking a pro-science view on 3+ of those statements (45% of the sample) we find the percentage of those with skeptic views also holding other views as follow (is brackets is the percentage of those with pro-AGW views).
New World order conspiracy – 28% (17%) – big gap
Martin Luther King conspiracy – 15% (16%)
Moon landing didn’t happen – 6% (8%)
JFK conspiracy – 33% (33%)
9-11 conspiracy – 12% (16%) – a little lower than pro-AGW
Princess Diana conspiracy – 13% (17%) – a little lower than pro-AGW
Climate change is a hoax – 50% (10%) – big gap
The US created AIDs – 9% (10%)
Passive smoking is a hoax – 18% (12%) – higher than pro-AGW
HIV doesn’t cause AIDs – 6% (4%)
Smoking isn’t a cause of cancer – 6% (2%) – higher than pro-AGW
Note that there is some junk in the data that wasn’t cleared out and some questionnable answers which suggested people clicking at random at times (like inconsistencies with someone who believes and doesn’t believe at the same time). In these type of online panel driven surveys low percentage numbers aren’t to be trusted. But pretty obviously the results show the majority in all cases – skeptic or pro-AGW don’t hold conspiracy theory views.”
And for the first time, I have had NO comments deleted under a Guardian article in the Guardian (you may enjoy them)
https://id.theguardian.com/profile/id/12291734