"AK - Not all biomass, no. But so-called first-generation biomass electricity generation and automotive biofuels have not delivered the carbon neutrality they promised and in most cases are worse than the problem they purport to solve,"
Phil Clarke

Who actually made the Unreliable promises, and created worse problems?

Phil Clarke, do you think Mexicans worked this out before Michael Moore's film, or as a result of it?

Either way, criticisms of Moore's film are a fail, and there is no reason to assume that other countries won't follow Mexico's leadership

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/08/mexicos-president-is-betting-big-against-renewables/
Mexico’s President Is Betting Big AGAINST Renewables May 8, 2020

"It sounds like a news report out of yet another dystopian novel: Mexico is halting grid connection for new solar and wind power projects. In a world rushing to produce clean energy, Mexico has suddenly stood out like a sore thumb. But, as usual, there’s more to the story."

" The country’s National Energy Control Center, or Cenace, announced it would suspend grid connections of new solar and wind farms until further notice earlier this week. The motivation behind the decision was the intermittency of solar and wind power generation, which, according to the state-owned power market operator, could compromise Mexico’s energy security in difficult times."

“The intermittent generation from wind and PV plants affects the reliability of the national electricity system, [impacting] the sufficiency, quality and continuity of power supply,” Cenace wrote in a document setting out the rules of the country’s electricity market during the Covid-19 lockdown."

Mexico suffers from the Unreliability of Solar and Wind. The Green Blob keep getting UK Taxpayer funding to lie to UK Taxpayers, and tell us all that the UK can rely on unreliables.

Phil thank you for for your considered and supportable response to my question upon the role of biofuels. Yes, some here reject everything concerning this energy source, but my view is that where it exists,it perhaps should be used. The problem I see is that it usually these sources are rather small beer and if artificially expanded will displace more productive agriculture or natural landscapes of estimable value.
We agree, but not too much.

May 9, 2020 at 8:19 AM AK

Unreliable Power has its uses, but not for base load.

Wind and Solar should be developed for remote areas off the grid, as pocket sized portable, ruck sack portable, small car mobile, light truck and helicopter mobile modular units, that can be deployed from storage anywhere in the world.

As Michael Moore notes, the Green Blob have gone for the most profitable schemes at Taxpayer's expense that no one wants, rather than small affordable mobile units that so many could benefit from, especially those deprived of any power at all.

You can always rely on WUWT for a selective quote, the Oilprice article continues:

Intermittency of power generation is a real problem. Its solution is energy storage. Mexico got its first battery storage facility at the end of 2018, at a car factory. A year later, the first behind-the-meter battery facility that also features frequency regulation capabilities came online in Puebla. Storage is slow in coming.

The potential for renewable energy in Mexico is bright, though. According to an IRENA analysis, the country could generate up to 46 percent of its energy from such sources. Government opposition is a problem, but it is one that courts could help to solve. In fact, according to Fitch, despite the regulatory challenges put in the way of renewables by the AMLO government, they are not unmanageable.

May 9, 2020 at 1:44 PM Phil Clarke

IRENA are hardly a reliable source for honest information, but they admit:

https://www.irena.org/publications/2015/May/Renewable-Energy-Prospects-Mexico

"Current plans, however, would only achieve a 10% share of renewables by 2030. Policy changes in the power market are needed to unleash Mexico’s renewable energy potential, with planning for expanded infrastructure and grid integration. New policies are also needed to promote the uptake of renewable energy for heat and fuel applications in buildings, industry and transport."

The whole thing is a practical and financial non-starter

A 5 year old policy discussion. Still, more up to date than the claims in Moore's movie. Check the up to date statistics.

Phil Clarke, veering from wikipedia to the guardian, then back again.

Liberally spiced with could, would and might.

May 9, 2020 at 10:45 PM Phil Clarke
The up to date position is that with cheap reliable power, Mexico can gain out of the US withdrawing manufacturing from China. Why should anyone waste more money on Mann's ego?

Who is writing the Chaam Jamal blog these days? The man himself ( a retired Thai academic) seems to have gone AWOL and blogging duties taken over by Mrs Chaam.

chaamjamal is my husband. When he lost interest in blogging I got involved because I like his message and think it needs to be visible.

Anyhow, the Thai Bride is of this opinion:

The further claim in the content, that industrial economy humans and their fossil fuel emissions are now the primary geological force of nature in control of the planet in a new geological epoch called the Anthropocene, is discussed in some detail in a related post . There it is shown that the crust of the planet, where we have things like atmosphere and oceans and climate, and life on earth, and the humans, and the industrial economy of the humans spewing fossil fuel emissions. However, in terms of total mass, the crust of the planet is an insignificant portion of the planet. Also, it is shown that life on earth is an insignificant portion of the crust; and humans are an insignificant portion of life on earth. Therefore, humans are insignificant on a planetary scale. The assessment of their alarming planetary impact is likely to be a product of the ego of humans that aspires to a lofty planetary role as the caretaker of nature and the planet.

An interesting, though shall we say, minority, opinion. Fascinating that you find this 'analysis' more compelling than that of The Economist, but hey, each to their own. If you hope to convince all but the deluded that a crumb of unsubstantiated criticism from a false-name fringe blog from Thailand is evidence that a respected publication is engaged in 'feeble thinking', well….

Good luck with that.

More proof of Green Blob professional liars and Climate Smearologists

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/12/scientist-falsely-accused-more-on-willie-soon/

Long-time subscriber to the Economist.

Cancelled in 2006.

Not so much the editorial line, more that it was so effing boring.

Perfect for mental onanist Phil Clarke.

Willie Soon was one half of the authorship team of Soon and Baliunas 2003, a paper so pisspoor that half the editorial board of the journal that published it resigned rather than have their scientific reputations tarnished. He is now on the denial circuit, busily pushing the idea that modern climate change is down to solar variance, a proposition supported by Willie Soon and pretty much nobody else. In 2015 he coauthored a trash paper with Christopher Monckton, a journalist and classics scholar with no hard science training whatsoever.

Somebody less kind than myself might conclude that Soon has no academic reputation to lose, oil funding notwithstanding.

Charly, sorry to hear about your attention span problems.

Clarke, not attention span.

The Economist Christmas Specials in particular were fucking boring. Do you still read it?

PC = ad hominem specialist. Boring. Nothing special.

is that that William M. Connolley and why the link go to FRAM ?

actually WGAF

Phil Clarke,

At my daughters request, I have looked into PC.

See you soon, PC.

( They do not like you ).

What is your "hard science training", Clarky Boy?

Branleur.

James Hansen agrees with Michael Moore

May 14, 2020 at 12:00 AM Phil Clarke

Is that opinion from the same sources that paid you to write:

"Just two observations:

1. Gergis et al is an Australasian reconstruction. The 'hockey sticks' were Northern Hemisphere only.

2. Nobody credible has found a flaw in Gergis's work.

Feb 17, 2018 at 12:50 AM Phil Clarke"

More good reasons to check WUWT for factual information and ignore Mann.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/14/climate-scientists-try-to-rescue-renewable-energies-from-planet-of-the-humans/

“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.”

—Dr. Michael Mann, Climategate email, May 30, 2008.

“The film [Planet of the Humans] presents a distorted and outdated depiction of the renewable energy industry in an effort to malign renewable energy, thus ironically promoting the agenda of the fossil fuel industry.”

– Dr. Michael Mann. Quoted in E&E News (May 5, 2020).

If Big Environmentalism loses wind, the supply-side ruse is over, and people will reconsider climate science given that the “cure” is not there. Hence Michael Mann versus Michael Moore.

"Willie Soon was one half of the authorship team of Soon and Baliunas 2003, a paper so pisspoor that half the editorial board of the journal that published it resigned rather than have their scientific reputations tarnished."

Now here's fun. Here is a proverbial cordite-smelling revolver. Here is something interesting Jeremy Paxman apparently didn't find. 1062592331. Edward Cook of Columbia to Keith Briffa, proposing some kind of multi-author meta-study of uncertainties with and differences between the key temperature reconstructions. Describes the latest Mann and Jones one as 'a mess'. Suggests they be excluded: 'I am afraid the Mike and Phil are too personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in - Bradley hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they can contribute without just defending their past work - this is the key to having anyone involved. Be honest.'

Says they should 'Publish, retire, and don't leave a forwarding address.' Because,

Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).

My bold, obviously, and I think it's worth it; in fact when we the people rise up it ought to be tattooed on every one of these two-faced bastards' foreheads, and that of every journalist who has betrayed his profession and got down on his knees and serviced them.

He continues: 'I think this is exactly the kind of study that needs to be done before the next IPCC assessment. But to give it credibility, it has to have a reasonably broad spectrum of authors to avoid looking like a biased attack paper, i.e. like Soon and Balliunas.' [There's the problem: those from outside the gang who point out flaws and problems in the science are dismissed as biased, bought, oil-industry shills and professional contrarians. Those inside the gang ... daren't point them out, for fear of being excluded from the gang and/or missing out on the global-panic funding.] If you don't want to do it, just say so and I will drop the whole idea like a hot potato. I honestly don't want to do it without your participation.'

In the next, 1062618881, Tim Osborn has picked this idea up, sort of; actually as far as I can see he has hijacked it to his own ends. He seems to regard it not so much as an exercise in frank cards-on-the-table as an opportunity to defend their position and rebut the skeptical Soon and Balliunas paper published in Climate Research. Copied are a number of mails about the latter. Phil Jones has said: 'I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.' (In fact they end up ordering all their friends to resign from the board.) They're discussing a multi-author response: 'NOT', says Phil Jones, 'the scholarly review a la Jean Grove (bless her soul) that just reviews but doesn't come to anything firm. We want a critical review that enables agendas to be set.' Wants to 'address the misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA [Little Ice Age] and MWP [Medieval Warm Period] and redefining what we think the terms really mean?'

http://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/cru.htm

I doubt Jeremy Paxman knew anything before Climategate. He worked for the BBC. No surprise at his performance.

David Bellamy would have been a good choice.

But they had Harrabin and Black.

What kind of alternate reality is this?

Soon and Baliunas should never have been published, in his resignation statement Hans Von Storch , no shrinking violet, stated The review process had utterly failed; important questions have not been asked ... the methodological basis for such a conclusion (that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium) was simply not given

And David Bellamy? Really?