54 responses so far ↓

• 1 Aldyen Donnelly // Jul 11, 2012 at 7:03 am

  Frances,

  Good article. I enjoyed it. But it is only Part 1 of an important 2-part story about district heat and the City of Vancouver.

  As you noted in the article, using a heat exchanger to extract heat from sewage to heat space and hot water should be “cheap”. But take a look at the City utility’s current financial statements and business plan. There you will see that at current rates the utility is covering only about half of its operating costs and Council has approved a business plan that does not break even before 2020 and which does not start to repay capital investment before 2026.

  To comply with this revenue plan, the utility has to secure significant market share at prices that are higher than the price the building occupants would have to pay BC Hydro for equivalent electricity supply and much higher than the price they would have to pay to heat with natural gas.

  Note that the most successful district heating networks in Europe (Denmark, Austria) are successful because the heat supplied costs customers less than CAD $0.08/kWh-equivalent of heat, when electricity costs at least 3 times that much. Vancouver’s district heating team is forecasting (realistically, in my view) a substantial increase in BC electricity prices, but still needs to charge a premium over those prices to make their Vancouver utility break even–in the distant future.

  When district heat is a low-cost alternative to electricity, it succeeds. District heat should be an attractive way to hold down urban occupancy costs. But when district heat needs to be paid a premium relative to the cost of electricity, it fails–both as a sustainable source of energy and as a means by which urban region occupancy costs can be held down.

  I REALLY believe that Vancouver should be wall-to-wall district heat. But this City of Vancouver system development strategy–which relies on charging captive customers, over the long term, such a significant premium over the cost of electricity and natural gas (which premium is still excessive if/when we assign, say $60/TCO2e to GHG emissions)–is a huge white elephant in development before our very eyes.

  It does not need to be. The problem is not the concept of district heat. It is the far-from-acceptable DH development and operating strategy that city staff has imposed on its taxpayers, without much in the way of consultation with those taxpayers.

• 2 gmgw // Jul 11, 2012 at 12:10 pm

  Concerned local residents did extensive research on every aspect of the woodchip-burning proposal, found it seriously flawed, and made every effort to communicate their findings to the neighbourhood at large. It’s a disservice to them to say that they were so naive as to envision a beehive burner. What was proposed was bad enough. Not only was there to be inadequate emission controls, there would have been a constant stream of large trucks bringing in loads of woodchips to feed the hungry fires. It was a poorly-thought-out proposal for a location in the center of a densely populated urban area. The sewage-heat plant (known in some circles as the “hot shit” facility), while lacking in, um, glamour, has proven to be far more efficient, effective and environmentally reposible than its proposed predecessor would have been.
  gmgw

• 3 iwasthere // Jul 11, 2012 at 1:20 pm

  Frances is right. This photo was used on billboards around the neighbourhood to help residents visualize what the woodchip burning plant would look like.

  http://www.flickr.com/photos/82419720@N07/7551784020/in/photostream

• 4 Bill Lee // Jul 11, 2012 at 3:10 pm

  Hmm, is the liquid sewage that “warm” when people are taking cold showers these days.

  It is a heat enchanger, which could be mandatory in all residential complexes, but construction here leaks all kinds of heat.
  The Austria House at the Whistler 2010 Olympics was a Passive House but they had to bring in most materials from overseas.

  A comment on the Globe story above by [ Aldyen 10:07 AM on July 11, 2012 ] said that the economics are not playing out, yet, based on electricity prices as energy and that the plan won’t come close to fruition until 2020.

  The City posts a PDF written by Portland urban affairs writer Linda Walker that goes through the plan as seen in 2009
  http://vancouver.ca/sustainability/documents/HeatingtheHood.pdf

  There is a puff piece by “Millennium Waters” (remember that name?) developers on the idealism at thechallengeseries.ca/chapter-05/neighbourhood-energy-utility/

  Thermodynamically all these things come out better when there is a greater difference between the outside and inside temperatures (and we ain’t Winnipeg).
  Maybe we should have compulsory sweater and sock knitting classes and learn to live in a cooler climate (as we did during April, May and June of 2012, the year it all changed )

• 5 Julien // Jul 11, 2012 at 3:18 pm

  I can’t wait when the terms of service of a sewer hook-up include assigning the GVRD all the green rights to what you flush.

• 6 brilliant // Jul 11, 2012 at 5:35 pm

  Any longtime Vancouverite would know that plenty of Vancouver homes had sawdust-fueled heating. We all survived. Why people would prefer steaming pikes of excrement is perplexing.

• 7 Frances Bula // Jul 11, 2012 at 8:02 pm

  @Julien. Sharp eye that you noticed that part. I’m wondering what the impact is for municipalities starting these things up, if Metro gets to claim all the carbon benefits.

• 8 gmgw // Jul 11, 2012 at 11:47 pm

  @ iwasthere: Not to split hairs or anything, but Frances used the term “beehive burner”, and it was her use of said term which I took mild issue with. However, what’s in your picture is not a beehive burner. Do you know what one looks like? (You must admit, the use of that picture certainly helped to alert local residents to the issue.)

  @brilliant: Not to worry, the heat source in question would not be piped directly into your home, unless for some reason you wanted it that way. Incidentally, I grew up in an old house with an Aga coal stove in the kitchen and an oil furnace, but I wouldn’t want to see either of those technologies make a widespread comeback, either.
  gmgw

• 9 Aldyen Donnelly // Jul 12, 2012 at 9:00 am

  Bill Lee,

  Just to clarify…

  The forecast that the City’s DH utility will not start covering operating costs before 2020, and then only if it’s customers accept rates that are significant premiums above the costs of electric and natural gas heat (and assuming significant increases in those alternatives) is outlined in plain English in the business plan that was presented by City staff and approved by Council. It is not some independent calculation on my part (not that you suggested it was).

  More important than the valid question of who owns the carbon credits is the question of how far will the City eventually go to make this poorly conceived plan viable.

  Denmark committed to DH, in a big way, in the early 70s. after a couple of decades of fiscal disasters and system bailouts, in 1994 the Danisch government simply passed a law–which law prevails today–prohibiting the installation of electric or gas heating systems and hot water tanks in new homes. The law also allows local governments to order home owners to remove electric and gas heating equipment in any home that is more than 9 years old. Further, the Danish law mandates that all home owners shall allow private DH companies to enter their homes and install the equipment required to enable the home to take heat from the DH network, AND OBLIGES THE HOME OWNERS TO PAY THE FULL COST of that equipment and it’s installation (typically in excess of CAD$6,000), even if the home owner does not need and has no intention of buying heat from the system after the equipment is installed.

  Denmark did experiment with a range of biogas and municipal waste heat recovery projects for heat supply during the 1980s and 1990s, but none proved cost effective over time. Today, over 80% of the hot water in Denmark’s DH network is cogenerated at old coal-fired power plants. Denmark has had to resort to coal-fired heat sources (extending the operating lives of old coal plants) to try try to contain the policy-induced combined costs of electricity and DH, which costs remain out of control. (The actual numbers are confusing, because Danish law caps actual DH rates and then covers DH system losses with a surcharge on electricity. So consumers think DH is cheaper than electricity, but that is a false, policy-induced perception. As electricity demand goes down, government has to keep looking for new ways to maintain the subsidy for DH rates.)

  The story of Austria’s DH network, the one with the largest market penetration in Europe, could not be more different from Denmark’s–where I rate Austria as the DH system development model we should follow and Denmark the one we should avoid.

  To date, Vancouver is distinctly following the Danish model. Should we, therefore, anticipate that in the not-to-distant future City Council will move to make it illegal for residents to elect to use the lower cost electricity or natural gas heating options to protect the City’s equity interest in the money-losing DH business? This is the situation in Denmark, and Vancouver is on the Danish path. What do we think about that?

• 10 Aldyen Donnelly // Jul 12, 2012 at 9:57 am

  Just in case any of you are interested in the Danish DH story, you can download the Government of Denmark’s own version at http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/DEA_Heat_supply_in_denmark.pdf.

  While the Danish government’s tone is more positive than mine, you will find most of the facts as I relate them above in this official government document.

  I don’t mean to suggest that Denmark did everything wrong. They did many things right, and some important things wrong.

  In a nutshell, to build a cost-effective and efficient DH system, one must start by mapping demand and potential suppy, to generate a heat distribution pipeline development plan that will be cost effective. (Denmark actually started with the exercise, a good move.) Then, given a rational heat distribution development plan, one then identifies the best combination of short-, medium- and long-term heat sources to feed the distribution system.

  Generally, when a community identifies “DH” as a pipeline network to which different heat sources can be added and substracted over time, that community will build a cost effective and competitive system.

  But when the system development process starts with some favoured heat sources, and then tried to build pipe, over time, to customers from those heat source anchors, it is almost a sure thing that the system will be developed inefficiently and will not be competitive without continuing subsidies and regulations that protect the DH system from competition. (Denmark started on the right foot, but then spent the 1980s trying to fit favourite but poorly placed and operated heat sources into the system. Denmark has shifted back to a more efficient and sustainable DH system and heat supply development strategy since about 1999, but the system contiues tio be burdened with two decades of very high cost mistakes. For this reason, Denmark has had to protect the system from competition and remove home-owners’ rights to use lower cost alternatives.)

• 11 Aldyen Donnelly // Jul 12, 2012 at 10:31 am

  On the question of WHO OWNS THE CARBON CREDITS or green attributes arising from the development of DH…

  It might be important to note that the government of BC has, so far, really messed up on carbon credit ownership. If we don’t stop now and ensure that we get this right from now on, there will be no end of lawsuits in the future.

  I will provide two examples.

  First, BC Hydro. BC Hydro’s stated official policy is that if/when Hydro enters into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with an independent power producer (IPP), BC Hydro gets full title to all green attributes when they buy green power, but does not report any liability when they buy coal-fired power.

  On the green power front, however, BC Hydro does not contract the same way every time. For the agreements with run-of-river, wind and solar power suppliers, Hydro gets the attributes. But to sweeten the deal for Rio Tinto Alcan, when BC Hydro takes delivery of power from Alcan’s hydro operations (for which Hydro pays 7 cents/kWh…generating massive profits for Alcan), BC Hydro has agreed that Alcan retains title to any carbon credits.

  When BC Hydro/Powerex imports coal-fired power from the US (our imports generated 4 to 11 million TCO2e/year, depending on whether we had high or low water), the GHGs for those imports are not included in any official BC government GHG inventory or BC Hydro report. But under the laws and policies of the states from whom we import that coal-fired power, when the power is exported to us, so is the GHG liability. So BC Hydro publishes misleadingly low GHG emissions for BC’s electricity supply, which, in turn, means that any GHG credits that might reasonably be assigned to District Heat will be much less than they should be.

  While BC Hydro is publishing artificially low GHG estimates for BC’s power supply to look good to BC rate-payers, this practice does not protect us from unfair US carbon tariffs on our power exports to them. The states that import our power do their own calculations to determine the carbon-based tariff that will apply to our exports, and in those calculations they assign the GHGs for our coal-fired imports as BC Hydro liabilities.

  California passed a cap and trade law two years ago, which law comes into full effect on Jan 1, 2013. After that date, BC Hydro’s subsidiary has to buy CA GHG quota to maintain power exports to California. BC Hydro reports that the GHG-intensity of our power is 0.020 TCO2e/MWh. But the state of California has officially ruled that, after accounting for our reliance on coal-fired power imports, a GHG charge of 0.392 TCO2e/MWh will apply to calculate how much CA GHG quota BC Hydro has to buy to maintain exports to California after Jan 1, 2013.

  Now, Pacific Carbon Trust (PCT). Under BC law, government agencies, school districts, universities, hospitals, etc. are obliged to remit $25/TCO2e to cover their GHG emissions. (This is over and above the $30/TCO2e those agencies also have to pay in BC carbon taxes on the energy they use. Recently, the BC govt agreed to rebate the Ctaxes paid by school boards, but the rest of the public sector still pays PCT without rebates.)

  PCT, then, is supposed to use that reveue to buy carbon credits from BC suppliers. But when PCT “buys” carbon credits, they do not secure a real transfer of title to those credits. PCT announces that they have “offset” government emissions, but the entity from whom PCT has “bought” the credits also retains the right to include the credit-based reductions in their official GHG inventory and report.

  Let’s say that you discharge 10 TCO2e/year and so do I. Let’s say that you are obliged to reduce or offset your emissions by 2 TCO2e/year, but we both agree that I can do it cheaper. You pay me to realize the reduction if I will transfer title to the credits (which represent my reductions) to you.

  Before we met, we combined to discharge 20 TCO2e/year. After we did our deal, we combined to emit 18 TCO2e/year. If I actually transfer real title to the carbon credits to you, then you can claim to have offset 2 TCO2e/year, but I need to add 2 TCO2e per year to my official GHG report, to ensure that the sum of our two reports is equal to our actual, physical emissions (18 TCO2e/year).

  But under PCT’s contracts, the “credit” suppliers do not have to make a balancing adjustment to their official GHG inventories (which they are typically obliged to report under federal law).

  So after we do our deal, you report 8 TCO2e (10 TCO2e – the 2 TCO2e worth of credits you bought from me), and I report 8 TCO2e (10 TCO2e – the emissions I reduced using the money you gave me). The sum of our official emission reports is 16 TCO2e, when the sum of our actual GHGs is 18 TCO2.

  Under all PCT contracts with which I am familiar, the GHG reductions are double credited in this way, because PCT has made no effort to get the title transfer right. At least some of the entities that have sold “credits” to PCT would not have done so had they had to complete the transaction properly by making the appropriate book-keeping adjustment to their official inventories that would normally happen when real interest in the reductions is transferred.

• 12 Guest // Jul 12, 2012 at 1:32 pm

  If I recall correctly, the heat from sewage/wastewater was always going to be used – the questions of burning wood pellets or natural gas was for the supplementary heat needed when the sewage / wastewater wasn’t enough.

  The finger sculpture at the south end of Cambie bridge is programmed to reflect how much natural gas is being consumed.
  The “warmer” the colour of the fingernails (pink/purple), the more natural gas is being used (high energy demand (i.e. winter)).
  The “cooler” the colour of the fingernails (blue), the no or less natural gas is being used (low energy demand)

  http://vancouver.ca/greencapital/pdf/VGC_FCEC_FactSheet.pdf

• 13 MB // Jul 12, 2012 at 7:21 pm

  Aldyen Donnelly, thank you for your detailed explanations of the complex topic of energy.

  Someone got bitten by the Techofix bug, kinda like dreaming up a nuclear powered outhouse, and it is unfortunate Vancouverites will have to support any financial failures of this project. Is there an escape clause for residents?

  Using the latent heat of sewage seemed like an otherwise a great idea in the absence of the important long range economics of regional energy supplies. I certainly hope Metro does its research.

  Jeff Rubin touched on the Danish approach to energy financials in his book The End of Growth. Basically, cost / price supersedes motive or ultruism of consumers when it comes to reducing emissions. Consumers opt for the cheapest power or heat source (or mode of transportation), and successive Danish governments have taxed and subsidized their economy so that it favours one element over another.

  I too believe that historic political monkeying with BC Hydro to keep rates artificially low will result in transferring the cost of deferred maintenance, replacement and upgrades to younger generations.

  One can easily conclude that the whole economic model is f*cked when you consider that the costs of the future: Increased energy rates; the greater medical incumbrances of ageing Boomers; climate change adaptation costs …

  I do agree that district energy has great potential namely in the fact it it localized and doesn’t have the vast transmission network a provincial utility has. But you illuminated an overlooked point, that the “fuel” needs to be flexible, affordable, possess a close break even point and still result in lower emissions.

  Perhaps on a neighbourhood or individual home basis solar-assisted geothermal would have potential from a technical and financial standpoint. The solar community in Okotoks Alberta could be a viable example. Though they required federal grants, the system has now seen its third year of operationwith the simple idea of storing summer heat from the sun in the ground for extraction by heat pumps in winter. They have almost reached their goal of ground storage reaching 85 degrees C) My only beef is that it supplies heat to a typical inefficient subdivision.

  http://www.dlsc.ca/how.htm

• 14 MB // Jul 12, 2012 at 7:37 pm

  Below is part of the abstract from a research paper on the solar community. The report can be found under the Publications link in the web page included in #13.

  The Drake Landing Solar Community in Okotoks, Alberta, Canada utilizes a solar thermal system with borehole seasonal storage to supply space heating to 52 detached energy-efficient homes through a district
  heating network. [...]

  Several systems of similar size and configuration have been constructed in Europe, however, this is the first system of this type designed to supply more than 90% of the space heating requirements with solar energy and the first operating in such a cold climate (5200 degree C-days).

  Solar heat captured in 2293 m2 (gross area) of flat-plate collectors, mounted on the roofs of detached garages, is stored in soil underground and later is extracted and distributed through a district system to each home in the subdivision, when needed for space heating.

  Independent solar domestic hot water systems installed on every house are designed to supply more than 50% of the water heating load.

  Annual greenhouse gas emission reductions from energy efficiency improvements and solar energy supply exceed 5 tonnes for each house.

  The seasonal storage utilizes approximately 34,000 m3 of earth and a grid of 144 boreholes with single utube heat exchangers. The borehole storage system is configured to maintain the centre of the field at the highest temperature and the outer edges at the lowest temperature to minimize losses and maximize delivery
  temperature. A short-term thermal storage consisting of 240 m3 of water is used to interconnect the collection, distribution and seasonal heat storage subsystems.

  The system has undergone detailed monitoring since it was brought into service in July 2007 to characterize its performance and to improve the TRNSYS model employed in the system design. In its fourth year of operation the solar fraction was 86%, indicating that the system should achieve the design target of more than 90% in year five. This paper describes the system and its operation, presents measured system and subsystem performance over the first four years of monitored operation and compares those results against the TRNSYS predicted performance for the same period.

• 15 MB // Jul 12, 2012 at 7:43 pm

  Here is part of the conclusions section in the above report:

  Monitored performance over four years of operation has proven that high solar fraction systems of this type are technically feasible in a cold Canadian location with 5200 heating degree-days and a design temperature
  of -31 C.

  The combination of ongoing monitoring and detailed simulation results have been extremely important in identifying aspects of performance that differed from design expectations, understanding the importance of various parameters and the reasons and permitting corrective actions. This is viewed as particularly valuable for system designs where there is limited field experience.

  The success of the Drake Landing Solar Community project has led to the possibility of implementing a similar but much larger system, serving twenty times the number of living units.

  The feasibility study for this second project is underway.

  Vancouver may have dark winters, but the summer and two shoulder seasons may well prove that enough solar energy is available for this type of district (or individual dwelling) heating system.

• 16 Chris Porter // Jul 13, 2012 at 9:56 am

  Here are some interesting tidbits I learned from an engineer at the NEU:
  - the large pipe they recover heat from includes all of the sewage coming from Yaletown. So it’s not a contained system, in the sense that the area’s sewage alone is not enough to provide heat to the area.
  - they get a rush of warm water first thing in the morning, when (he assumed) toilets are flushed. Toilets use cold water, but overnight the water warms to room temperature, warm enough to extract heat from.
  - the NEU provides heat and hot water for all of the Olympic Village, plus the new condos going up on 1st, and Science World, which switched from natural gas sometime last year.
  - NEU’s goal is to provide 70% of the heating needs of the area from heat recovery (the other 30% coming from natural gas), but so far in 2012 they’re operating well above their goal.

• 17 Guest // Jul 13, 2012 at 4:57 pm

  I would expect the morning rush to be hot showers.

  The NEU territory will also be extended to the Finning lands.

  Side Note (in case you aren’t aware):
  Central Heating – The downtown energy utility located next to BC Place that has steam pipes downtown for all the big buildings (Pacific Centre, Hotel Vancouver, etc. etc.) also provides steam for all of the Concord Lands condos.

• 18 West End Gal // Jul 14, 2012 at 4:37 pm

  And we have a first on this blog.
  Aldyen Donnelly #1 “enjoyed” the story about “city feces”… Terrific!

• 19 Bill // Jul 15, 2012 at 4:39 pm

  @MB #13 14 15

  Still flogging alternative energy, MB? Still believe in Peak Oil? Well, your friend George Monbiot has thrown in the towel and conceded we are unlikely to hit peak oil for a very long time. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/02/peak-oil-we-we-wrong

  So what argument do you have left to justify wasting public money on subsidising alternative energy?

• 20 Roger Kemble // Jul 16, 2012 at 9:31 am

  All this chatter about alternative energy gadgetry is absurd. It is a distraction from our unsustainable profligate life style.

  False Creek Village, alias Olympic Village, is a magnificent conglomeration of building and public spaces to be emulated throughout the city. But when it comes to energy efficiency (glass wall to wall, glass ceiling to ceiling) it is a sick joke.

  Raw resources, metals, etc. are extracted the same for any gadgetry: manufacturing and re-tooling is like starting from scratch. Long distance hauling (all this stuff is made in China) discounts any savings in gigawatt hours, BTU’s or joules.

  Catch phrases, green, sustainable, LEED are excuses for business as usual. Gullible people and politicians find comfort in such devious rubbish: there’s money to be made off gullible!

  Threats of non-existent AGW or peak oil pales in comparison current system of fractional reserve banking. The LIBOR revelations have yet to play out and when they do don’t expect anyone to do jail time but do expect happy times to be somewhat constrained: yes, even in paradise!

  But please enjoy yourselves. Keep on chattering and gossiping: keep on driving. It relieves you of the responsibility to change your profligate habits: it may even help.

  In the meantime, if you really want to save the world, look to your innocuous daily habits: there lots of room for movement there . . .

• 21 Mira // Jul 17, 2012 at 12:25 pm

  Roger #20,
  Well said!
  But we so many Sustainability/ Biodiversity/ Green Chiefs and not enough Indians/ Chinese… oh, wait! That’s where everything ids produced our days! We only chat and play here in North America!

• 22 MB // Jul 17, 2012 at 3:01 pm

  @ Bill 21,

  I’m shocked that you imply you voluntarily read Monbiot’s columns. I suspect it was instead forwarded to you by another pro-’there ain’t no limit’ fossil fuel consumption, climate change contrarian.

  I believe Monbiot jumped to a conclusion without doing enough research, and that is surprising because his research is usually very good.

  Industry geotechnical professionals warn that the boost in shale oil + gas [i.e. the latest supply sources] is temporary because the rock formations yield a burst, then a rapid decline.

  Maugeri’s [whose report Monbiot bases his comments on] projections are very sensitive to the assumed rate of decline of production from currently producing fields – and his assumptions appear inconsistent with the available evidence.

  - Euan Mearns, as posted on The Oil Drum last week under the title, Response to Leonardo Maugeri’s Decline Rate Assumptions in “Oil: The Next Revolution”

  http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9327

  No one, except the most deliberately ignorant Big Oil PR flack, disagrees that there is an insidious decline in the largest and cheapest oil supply ever — the conventional supergiant oil fields.

  The lower prices of late? The evidence is that they are very temporary.

• 23 MB // Jul 17, 2012 at 3:04 pm

  @ Bill 21

  So what argument do you have left to justify wasting public money on subsidising alternative energy?

  So, what argument do you have left to justify wasting billions in public money on the highly profitable oil industry?

• 24 MB // Jul 17, 2012 at 3:20 pm

  @ Roger 20, I agree with you when it comes to the simpler solutions to conserving energy in buildings. Better insultation is perhaps one of the best ways to accomplish this and realize a return in savings.

  However, it’s the source of energy that becomes problematic over the life of a building. Can anyone tell us what the price of natural gas will be in 2050 when structures built today reach their “adolescent” stage?

  Even with the gas glut and lower prices we’re about to experience as BC, Australia, the US and a number of other countries frack nearly their entire land bases to recover what little dispersed fossil fuels they can from tight rock formations, 2050 is way too far outside today’s fossil fuel window to predict anything but scarcity.

  Therein, the questions you posed about technophile alternative solutions may just as well apply to the natural gas furnaces and boilers of today’s world when drawn out over the 50-100-year life of buildings.

  In my opinion, solar thermal-assisted geothermal storage has great potential in these terms because it’s now tested successfully, and you’ll always count on the fuel price being free and readily available in the warmest months no matter what the price, availability and equipment complexity situation is with other sources.

• 25 West End Gal // Jul 17, 2012 at 4:31 pm

  LMAO!
  Another politician at the horizon.
  MB #24
  “Can anyone tell us what the price of natural gas will be in 2050 when structures built today reach their “adolescent” stage?”
  It’s not what you do now, right? It’s what will happen in 40 years when none of us will be around… or at least will not be that eager to spend so much time on the Internet…

• 26 Bill // Jul 18, 2012 at 9:28 am

  @MB #22

  “I believe Monbiot jumped to a conclusion without doing enough research, and that is surprising because his research is usually very good.”

  It is quite telling that when apostates recant the Progressive orthodoxy, they haven’t done their research (Monbiot – who also changed his mind on nuclear power) or senile (father of Gaia James Lovelock) yet Progressives are quite content to accept questionable science like Mann’s hockey stick graph because it fits their narrative.

  No Peak Oil. No AGW. No more public money to prop up the Solar and Wind energy equipment manufacturers and producers. Time to sell your Green investments, MB, while you can still recoup some of your investment.

• 27 Bill // Jul 18, 2012 at 11:44 am

  @MB #23

  “So, what argument do you have left to justify wasting billions in public money on the highly profitable oil industry?”

  You are comparing apples to oranges. Not only does alternative energy get subsidies to cover capital costs, they are also guaranteed revenue at prices significantly above other sources which doesn’t leave too much risk to the producer. This would be like the government guaranteeing oil companies that they would receive at least $140/bbl and then force those prices on consumers through the retail market.

  The oil industry does benefit from some tax preferences which reflects the risk of finding and extracting fossil fuels. If the well is developed based on $100 per bbl and the price falls to $90 per barrel the loss is born by the oil company.

• 28 MB // Jul 18, 2012 at 12:55 pm

  @ Bill

  … apostates … Progressive othodoxy …

  Not with you there. Kinda into religious nutbar territory.

  Progressives are quite content to accept questionable science like Mann’s hockey stick graph because it fits their narrative.

  Neither you or I are qualified to confirm the complex issue of climate science. Let’s leave that up to real climate scientists.

  I wonder, though, at your own narrative, which seems cut & pasted from the climate contrarian handbook developed by vested industry PR hacks about a decade ago.

  Mann wrote a book about his experience with the climate change denial machine, and documented most of the denialist attacks against him, his work and that of his colleagues. He reiterated the glaring flaws in the contrarian narrative, and cited the published rebuttals of denialist psuedoscientists by real scientists, and exposed their links to the fossil fuel industry.

  The denial machine doesn’t have a scientific leg to stand on, that is why it, and the legions of libertarian followers like you, resort to politics and personal attacks. (You’re more of the former).

  The hockey stick was reproduced over a dozen times by independent climate scientists in independent studies, and was confirmed as many times in published, peer reviewed reports in top science journals.

  Deniers utterly failed to publish any of their disinformation in reputable peer reviewed journals and were forced to stick to industry-linked right wing media mouthpieces and their own blogs.

  Mann was backed by over 500 scientists who rose to defend him against said attacks, notably by US Republican politicians, which continue today in blog comments such as yours.

  So, guess who I’m gonna believe, a real climate scientist who has documented both his work and his personal experiences in his published reports and now in a book, or a guy named “Bill” in this thread.

  A mighty good read:

  The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, Dispatches from the Front Lines, Michael E. Mann, 2012, Columbia University Press

  Review from Amazon:

  The ongoing assault on climate science in the United States has never been more aggressive, more blatant, or more widely publicized than in the case of the Hockey Stick graph — a clear and compelling visual presentation of scientific data, put together by MichaelE. Mann and his colleagues, demonstrating that global temperatures have risen in conjunction with the increase in industrialization and the use of fossil fuels. Here was an easy-to-understand graph that, in a glance, posed a threat to major corporate energy interests and those who do their political bidding. The stakes were simply too high to ignore the Hockey Stick — and so began a relentless attack on a body of science and on the investigators whose work formed its scientific basis. The Hockey Stick achieved prominence in a 2001 UN report on climate change and quickly became a central icon in the “climate wars.” The real issue has never been the graph’s data but rather its implied threat to those who oppose governmental regulation and other restraints to protect the environment and planet. Mann, lead author of the original paper in which the Hockey Stick first appeared, shares the story of the science and politics behind this controversy. He reveals key figures in the oil and energy industries and the media frontgroups who do their bidding in sometimes slick, sometimes bare-knuckled ways. Mann concludes with the real story of the 2009 “Climategate” scandal, in which climate scientists’ emails were hacked. This is essential reading for all who care about our planet’s health andour own well-being.

• 29 MB // Jul 18, 2012 at 1:01 pm

  I fully expect gman to arrive and play tag team with you any moment and regurgitate the doubting Thomas schtick first developed by PR outfits hired by tobacco giants Phillip Morris et al a generation ago.

  How boring.

• 30 Roger Kemble // Jul 19, 2012 at 6:46 am

  “I wonder, though, at your own narrative, which seems cut & pasted from the climate contrarian handbook developed by vested industry PR hacks about a decade ago. ”

  Aw come on MB @ #28 not your accusatory fandango again! Are you going to tell me I’m a paid industry hack?

  I’ll say this, I’m retired and have the interest and time to check out all the sources and believe me the pro-AGW tykes are loosing ground rapidly: indeed if not, by now, crowded off the podium. You just haven’t noticed.

  Earth warms and earth cools: ice cores tell us far more catastrophically than now even with our belching industries and your car.

  When I first visited Mexico City the air was a virtual cesspool: that was 1966 yet not a word about global warming. Subsequent visits showed incremental improvements: at least they knew the problem . . .
  http://www.calidadaire.df.gob.mx/calidadaire/index.php
  . . . and tried to fix it: Noreste @ 54.

  @54! Wow that’s a change from when I lived there 1997/8: it often registered over 200 (schools were closed).

  So if you keep bleating on about AGW and carbon credits we’ll get nowhere. Paying to pollute just give us permission to pollute!

  Yes, clean up our air! Yes, clean up our water! Stop talking. Do it! Ask DF how.

• 31 Roger Kemble // Jul 19, 2012 at 7:41 am

  PS Calidad del aire @ 54: that was 0500 hrs July 19 and of course it changes . . . throughout the day.

• 32 gman // Jul 19, 2012 at 10:13 am

  MB @29, it looks like even your phony consensus was manufactured according to a just released study reported on by Forbes.You can link to the EOS paper and the Forbes article from this link….. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/#more-6766 And MB I can assure you that Bill doesn’t need any help debating some one as gullible and closed minded as you.But you did make me laugh trying to defend the most discredited piece of pathetic paleo poop ever printed we were rolling on the floor when your defense was to read the book written by mann who created the joke hokeyschtick in the first place,that was rich.By the way MB I see Penn State is in the news for allowing a child molester to have free reign of their university because they were worried about losing the huge amount of funding he brought in.That would be the same group that cleared Mann in the great climategate whitewash,are you starting to get it now MB?

• 33 Bill // Jul 19, 2012 at 2:11 pm

  @MB #28

  MB, you come across like a zealot by portraying St Michael as a courageous martyr who is being persecuted by the dark forces doing the bidding of Big Oil which is curious since even those who tend to be pro-AGW recognize the problems with the Hockey Stick methodology.

  Of course, discrediting the Hockey Stick does not, in itself, discredit AGW but it would make Mann appear like the doctor who, after carefully poring over a chest x ray, proclaims that the patient has a brain tumor which subsequently proves to be correct.

  But discrediting the Hockey Stick would discredit the IPCC report (personally, I think the mere involvement of the UN would discredit any undertaking) since they chose to feature the Hockey Stick because it dramatically illustrated the position they were advocating. Discrediting the IPCC would of course be a serious blow to the AGW cause since it has been the bible in attempting to convert the masses to the AGW religion.

• 34 MB // Jul 19, 2012 at 2:36 pm

  @ Roger 30

  Aw come on MB @ #28 not your accusatory fandango again! Are you going to tell me I’m a paid industry hack?

  Absolutely not, Roger. I didn’t mention your name, did I? On the contrary, I now believe you hold your opinion honestly and independently, and a little curmudgeonly. Judging from your previous comments on world finances, I wouldn’t ever think you’re a shill for any powerful vested corporate interest or agenda for the political right.

  But I would question you moving science into politics, and the sources of your information, which appear to be the same as the junketeers peddaling well-discredited psuedoscience.

  I’ll say it again: climate change deniers don’t have a climate science leg to stand on. Their work has now garnered so much official published rebuttal that science is no longer a meaningful tool to them. That’s why they became political and enamoured with the lucrative effects of negative messaging and fake science that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

  In my view the best place to get information on climate science is from climate scientists. There are several resources out there that have real scientists addressing the main issues, as well as now the myths perpetrated by well-organized, well-financed denial outfits and posers with glasses and white coats.

  Real Climate . org is a very good one. Just punch in your topic or question into the search box and you’ll get linked to articles on the climate topic of your choice.

  Deep Climate . org has a wealth of Canadian-based information, and the lead writer consults widely with real scientists on issues. He also delves into the climate denial phenomenon. This site also has a handy search box.

  BC’s pre-eminent climate scientist, Andrew Weaver, I’m sure would be happy to answer your honest questions about ice cores, etc. He can be reached at the UVic Climate Modeling Research Group at this email address:

  wlewis@uvic.ca

  Why not pose your questions to the Mann himself? He’s in the Penn State University Meterological division of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. Here’s his email address:

  mann@psu.edu

  Would you be willing to share the conversations you have with the above individuals and organizations?

• 35 MB // Jul 19, 2012 at 3:12 pm

  While awaiting moderation on my response to Roger (had more than one link contained in it), I’ll mention that gman (32) is all over the map as usual.

  If you’re relying on Fabula readers to forget, gman, I thing you underestimate them. TV weather reciter Anthony Watts and his amatuerish ‘watts up with that’ blog was extensively discredited in an earlier post, as attibuted to Source Watch.

  You know, Mann barely mentioned Watts in his book, just enough to cite his fossil fuel funding sources, to indicate a couple of his shortcomings on basic factual science, and to reiterate how he had to be coached by fellow paid denier, Stephen McIntyre, who in turn drew many comments from Mann. If there is a measure of the status of a denier, perhaps it’s how seriously a respected scientist like Mann takes him or her. Watts was a mosquito bite.

  But McIntyre’s more complex arguments and manufactured citiques on the hockey stick were also dismantled by Mann based on the flawed science behind them. Several other climate researchers published their devastating rebuttals of McIntyre’s work.

  One more time, climate change deniers don’t have a scientific leg to stand on.

  The legacy of the manufactured “climategate” scandal [1] may in fact be the opposite of what climate change deniers had hoped. While the campaign did have the immediate impact of casting doubt over climate science, it also marked a critical juncture, and indeed potentially a turning point, in the climate change debate. Perhaps “climategate” was the moment when the climate change denial movement conceded the legitimate debate, choosing instead to double down on smear and disinformation, a tacit acceptance that an honest science-based case for denying the reality of human-caused climate change and the threat it presents could no longer be made. Maybe it was the moment when the seamy underbelly of the climate change denial movement became exposed for all to see. Some of the once stealth funding by Koch Industries and other [financiers] of climate change denial was suddenly out in the open, thanks to the renewed scrutiny that climate change denial was now receiving.

  M. E. Mann, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”, 2012.

  [1] Arising from the the 2009 illegal hacking and theft of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in the UK, and the dissemination of highly selective out-of-context quotations and fabricated conclusions based on the emails for denialist propaganda purposes. Several subsequent and widely-published official investigations have exonerated the CRU, its scientists and other climate researchers called into faux disrepute by the denial community.

• 36 MB // Jul 19, 2012 at 3:24 pm

  Bill, are you into science fiction or are you religious, or are you merely a libertarian individualist? My vote is on the latter.

  Your polemic on Mann sure ain’t based on genuine science, as the hockey stick appeared in many, many more publications than the IPCC report #3. It was replicated a dozen times independently by other scientists, and confirmed in the best science journals.

  An attempt to monkey with the hockey stick base data by well known paid white-coat-for-hire McIntyre was caught out and refuted point by point in several reputable publications. It must be profoundly disappointing that the denier community just can’t gerrymander the science enough to counter the fact that the last half century was the warmest in 1,000 years.

  To do so would be to refute 100,000,000 thermometers.

• 37 gman // Jul 19, 2012 at 3:48 pm

  So now you block my comments,you block a link to the IAC report,do you even know what the IAC is ?This just shows how weak MB and I guess your argument is.You can carry on living in your bubble if you like but the rest of the world isnt buying it anymore.

• 38 MB // Jul 19, 2012 at 3:54 pm

  @ gman, I have not blocked any comments.

• 39 MB // Jul 19, 2012 at 3:55 pm

  A fundamental principle of scientific inquiry is the honest exchange of ideas, the communication of caveats and uncertainty. Without a science-literate and politically aware populace, there can be no match against well-funded, well-organized groups that place little value on honestly and integrity, that cleverly masquerade denialism as skepticism, and that are more than willing to state their own positions in the most absolute of terms while exploiting and indeed misrepresenting the frank admissions of uncertainty by those they view as their opponents.

  M.E. Mann, 2012.

• 40 MB // Jul 19, 2012 at 4:04 pm

  Climate scientists are on the defensive, knocked off balance by a re-energized community of global warming deniers who, by dominating the media agenda, are sowing doubts about the fundamental science. Most researchers find themselves completely out of their league in this kind of battle because it’s only superficially about the science. The real goal is to stoke the angry fires of talk radio, cable news, the blogoshere and the like, all of which feed off of contrarian story lines and seldom take the time to assess facts and weigh evidence. Civility, honesty, fact and perspective are irrelevant.

  -editorial in the science journal Nature, March 2010, in the wake of the CRU email theft

• 41 Bill // Jul 19, 2012 at 5:15 pm

  @MB#39

  “A fundamental principle of scientific inquiry is the honest exchange of ideas, ” – Hard to square with Climategate with its “hide the decline” and the clear obstruction of any scrutiny of their work.

  ” indeed misrepresenting the frank admissions of uncertainty by those they view as their opponents” – Hard to square with “the science is settled”. In fact skeptics do not claim certainty but have the view that the “uncertainties” that Mann alludes to means there is not a conclusive case for AGW that would justify the devasting impact on our economy that immediately reducing greenhouse gas emissions would require.

• 42 gman // Jul 19, 2012 at 5:21 pm

  MB I assume your attack on Steve McIntyre are in referance to Gergis et al 2012.Well heres an email sent to Steve by Karoly a co author to Steve at climate audit.

  ” Dear Stephen,

  I am contacting you on behalf of all the authors of the Gergis et al (2012) study ‘Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’

  An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results. While the paper states that “both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period”, we discovered on Tuesday 5 June that the records used in the final analysis were not detrended for proxy selection, making this statement incorrect. Although this is an unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have implications for the results reported in the study. The journal has been contacted and the publication of the study has been put on hold.

  This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked.

  We would be grateful if you would post the notice below on your ClimateAudit web site.

  We would like to thank you and the participants at the ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which also identified this data processing issue.

  Thanks, David Karoly

  Print publication of scientific study put on hold

  An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.

  We are currently reviewing the data and results.”

  But MB you keep on cut and pasting excerpts from poor Mikey whining that their picking on him,its very entertaining.

• 43 Glissando Remmy // Jul 19, 2012 at 5:29 pm

  Thought of The Day

  “Hey, FYI, we are 10,000 years inside the Holocene Interglacial period!”

  gman & Roger,

  Well said guys!

  The Global Warming Alarmists aka the Progressive New Age Con Men of Al Gore & Comp. are sweating in the re-branding department, as their racket is in dire need of a new name.

  Try this for a change: “Meteorite Inductive Effect” almost certain if we do not change the Earth’s axis by 0.035 degrees, due to over population in North America and Europe.
  Just sayin’…

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 44 gman // Jul 19, 2012 at 5:47 pm

  MB you may be interested in McIntyres response to Karola here http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/10/more-on-screening-in-gergis-et-al-2012/
  Steve McIntyre always a gentleman unlike Mikey Mann the propagandist.Read it you just might learn something but I wont hold my breath.

• 45 MB // Jul 20, 2012 at 9:10 am

  @ Bill 41

  … the devasting impact on our economy that immediately reducing greenhouse gas emissions would require.

  Hard to square with Climategate with its “hide the decline” and the clear obstruction of any scrutiny of their work.

  Yes, adding more city buses to our streets and continuing to provide grants for high-efficiency furnaces will “devastate the economy.”

  These comments are direct quotes from the widely distributed talking point cards provided in the back cover folder in the Global Warming Denial Handbook, published by the Koch brothers and ExxonMobile.

  Mann published the entire text from the “hide the decline” email exchange in his book to provide the full context, and illuminated the tactic of isolating singular phrases and words to change the meaning altogether. It’s all there for public scrutiny.

  Moreover, most if not all all the peer reviewed published work by climate scientists is in the public realm, and therein accessible. Some reports and journals have a pay wall with a reasonable fee to cover their costs, but that’s hardly “obstructing” their work. These are, after all, individuals, organizations and journals who are not widely financed by the billion-dollar-per-month-in-profits fossil fuel industry, like the organized denial community.

  Give us something original, Bill, not just more ad hominem, decade-old rehashed and discredited PR tripe … oh, sorry, “facts.”

• 46 MB // Jul 20, 2012 at 9:39 am

  @ gman 42 + 44

  But MB you keep on cut and pasting excerpts from poor Mikey whining that their [sic] picking on him,its very entertaining.

  Steve McIntyre always a gentleman unlike Mikey Mann the propagandist.Read it you just might learn something but I wont hold my breath.

  Glad you find this exhange entertaining. I find denier’s regurgitations, name-calling and mockery rather tiresome.

  And you ‘accusing’ me of cutting and pasting is like the pot and the kettle …..

  So McIntyre is a “gentleman” and Mann is a “popagandist”. Have you met them? I haven’t, and can only judge by the volume of work out there.

  Mann, in his book and in several published rebuttals of McIntyre and the work of other scientists-for-hire and their minions, was unreservedly polite and professional, though his science-based and factual analysis of McIntyre’s attempts to manufacture alternative science to that already tested in the mainstream science community was devastating.

  Mann never got personal, and to my knowledge McIntyre didn’t either, a credit to both of them. However, McIntyre’s disinformation was taken seriously by many hoodwinked independent media outlets as well as being broadcast extensively by the Fox network and other media in the pocket of powerful vested interests. That is, until the genuine science community got fed up and fought back with real science by real scientists. The US National Academy of Science was one of many major organizations that put McIntyre et al and US politicians on a climate scientist witchhunt in their place.

  I keep saying it … climate change denial objectives will never win the day based on the science. This is why it has moved into the political realm.

  I’ll make you a deal, gman. I’ll give McIntyre an honest read and a review if you give Mann’s book an honest read and review. It’s available on Amazon.

  Until then, adieu.

• 47 MB // Jul 20, 2012 at 9:46 am

  Bill, you keep taking this topic into the political realm, calling climate science and climate scientist’s objectives part of a “progressive” agenda.

  FYI, James Hansen, one of the world’s pre-eminent climate scientists and one of the first to publish his research on climate change, is a card carrying Republican.

  I wonder how he felt when particular carbon-steeped Republican senators targeted him as part of their inquisition on climate scientists?

• 48 MB // Jul 20, 2012 at 9:49 am

  @ Gliss 43

  The Global Warming Alarmists aka the Progressive New Age Con Men of Al Gore & Comp. are sweating in the re-branding department, as their racket is in dire need of a new name.

  Entertaining as always, Glissando.

  Your racket, however, needs to be restrung.

• 49 MB // Jul 20, 2012 at 9:52 am

  Now, back to my vacation.

• 50 gman // Jul 20, 2012 at 11:54 am

  MB you keep waving your arms about evil oil funding but you show no evidence.Greenpeace spent a lot of time and effort to prove this and all they came up with was 23million from Exxon over a 10yr. period or about 2million a year and that ended a long time ago.You seem to think the realists are some how corrupted by this but you fail to see that alarmists have had access to 79 billion as of 2009 and it will turn to trillions if its not stopped.If you want to make this about money the numbers would clearly show corruption is much more likely to be on the alarmists side. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
  The cartoon at the beginning of the link really says it all.

• 51 Glissando Remmy // Jul 20, 2012 at 11:52 pm

  Thought of The Night

  “I have no racket, and I also have nothing to lose. On the other hand the Global Alarmists have. Both money and power … to lose.”

  MB #48

  “Your racket, however, needs to be restrung.”
  Geez, I know by now that you people don’t like dissenters. There is a consensus, and that’s that.
  Not so fast though.
  Distil your tantrum, your shtick doesn’t work with me, chance for any of the con artists disguised as environmentalists, to change my mind… zero!
  Communism is dead, what to do, what to do!?
  Oh my, another source of government control, a global government, that is, would be through imposed rationing of the day to day energy consumption, for every country, rich or poor.
  This is your only pony show, and his name is KYOTO, and the big carrot is CO2… the convenient villain.
  The only man made “global warming” agent they can pick on. How pathetic and how misleading when there is no mentioning for any of the other variables… fluctuating solar intensity, water vapor, ocean currents, other natural forces like, ahem , volcanoes…

  I have one for you too.

  “Everyone is an expert when they have not a clue what the hell they are talking about!”
  That would be you, MB.

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 52 Mira // Jul 21, 2012 at 10:51 am

  Ha, ha, Gliss is back… as Pythagoras!

  Aw, touche MB!
  Gliss and gman are showing MB and his GW Alarmists that the Earth is flat!

  You got a scolding, for good measure, MB as you are spreading fake science data & rumors that would make future generations of humans to shake their heads in shame.
  Good advice: stay on vacation, don’t embarrass yourself.
  Awww…

• 53 Mira // Jul 21, 2012 at 10:53 am

  Ha, ha #Mira 52

  “Gliss and gman are showing MB and his GW Alarmists that the Earth is… NOT flat!”
  Missed a word in there. Essential one!

• 54 gman // Jul 21, 2012 at 11:47 am

  Rather than reading Mikey Manns drivel alarmists should read this and then tell us how they sleep at night. http://www.eco-imperialism.com/buy-the-book/

Leave a Comment