Carbon bubble or green babble?

Posted: June 11, 2018 by oldbrew in alarmism, Critique, Energy, modelling, propaganda

North Sea oil platform [image credit:]

The climate propaganda/scare machine never stops, but somewhere out there is another thing called reality, which may contradict it.

Models Of Stranded Fossil Fuel Assets Cannot Be Trusted

The GWPF is today publishing a brief comment on the recent and much publicised paper in Nature Climate Change by J.-F. Mercure et al.

Dr Mercure and his colleagues offer modelled outputs to suggest that fossil fuel demand will fall sharply on the basis of current policies, and with additional policies arising from the Paris Agreement commitments they predict that the value of fossil fuel assets will collapse by 2035.

In their comment, Professor Gordon Hughes and Dr John Constable point out that for several reasons these are implausibly strong claims, that should not have passed the peer review process.

Professor Hughes and Dr Constable write:

This paper appears to be yet another exercise in producing speculative numbers that fit a particular set of preconceptions without any willingness to make a meaningful commitment to the predictions. Journalists, such as those who gave so many column inches to this paper, should be very careful in reporting modelling exercises even from prestigious academic sources, particularly when they are at complete variance with the behaviour of investors who are both informed and strongly motivated to reflect accurately on the probable future of that market.

Source here.

Carbon Bubble or Green Babble? Models Of Stranded Fossil Fuel Assets Cannot Be Trusted (pdf)

  1. DB says:

    As the authors note in the Supplementary information:
    “Since it is a simulation model, and because the economic model is demand-led based on Post- Keynesian theory, E3ME-FTT-GENIE produces results that contrast with those from other detailed sectoral IAMs [integrated assessment models] applied to climate change issues.”

    We’ll know soon enough about their modeling efforts. They are predicting a hit to Canadian GDP of 4-5% by 2020 (relative to 2015) a negative impact of 10% by 2025 and over -20% in the early ’30s.

    Looking at Suppl. Figure 2 their Technology Diffusion Trajectory (assuming the 2°C limit isn’t met) shows no difference in global coal demand from the IEA models. They do see less use of fossil fuel consumption for road transportation beginning in 2030. Natural gas for power generation levels off about 2030. Carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase in line with the IEA models for the next 30 years (the duration of the authors modeling).

  2. Phoenix44 says:

    Modelling your assumptions can be interesting, but it cannot possibly prove anything.

    Make different assumptions and the results change.

    So far, so what?

    I’m not terribly surprised that using fewer and fewer fossil fuels results in lower fossil fuel usage.

  3. Bob Greene says:

    Great news, when I’m 98 gas will be really cheap.

  4. stpaulchuck says:

    another bit of wishcasting dressed up as science *spit*

    In point of fact only a couple climate models are even close to the actual empirical data and those are being ignored or denigrated because they follow real science and follow actual results all of which need no trillion dollar ‘research’ budgets nor any multi trillion dollar robbery to pour down third world rat holes in the idiotic name of ‘Climate Justice’ (while skimming off billions into the secret bank accounts of the UN criminals).

  5. oldbrew says:

    Where are the reliable competitively priced alternatives to so-called fossil fuels?

    Why Britain can never rely on wind power
    Andrew Montford

    For the last ten days or more the UK has been becalmed. In theory, our windmill fleet should be able to generate 20 gigawatts of power, more than 50 percent of peak demand at this time of year, but with barely a puff of wind this month, it has been generating next to nothing.

  6. Bitter@twisted says:

    This green puff-piece never passed peer-review.
    Now “pal-review” is something else….

  7. Economics will determine the economics of owning energy reserves. Warming believers could be right about some things but their hopes about where our energy comes from will not overcome financial considerations.
    Russia, China, India, Brazil and America just don’t care about CO2. If the EU, Britain, Canada and Australia hate carbon the money question will cause the others to use more.

  8. oldbrew says:

    Brian Madderson, chairman of the Petrol Retailers Association, said … that he could only see petrol prices going up as volumes of sales fall due to the take-up of hybrid and electric cars as retailers try to maintain margins.

    And electricity prices will be going up due to higher demand and the ever-increasing cost of subsidies to renewables, nuclear, biomass etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s