Trump’s science advisor, realism in energy policies

Mr. Trump has a foul mouth but in terms of climate and energy policies, he is a realist, not alarmist. Now the world should begin to realize that climate change is mainly nature-made, not man-made, and that no matter what governments do to “fight climate change” via renewables cronyism, global cooling-warming cycle will still happen.

Below are some fb updates from world famous climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH last January 15, 2017:

“good news, looks like my friend Will Happer is one step closer to being Trump’s Science Advisor.”

“I’ve helped Will come up to speed on climate issues over the years…

Will is familiar with government service and the press, he will play by the rules. Definitely not a loose cannon.”

“It now looks like my co-conspirator (and boss) John Christy is being floated to head NOAA. I can’t see any other reason for his name to be mentioned in this new article by James Delingpole (James will probably neither confirm nor deny his intention– wink wink nudge nudge). John has said it’s the only position he’d consider taking, and I recommended him for it to two Trump transition team members. The downside is we really need him here in Huntsville…but he’d do a great job as NOAA Administrator.”…/stop-worrying-about-trump…/

“… John “knows” NOAA, their mission, and is an expert on thermometer measurements. He’s a good scientist AND manager. I’d like to see him get to the bottom of the thermometer adjustment mess…it won’t be easy. He’s been working with Anthony Watts and others on what I believe to be the best analysis of U.S. temperature data. I’d LOVE to see that work get legs….

again, we are just reading between the lines here. He has not yet been offered the position. John alerted me to the new article, and I believe it’s the second “trial balloon” that has been floated with his name.”


There were 2 other GOP candidates who were skeptic of “man-made” CC, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. But I doubt if pushed to the wall, they will challenge the climate establishment heads on. Seems that only Trump has the ball to take the huge climate alarmism establishment.

Two comments from two American friends:

Roy W. Spencer I agree. No one else would dare challenge the orthodoxy. Too many powerful people invested in green schemes.

Todd Foster “John Christy is being floated to head NOAA…” Will I ever get tired of such win. And that’s Trump’s biggest asset. His complete inability to be cowed by a media that fewer and fewer even trust. Yes, he’ll take a beating from the howling monkeys of the press but he’ll just keep pushing on, to higher approval ratings.

Wow, Dr. Spencer commented on my wall, haha, was so happy. I have heard him first in 2009 in NYC, 2nd ICCC by the Heartland Institute. Since I was not so familiar with the highly technical aspects of climate science that time, was struggling with a very steep learning curve right there at the conference, I did not fully comprehend his talk and discussion about positive vs. negative cloud feedbacks to more CO2 added to the atmosphere, related topics. That conference was a start for me to read more about the technical aspects of climate science. I was visiting his blog, WUWT, others more regularly.

royWhen I attended the 4th ICCC in Chicago, still sponsored by Heartland, I was more familiar with the basic concepts. Solar irradiance, GCRs, PDO, AMO, cloud feedback, UHI, datasets from UAH, RSS, and so on. When I saw Dr. Spencer during a coffee break, I asked for a selfie with him, he gladly obliged. I was awed, so happy to stand beside this huge, giant mind in climate science 🙂

“In my opinion, we are an over-regulated society. Over-regulation not only destroys prosperity and jobs, it ends up killing people. And political pressures in government to perform scientific research that favors biased policy outcomes is part of the problem.

Science is being misused, prostituted if you wish.

Yes, we need regulations to help keep our air, water, and food reasonably clean. But government agencies must be required to take into account the costs and risks their regulations impose upon society.” — Roy W. Spencer…/science-under-president…/

Expensive electricity, FIT and Europe’s renewables

* Originally posted on October 09, 2014.

I am engaged in a civil debate in a fb group, Amend the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA). Many members there are anti-EPIRA, anti-privatization, anti-fossil fuels, and highly worshiping renewables like wind, solar and biomass.

As I posted several times on this subject, I have nothing against the renewables as I support all forms of energy sources. What I do not support is expensive electricity, high energy taxes and high subsidies to renewables just to make them “viable”.

The experience of some European economies like UK and Germany in their hard push to depend more  on renewables and move away from  fossil  fuels has not been exactly good and favorable.

For instance, see this storyfrom Forbes.

“You can’t build more PV solar than the rest of the grid can ramp up/down to accept. The necessary grid storage for large-scale solar power is a “maybe someday” technology, not something viable today. Calls for 50% of power to come from solar in our lifetimes are a fantasy, and we need to be realistic about that.

You can’t force utilities to buy unneeded power just because it’s renewable. The energy and materials to build the excess capacity just goes to waste. That is the opposite of green.”

Renewables like wind and solar are not only expensive (hence, the need for high subsidies to make them “viable”), they are also highly unstable. A 100 MW wind plant can possibly give 50 MW at most on windy hours, and only 5 MW or zero on non-windy hours. Thus, big consumers like industrial parks and dense residential villages need back up power plants from non-renewable sources to prevent brown outs.

See also this report from Hot Air,

It’s no coincidence that Germany has some of the highest rates of renewable generation as well as some of the highest energy prices in the developed world. Their and several other European countries’ ambitions to self-revolutionize their energy sectors turned out to be a recipe for the precise disaster that they were conscientiously looking to avoid — i.e., more coal. This is what happens when you let big-government delusions of “green” grandeur commandeer policy, and the Obama administration seems determined not to learn that universal lesson.”

In the Philippines, the currently expensive electricity (no feed-in-tariff (FIT) yet will become even more expensive with FIT for renewables. Will people justify even more expensive electricity for the PH via FIT?

Some renewables here like geothermal and big hydro have no FIT because they were not covered by RA 9513 or the Renewable Energy (RE) Act of 2008. This RE law gives FIT to wind, solar, biomass and run-of-river (small) hydro.

Some people ask, “What to do about electricity pricing that is the highest (or 2nd  highest) in Asia despite the promise of EPIRA to bring down prices?”

My quick answers are:

  1. Drastically reduce government taxes and fees on energy,
  2. Abolish the royalty (another form of energy tax) on natural gas and geothermal,
  3. Amend RA 9513 and remove FIT and renewable portfolio standards (RPS) provisions. Let renewables flourish even with zero subsidies.
  1. Reduce significantly government bureaucracies and permits for power developers and generators, renewable or not.

Meanwhile, from the IEA, Medium Term Renewable Energy Market Report 2014, Summary. It shows how expensive (a) solar PV, (b) concentrated solar power or CSP, (c) onshore wind, and (d) offshore wind are, compared to (i) new coal and (ii) new gas turbines. Both for 2014 and 2020 projections.


This article by Dr. Roy Spencer, Why Don’t More People Care About Global Warming? (October 1, 2014) is cool.

4“most people understand that fossil fuels have been necessary for the prosperity that we all enjoy (at least those under political systems allowing people to benefit from their labors). Energy which currently is dominated by fossil fuels, and will be for decades to come.

Modern prosperity, as evidenced by increased lifespans, has depended upon access to abundant, low-cost energy — fossil fuels. I think getting an extra 40 years of life in exchange for 1 to 2 deg. of warming is a pretty good deal. Might even be a win-win.”