Skip to content

Change of Fonts?

August 26, 2016

 

 

 

It has been suggested that I change my font to Tahoma. The current font is Trebuchet.

Below is a comparison of the two. I would welcome any views.

 

 

TREBUCHET

According to the Mail:

China has become the biggest oil operator in the North Sea, with a state-owned company said to be in line for £2billion of tax breaks.

China National Offshore Corporation (CNOOC) runs two of the biggest oilfields in the area.

One of its subsidiaries, Nexen, is responsible for extracting around 200,000 barrels a day – more than 10% of the total.

CNOOC was blocked from buying a US oil company over national security concerns a decade ago.

But no concerns appear to have been raised in Britain when the company bought Nexen, a Canadian oil operator with a large stake in North Sea oil, in 2012.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3754249/China-BIGGEST-crude-oil-operator-North-Sea-amid-concerns-growing-influence-Britain.html

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

Leaving aside the security concerns, this story highlights a much more significant issue. 

If we are to believe the likes of Ambrose Evans Pritchard, the Chinese Government has solemnly promised to drastically reduce its consumption of fossil fuels, albeit rather conveniently at some undetermined point in the future. Meanwhile, Mark Carney tells us that fossil fuel reserves will soon be stranded assets.

Yet on the ground the reality is utterly different. Far from pulling back from fossil fuels, China is actively increasing development, not just at home but around the world as well.

According to this International Energy Agency report in November 2014:

Chinese national oil companies (NOCs) are the new big players on the global energy scene. In the last three years, they spent a total of USD 73 billion in upstream investments and now operate in more than 40 countries to control about 7% of worldwide crude oil output, raising alarms in some quarters about supply security and price.

 

TAHOMA

According to the Mail:

China has become the biggest oil operator in the North Sea, with a state-owned company said to be in line for £2billion of tax breaks.

China National Offshore Corporation (CNOOC) runs two of the biggest oilfields in the area.

One of its subsidiaries, Nexen, is responsible for extracting around 200,000 barrels a day – more than 10% of the total.

CNOOC was blocked from buying a US oil company over national security concerns a decade ago.

But no concerns appear to have been raised in Britain when the company bought Nexen, a Canadian oil operator with a large stake in North Sea oil, in 2012.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3754249/China-BIGGEST-crude-oil-operator-North-Sea-amid-concerns-growing-influence-Britain.html

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

Leaving aside the security concerns, this story highlights a much more significant issue. 

If we are to believe the likes of Ambrose Evans Pritchard, the Chinese Government has solemnly promised to drastically reduce its consumption of fossil fuels, albeit rather conveniently at some undetermined point in the future. Meanwhile, Mark Carney tells us that fossil fuel reserves will soon be stranded assets.

Yet on the ground the reality is utterly different. Far from pulling back from fossil fuels, China is actively increasing development, not just at home but around the world as well.

According to this International Energy Agency report in November 2014:

Chinese national oil companies (NOCs) are the new big players on the global energy scene. In the last three years, they spent a total of USD 73 billion in upstream investments and now operate in more than 40 countries to control about 7% of worldwide crude oil output, raising alarms in some quarters about supply security and price.

China’s Global Oil Assets Growing Rapidly

August 26, 2016
tags:

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3754249/China-BIGGEST-crude-oil-operator-North-Sea-amid-concerns-growing-influence-Britain.html

 

According to the Mail:

China has become the biggest oil operator in the North Sea, with a state-owned company said to be in line for £2billion of tax breaks.

China National Offshore Corporation (CNOOC) runs two of the biggest oilfields in the area.

One of its subsidiaries, Nexen, is responsible for extracting around 200,000 barrels a day – more than 10% of the total.

CNOOC was blocked from buying a US oil company over national security concerns a decade ago.

But no concerns appear to have been raised in Britain when the company bought Nexen, a Canadian oil operator with a large stake in North Sea oil, in 2012.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3754249/China-BIGGEST-crude-oil-operator-North-Sea-amid-concerns-growing-influence-Britain.html

 

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

Leaving aside the security concerns, this story highlights a much more significant issue. 

 

Read more…

Feds Fund Scientists Who Protect The ‘Global Warming Paradigm,’ Says Report

August 26, 2016

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

 

From the Daily Caller:

 

The Obama administration has been pumping billions of taxpayer dollars into science that’s “heavily biased in favor of the paradigm of human-induced climate change,” according to a researchers.

Policy experts wanted to know if the lure of federal dollars was biasing climate science research.What they found is the group responsible for a significant portion of government climate science funding seems more concerned with promoting the “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) paradigm, than studying natural variability in weather patterns.

“In short there appears to be virtually no discussion of the natural variability attribution idea. In contrast there appears to be extensive coverage of AGW issues,” David Wojick, a freelance reporter and policy analyst, wrote in a blog post, referring to research he did with climate scientist Patrick Michaels of the libertarian Cato Institute.

“This bias in favor of AGW has significant implications for US climate change policy,” Wojick wrote for the blog Climate Etc., which is run by climate scientist Judith Curry.

They conducted a “semantic” analysis of three years of budget requests for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which usually gets around $2.5 billion. They found USGCRP overwhelmingly used language supporting the AGW paradigm.

“The ratio of occurrences is roughly 80 to one,” Wojick wrote. “This extreme lack of balance between considerations of the two competing paradigms certainly suggests that paradigm protection is occurring.”

Politicians have become more concerned with global warming in recent years, and have been willing to shell out more money for potential solutions to the problem. The Obama administration, for example, reported spending $22.2 billion on global warming efforts in 2013, including $2.5 billion to the USGCRP.

That’s a lot of money, and illustrates why Wojick and Michaels are so concerned about federal money’s influence on science.

“Present policy is based on the AGW paradigm, but if a significant fraction of global warming is natural then this policy may be wrong,” Wojick wrote. “Federal climate research should be trying to solve the attribution problem, not protecting the AGW paradigm.”

Wojick and Michaels have already weighed in on the bias in climate science towards using models, which they say “is a bad thing.”

“Climate science appears to be obsessively focused on modeling,” they wrote in May. “Modeling can be a useful tool, a way of playing with hypotheses to explore their implications or test them against observations. That is how modeling is used in most sciences.”

“But in climate change science modeling appears to have become an end in itself. In fact it seems to have become virtually the sole point of the research,” they wrote. “The modelers’ oft stated goal is to do climate forecasting, along the lines of weather forecasting, at local and regional scales.”

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/24/feds-fund-scientists-who-protect-the-global-warming-paradigm-says-report/#ixzz4ILFz2fyy

Blue Lakes in Antarctica and Lies from the Independent

August 25, 2016
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-climate-change-langhovde-glacier-east-antarctica-dronning-maud-land-scientists-a7204691.html

 

Put the Independent and Chris Mooney together, and what do you get? Alarmist drivel!

 

Read more…

Great Barrier Reef in near pristine condition: dive boat operators

August 24, 2016

By Paul Homewood 

  

image

https://cairnsnews.org/2016/08/23/great-barrier-reef-in-near-pristine-condition-dive-boat-operators/

 

From Cairns News:

 

The healthy Great Barrier Reef deniers have been caught out lying about coral bleaching and the near-pristine condition of the world’s best coral icon.

Read more…

UK needs to invest £215bn in energy by 2030: Barclays

August 24, 2016

By Paul Homewood   

 

 

h/t Tallbloke

 

  

image

http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/uk-needs-to-invest-215bn-in-energy-by-2030-barclays/1271602#.V72Wya02GSo

 

From Utility Week:

 

The UK will need to invest an “eye-watering” £215 billion in its energy system by 2030 in order to replace aging assets and decarbonise, analysis by Barclays Research has found.

 

As the country undergoes an “energy revolution” nearly half – £95 billion – will need to be spent on disruptive technologies such as renewables, battery storage and distributed generation.

“With electricity security of supply already on a knife edge, the UK faces the obsolescence of approximately 40 per cent of its current aged [combined cycle gas turbine] fleet by around 2020 and approximately 70 per cent of all reliable generation capacity by 2030,” the report said.

In addition to losing 15GW of unabated coal capacity by 2025 due to pledged phase out, the report said by 2030 the UK is also expected to lose: 7.7GW of the current 8.9GW of operational nuclear capacity; 22GW of gas generation capacity, 13GW of it by 2020; and 2.3GW of biomass conversion capacity due to the ending of government subsidies in 2027.

“Shoring up the UK’s current tenuous electricity security of supply in the face of this mass obsolescence of baseload generation capacity, combined with government policy to achieve a 57 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2032, will require an eye-watering level of investment over coming years,” it said.

The report’s estimates are based on an average of National Grid’s four ‘Future Energy Scenarios’ published in July. This average scenario sees a 5 per cent (16TWh) increase in annual energy demand, as a 42TWh increase in demand from electric vehicles and the electrification of heating more than offsets a 25TWh reduction due to energy efficiency measures. To meet this demand, it envisions a 45GW increase in overall capacity, most of it coming from intermittent renewables.

Securing sufficient investment will require “transparent, stable and supportive policies”, especially as the wholesale pricing mechanism is “effectively permanently broken as a signal to develop new generation capacity, undermined by the introduction of significant levels of subsidised low/zero dispatch cost renewables”.

“The wholesale price and load factor uncertainty resulting from further renewables capacity growth mean the vast majority of the UK’s required new generation capacity investment will not materialise without a subsidy or other high confidence revenue stream,” the report added. 

It praised both the contracts for difference and capacity market mechanisms for doing just that, but said other policies such as the levy control framework have “proven themselves unable to cope with changing market conditions and require both adjustment and increased transparency”. The current policy portfolio will be “insufficient” to meet the target of reducing emissions by 57 per cent on 1990 levels during the fifth carbon budget (2028-2032).

Investing £215 billion in the energy system was predicted to generate earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) of £25.2 billion each year by 2030. The report said National Grid and SSE are likely be the biggest winners from this profit growth: National Grid because of its investments in interconnectors and the transmission network; and SSE because of its investments in wind capacity and both transmission and distribution grids. 

http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/uk-needs-to-invest-215bn-in-energy-by-2030-barclays/1271602#.V72Wya02GSo

 

  • There is, of course, always a need to replace obsolete capacity, but the reference to £95 billion needing to be spent on disruptive technologies is particularly pertinent.
  • “Policies such as the levy control framework have “proven themselves unable to cope with changing market conditions and require both adjustment and increased transparency”. :-  The levy control framework was designed to cap the amount of subsidies that consumers would need to pay out. What this report seems to be calling for is an increase in subsidy.
  • “The wholesale price and load factor uncertainty resulting from further renewables capacity growth mean the vast majority of the UK’s required new generation capacity investment will not materialise without a subsidy or other high confidence revenue stream,”: –  Some of us have been saying this for years.
  • National Grid and SSE are likely be the biggest winners from this profit growth” :- Hardly surprising that the National Grid have been so supportive of the government’s climate policies. One might have preferred them to concentrate on ensuring a cheap and reliable supply of power!

Theresa May can reduce carbon emissions or protect British jobs – not both

August 24, 2016

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/22/theresa-may-can-reduce-carbon-emissions-or-protect-british-jobs/

 

David Green, who is director of think tank Civitas, writes:

 

The "proper industrial strategy" being advocated by Theresa May faces some immediate tests. The first is climate change: carbon reduction destroys jobs and a "proper industrial strategy" will have to choose jobs over carbon reduction. The second is the exchange rate, which has been ignored for decades, even though an over-valued currency can wipe out all the efforts of our companies to reduce prices by improving their productivity.

Read more…

Extreme Weather Is Not Getting Worse – Dr Roger Pielke Jr

August 24, 2016

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/08/23/floods-are-not-increasing-dr-roger-pielke-jr-slams-global-warming-link-to-floods-extreme-weather-how-does-media-get-away-with-this/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateDepot+%28Climate+Depot%29

 

From Climate Depot:

 

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., a Professor in the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), slammed the linkage of global warming to the recent Louisiana floods and other types of extreme weather. (See: Bill Nye: Climate change is reason for Louisiana floods)

Pielke authored the 2014 book “The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change.” 

 

“Flood disasters are sharply down. U.S. floods not increasing either,” Pielke Jr. declared on August 23. Pielke rebuked New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for linking floods to climate change.  Krugman blamed “climate change” for ‘a proliferation of disasters like the one in Louisiana.’

“How does Krugman get away with this?” Pielke asked while showcasing this scientific graph.

 

 

“Floods suck when they occur. The good news is U.S. flood damage is sharply down over 70 years,” Pielke explained.

In a message aimed at climate activists and many in the media, Pielke cautioned: “Remember, disasters can happen any time and they suck. But it is also good to understand long-term trends based on data, not hype.”

“In my career I’ve seen the arguments go from: 1- ‘Drought increasing globally’ — To — 2- ‘OK, not globally, but look at THIS one drought.’ I’ll stick with the UN IPCC and the USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program) consensus rather than selected studies. Both of those agree there is no global or U.S. trend though literature is diverse,” Pielke wrote.

Extreme weather is NOT getting worse

Pielke also pointed to the hard scientific data that shows other types of extreme weather are not getting worse and may in fact be improving.

“Is U.S. drought getting worse? No,” Pielke wrote and revealed this EPA graph:

 

 

Professor Pielke Jr. also noted: “US hurricane landfalls (& their strength) down by ~20% since 1900” and provided this graph.

 

 

“Recent years have seen record low tornadoes,” Pielke Jr. added with this data from NOAA.

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/08/23/floods-are-not-increasing-dr-roger-pielke-jr-slams-global-warming-link-to-floods-extreme-weather-how-does-media-get-away-with-this/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateDepot+%28Climate+Depot%29

More Problems Looming For The Grid

August 23, 2016

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/21/health-warning-over-plan-to-use-hospital-generators-to-avoid-bla/

 

Oh dear!

The Telegraph reports:

 

National Grid’s drive for hospitals to help keep the UK’s lights on by using their back-up diesel generators is "highly questionable" because it will cause air pollution right in the vicinity of patients, a think-tank has warned.

Read more…

COP-21 & Developing Countries

August 22, 2016
tags:

By Paul Homewood  

 

The recent series of energy articles by Ambrose Evans Pritchard hinges on the extremely naive belief that China, India and the rest of the developing world have signed up to an agreement to decarbonise, and thus ultimately cripple, their economies.

 

It is good timing then that Robin Guenier, a barrister, has just written this legal analysis of just what was agreed at Paris:

 

 

 

COP-21 & Developing Countries

 

In discussions about the UK’s energy policy in general and about the proposed nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in particular, an important consideration is I suggest being overlooked. It’s this: under the terms of the text agreed last December at the UN’s COP-21 conference in Paris, so called “developing” countries are exempted from any obligation, moral or legal, to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As such countries are responsible for over 65% of global emissions (1) and the quantity of GHGs they emit is most likely to increase (as, for example, they continue to build coal-fired power plants (2), it makes little sense for the UK – responsible for only about 1% of global emissions – to regard GHG reduction as an important factor in planning its future energy needs.

 

This is exacerbated by the probability that two major “developed” countries – Russia and Japan, responsible for about 9% of global GHG emissions – will continue to burn (even increase) their current levels of fossil fuels.(3) The USA and Europe are responsible for most of the remaining emissions; but, as that’s less than 25% of the global total, there’s little they can do, short of closing down their economies altogether, that could make a significant contribution to the reduction of overall global emissions.

 

 

The developing countries’ exemption arises from the following:

 

1. Two key documents: last year’s Paris text (4) and its “parent treaty”, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (“the Convention”) (5). (Note: there’s nothing in the Paris text that changes or overrides the essential status and content of the Convention.)

 

2. The Convention’s distinction between “developed” and “developing” countries – a distinction unchanged since 1992. Developing countries comprised the vast bulk of countries represented in Paris, representing about 82% of humanity including essentially all the world’s poorest people, most of whom have either no or inadequate access to the power sources taken for granted in the West. But they also included major economies such as China, India, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Iran, all of which (except arguably the latter two) are far more powerful than they were when the Convention was enacted.

 

3. Articles 4.7 of the Convention and 4.4 of the Paris text: the former allows developing countries to give overriding priority to “economic and social development and poverty eradication”, whereas the latter merely encourages them “to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances”.

 

 

The West had intended that Paris should have a radically different outcome. Hence this DECC objective:

 

“… a legally binding, global climate change agreement with emission reduction commitments from all countries”.(6)

 

But developing country negotiators, led by China and India, ignored the West’s (albeit feeble) demands. And Western negotiators, determined to avoid another debacle such as the outcome of COP-15 (Copenhagen, 2009), didn’t press the issue. Hence the Paris agreement’s failure to achieve the West’s most basic aim: that powerful emerging economies should be obliged to share in emission reduction.

 

 

 

 

1 Individual country’s emissions (to 2014):

2 For example see http://tiny.cc/1eigdy, Benjamin Sporton’s comments here: http://tiny.cc/uzhgdy and this: http://tiny.cc/j0hgdy

3 See: http://tiny.cc/jbigdy and http://tiny.cc/i1dh6x

4 The agreed Paris text: http://tiny.cc/a3hgdy

5 https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

6 Extracted from a UK Department of Energy and Climate Change pre-Paris review: http://tiny.cc/h4hgdy 

 

 

Robin Guenier, August 2016 Guenier is a writer, speaker and business consultant – now retired. He has an MA from Oxford and is a barrister. After twenty years as CEO of various hightech companies, he founded (1995) an independent business consultancy, Guenier Ltd, specialising most recently in project risk; an early assignment was as CEO of the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency reporting at ministerial level to the Cabinet Office. He was founder chair of the medical online research company, Medix UK. He has been a regular contributor to TV and radio and has had speaking engagements throughout the world. He has various charitable interests and is a Freeman of the City of London. These notes were written in his private capacity.