About
Bringing some sanity to the Climate Change debate.
3,069 Comments
leave one →
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
Phillip Bratby on ‘Green’ renewable… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… bnice2000 on Global Heating Will Increase P… vickimh234 on How Wet Was The Spring? vickimh234 on Labour’s Green Obsession…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Hi Paul, I am interested in using an extract from your article the CCA for a briefing to MPs – is the okay? Contact me fay@repealtheact.org.uk
Paul,
Your article on Reykjavik prompted me to look at many arctic stations for which I had stored data last year. May i use the comparison figure in your article in mine? I will be putting it on TheNoTricksZone. I didn’t happen to store Raykjavik.
Please do, Ed.
I’ll watch out for.
Coming soon!
Thank you.
Hello Mr Homewood,
Apologies for ‘butting in’ here but I do not know how to contact you otherwise. I wish to donate but I refuse to use PayPal (long before their recent ructions with the Free Speech Union!)
Can you please let me know what other methods are available?
Many thanks,
Robin Humphreys
robinhumphreys@btconnect.com
a.k.a. devonblueboy
Paul, have you heard of the ‘Trusted News Initiative’ founded by BBC in 2019 and now includes Google, facebook, twitter, and others including Aussie ABC.
There is an anti trust case (link below) due to them suppressing ‘news’ they disagree with. So it doesn’t matter what you say here the rest of the world will never hear it!
Click to access TNI-Complaint-1.10.22.pdf
Interesting climate blog!
rob de vos
One of the very best.
Look forward to seeing you again.
Do you have an RSS feed enabled on your site?
Don’t worry worked it out.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/feed/
If you enable “meta” info in your side panel the RSS feed will be listed there. See an example here – http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/comparison-temperatures/
Cheers
Phil
Hi Paul,
Have you ever seen or created – or do you know where the data is to do it – a scatter plot of power generated by wind (or % of capacity) against winter temperature? I assume the dynamics could well be different in summer.
The whole idea of a power generation technology which does not actually produce power when it is most needed is fascinating.
I only know of this site which gives daily electric stats.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
You can get daily CET data from the Met, here.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
Let me know how you go on. Might be worth a post!!
Thanks
Paul
Thanks – will have a look at those sites
It does look interesting – how can I email you a spreadsheet?
I’ll email you.
Thanks
On its way
I have created this site http://www.ukpowergeneration.info/ which shows demand compared to all power sources. My next step is too add CET as a clickable option to the graphs
I combined power output and temperature into plots which clearly show that you get more demand for power on cold winter days, but you also get less power from wind on colder days – in some cases close to zero.
Paul,
Great stuff, always useful. Have you seen the NIPCC site? This is not spam, I’ve been reading along and forwarding your pertinent (and often “pert”) questions to my AGW zombie friends. NIPCC generally has some pretty interesting links along similar lines culled from science publications. Great that there are places to find polite but serious questions about catastrophic AGW.
http://nipccreport.org/
Thanks. I’ve just subscribed!
ClimateDepot.com links to your site’s Feb 8 blog. If I may, please allow me to point one other largely unreported facet of AGW, namely the baseless accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the issue. I wrote an exclusive for ClimateDepot nearly two years ago titled “Climate Depot Exclusive: “Smearing Skeptic Scientists: What did Gore know and when did he know it?” ( http://ow.ly/hC4C6 ), and the rest of my pieces on this narrow topic are here: “The ’96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists” http://tinyurl.com/cjn9tv6
Folks like me having no science background at all can contribute to a wider understanding of the politics surrounding the issue, at least.
Is there a “tutorial” for lay people (albeit with an appreciation for science) that explores the AGW/CAGW controversy? My thought is an easily followed map that, step by step, follows the scientific method and general principles. One that shows how the science has been corrupted through each step of the scientific method and associated principles and continues to be supported with unfounded assertions and logical fallacies. Perhaps a tutorial that has citations and proof statements to support the assertions. I have a big file of papers/blogs etc on various positions on AGW/CAGW, I can grasp much of it but have limited capability to discuss it other than in generalities. Does such a tutorial exist or can someone write it up–again for the lay person with a grasp of scientific method.
Regards and Thanks
From the scientific point of view, the debate seems to revolve around two main issues:-
1) What will feedbacks be?
2) What will be the effects of a slightly warmer planet?
There are certainly wide disagreements between scientists themselves about both these questions, but I am not aware of any write up that summarises everything.
I recommend http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_History.htm, UN and UNEP websites, and the Club of Rome 1991 report “The First Global Revolution” as precursors to science. A step by step “procedure” to demonstrate how the scientific method would be used by researchers to determine the cause(s) of an observed climate change is a great idea, and an excellent way to highlight the contrast between scientific research and the propaganda we’re being inundated with . A compendium of the various methods that have been used to distort and misrepresent the science would be helpful, too.
The most important issue in the AGW/CAGW controversy is that the concept that anthropogenic CO2 was affecting climate was proposed as a method to achieve political and economic goals. The corruption of the science and unfounded assertions and logical fallacies Ebeni mentions, as well as the severe weather events; earthquakes, typhoons and hurricanes of unusual magnitude, created or exacerbated by HAARP ELF and chemical dumps (Chemtrails) shown in satellite photos and radar, are essential means of achieving these goals. The major controversy is based on the fact that AGW isn’t science. Japan’s gosat satellite (greenhouse gas observing satellite) in 2009 showed that most CO2 was evolved from the ocean, sparsely populated vegetated areas in Africa, the Middle East, China, and northeast Asia, titled something like “need for economic justice from third world nations”.
Feedbacks alone are an issue, since nearly all feedback in natural systems is negative and maintains stability in the system, and IPCC predictions unaccountably assume positive feedback.
The problem from any field geology or archaeology scientist’s point of the current science of climate appears to make no serious effort to determine what the geohistorical effects of similar or greater changes in the past were. There is quite literally no reliable empirical, field evidence that CO2 has any long term correlation to planetary temperature. At shorter, but still geological scales of time, the field evidence supports only the idea that warming oceans degas CO2. Warmer oceans CAUSE higher atmospheric CO2.
Also, and worse, no effort is made to determine how patterns observable in the past, as reflected in geological data, would be seen in the present. Throughout the last quarter of the Pleistocene it is plain that CO2 lags marine temperature – or at least d-O18 changes – by several centuries. The implication is that if this pattern continued to the present, current increases in CO2 are due to events that took place during the Medieval Warm Period. We may very well have an effect on carbon isotope balances without significantly altering the efficiency of the carbon sinks that have been operating since life appeared on the planet.
Those are important considerations, but I believe that the central issue is one of attribution, or whether there actually exists a distinct anthropogenic signal which can be isolated from natural variation. The sole argument for the anthropogenic signal comes from the models which ‘replicate’ the warming in the presence of CO2, but show a ‘flat’ line without. But the reason the line is flat is because of the working assumption that natural variation is random, not cyclic, and so the perturbations in individual model runs are smoothed out over the ensemble.
I don’t doubt that anthropogenic CO2 is having some input, but the question remains about whether it is significant to the overall result.
Ebeni, I my page “Observatorio ARVAL – Climate Change; The cyclic nature of Earth’s climate”, at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm I begin with:
After the alarm caused by Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006, these are my findings about the drivers of Earth’s global climate.
I try to present this science in this long page.
It is all about science published by well-known scientists, with links to the original works.
As you can see below, I’m not a climate scientist, far from it. That’s why I had to do this research; To find out what happened, what is happening and maybe what could most probably happen. I hope you’ll find it interesting.
Andres Valencia
Electronics Engineer, Solid State Physics
I meant to write; Ebeni, in my page …..
New Anthony Watts Interview Just Published: Climate Change without Catastrophe (News Tip)
Dear Shub,
I just wanted to send you a quick mail to let you know that we have just conducted a very interesting interview with the well known figure in the climate debate Anthony Watts.
It’s a very interesting chat and whether you agree or disagree with his comments I thought you and your readers would find some value in taking a look
A few of the topics we discussed are:
• The difference between “global warming” and “climate change”
• Why CO2 is partially responsible but oversold
• Why recent major weather events cannot be linked to CO2
• Why we should be more worried about another ice age
• Why carbon taxes won’t have any effect on the whims of Mother Nature
• How the climate debate has taken on religious proportions
• Why the Keystone protests are all for show
• Why Mother Nature will be the final arbiter of truth
• What we should and shouldn’t be doing to address global warming
• Why “climate change” has become a favorite bogeyman
• Why scientifically we’ve only scratched the surface of climate change
You can read the full interview at: http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Climate-Change-without-Catastrophe-Interview-with-Anthony-Watts.html
I hope you find the interview interesting.
Best regards,
James Stafford
Be careful posting anything about The Environment Agency (Wrong Type of Rain etc.) – they’ve got a large calibre scatter gun to deal with uppity bloggers.
We were just missed by one blast that hit of all places Narrowboat World and prompted us to investigate how much media control a single UK government agency indulges in
“Because if you look at satellite data at the top of the atmosphere, you clearly see we have an excess of energy, more energy going into our planetary system then what is going out.”
comment by a physicist quoted in a post on the NoTricksZone blog under the post title; Puzzled Schellnhuber: “Not At All Surprised” Short Term Models Are Wrong…But Insists Long-Term Models Are Correct!” Would you have any comments.
alf
Have you got the link?
Hello Mr. Homewood,
I did some datamining on a few British coastal weatherstations to see if the Atlantic Ocean is still warming.
I’ve written an article about that subject on my own blog:
It is in Dutch, but the graphs speak for themselves.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/06/02/puzzled-schellnhuber-not-at-all-surprised-short-term-models-are-wrong-but-insists-long-term-models-are-correct/
here is the link –just wondering if in fact the above statement is true.
alf
Thanks.
I don’t know where he gets his data from, but Lindzen & Choi came to the opposite conclusion.
Click to access Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
There is certainly much debate about whether they are right or not, but I think it shows just how far away scientists are in being able to measure and understand such things.
But the bottom line is that if Scnellhuber is right, the added heat would be measurable at the surface, which it is not.
I would assume that it is easier to measure outgoing radiation then incoming due to cloud cover and other factors. thanks for the link
alf
“The more I look at climate issues, the more I realise that we cannot always rely on what the climate establishment tell us.
I hope that, in my own small way, I can help to put that right.”
Well, Paul, that’s an admirable goal, but I have a couple of questions.
1) Who are you – what are your credentials?
2) Have you published anything in any peer-reviewed scientific publication?
3) What is your academic background?
4) What professional certifications, if any, do you possess?
Don’t take this as a personal attack. It’s just that if I was going to have brain surgery, I’d really want to know that the surgeon who was going to perform the surgery was actually qualified to cut on me. It is no different with respect to the search for expertize in any field, for instance, in Climate science. And so I think you owe us a little information on your background.
Thanks for the question, Joseph, and I appreciate the reasons for it.
However, I deal in facts. If you think I have made any factual errors, or misrepresented any issues, I would be delighted to discuss them with you.
As I am sure you would agree, Climate Change is an enormously important area of public policy and debate, and I believe that the more facts that are out in the public arena, then the better.
One more point, and perhaps the most important. I always encourage people to do what I have done, and check the facts for themselves, rather than simply believe what they are told. So I usually try to provide links etc for readers to do just that.
(BTW – I am an accountant)
Paul: here is an interesting discussion I had with a few folks tonight.
The hottest year in the U.S. was 1921. 1934 was second. The average temperature for the 48 contiguous states in 1921 was 55.6°F. To confirm this one can read the first paragraph of THE WEATHER OF 1940 IN THE UNITED STATES (W.W. Reed) or THE WEATHER OF 1942 IN THE UNITED STATES (J.L. Baldwin).
Click to access mwr-069-02-0049.pdf
Click to access mwr-070-12-0271.pdf
The average temperature in 1934 was 55.1°F. The original temperature measurements published each month for each state for those years by the U.S. Weather Bureau will add up correctly.
BTW… Two-thirds of the state record high temperatures in the U.S. were recorded before 1955. More than half were recorded from 1921-1934. Few have been recorded since 2003. Yes, it is warming today, but it also did so during the first half of the last century… and at about the same rate
OK. Here are some numbers. The first column shows weighted monthly temperatures for the 48 contiguous states (no Hawaii or Puerto Rico) derived from the original 1921 US Weather Bureau monthly reports… the Tables in the Condensed Climatological Summary. Example: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/049/mwr-049-12-0684.pdf
The average temperature (°F) for each state is given in these official reports. Only the contiguous 48 are used. The second column gives the temperatures from the NCDC-NOAA 1895-2009 US database where, presumably, the same historical information is given for each state, each month. The third column is the amount that the NCDC has lowered each temperature.
JAN 36.0 33.8 2.2
FEB 38.5 35.9 2.6
MAR 49.5 47.5 2.0
APR 53.7 52.2 1.5
MAY 61.9 60.5 1.4
JUN 72.1 70.8 1.3
JUL 76.1 75.3 0.8
AUG 73.0 71.6 1.4
SEP 69.0 67.7 1.3
OCT 56.4 54.9 1.5
NOV 44.7 42.9 1.8
DEC 36.7 34.5 2.2
YEAR 55.6 53.9 1.6
Note that the annual average for 1921 has been lowered by 1.6°F. This lowering has the net effect of removing the year 1921 from its position as the warmest year on record in the US… as the Weather Bureau observed in several annual reports I cited earlier. The same pattern of lowering can be found in other years. I’ve checked 1934, 1938, 1940. All of the original Weather Bureau temperatures have been systematically changed and all have been lowered. The winter months have been lowered more the summer months…every time….WHY?
“The winter months have been lowered more the summer months…every time….WHY?” Lowering summer month temperatures creates the impression of recent warming. Lowing historical winter temps supports the alarmist sea-level rise, catastrophic flooding meme by making current winter temps appear unusually warm, supporting predictions of a trend toward unprecedented glacier and polar ice melts. My guess, anyway.
Paul,
There is not much actual physical facts being used in climate science.
They just have been following temperature data for the last 150 years and tweaking in garbage and calling it a model.
Facts are completely irrelevant.
Hunting for any pattern to call a trend in a system that is in completely unique every moment and every place. Never to find that exact pattern. All of this is irrelevant to the many processes and material differences in play on a rotating planet that has many different velocities with many different pressure differences on an ORB.
Any mathematical equation is pure horseshit as they all assume a single point that does not interact or move. PI(3.14159) was never designed for motion and every rotation after the first distorts due to the equation being open ended.
We have NEVER measured distances of a fantastic amount of planetary data that gives some understanding to how this planet actually mechanically operates. The gas of nitrogen being 80% interacts against water vapor and does so much more to moving water vapor in creating snowflakes and keeping water vapor separated and changes density with the cold.
In simple terms…
Our planet is getting colder due to the suns inactivity which gives off great amounts of material that our atmosphere has lost catching in the last decade to insulate the planet with the gases by the thickness. We are in constant loss of material including water vapor over 4.5 billion years.
There is vast amounts material and questions to understand by pure facts. All the answers ARE here, just our scientists have gone on a different direction and will protect the garbage to the bitter end and keep the citizens ignorant.
Paul,
Your graphic on 97% and 52% about the AMS survey is great. May I use in in presentations, citing you of course?
By the way, I would like to connect with you. Please send me an email.
Steve Goreham
Please do, Steve.
BTW – the graphic came from Anthony’s, not sure where he got it from!
Dear Paul,
1) thanks for your site which has become my 1st visit on most days, usurping WUWT, mainly due to your UK emphasis.
2) it may be my workstation today, but I note that comments aren’t available and also you appear to have lost your google ranking from my search protocol in that I do not get your site offered when searching on ” not a lot of..” where previously those four words initiated a direct link being offered. Hmmm – do these indicate some google-filtering? Could be worth a check.
3) I live in Morayshire, Scotland. The Scottish Government have adopted even more banzai climate madness policies than their UK/English & Welsh counterparts. Should you ever have time, it would be interesting to have a column or posting dealing with Scottish issues – especially as the looming referendum draws near.
4) Happy New Year!
Yz
Dave
Thanks Dave
I use Yahoo search and that works fine. I have just tried Google , and it finds it typing the full “Not a lot of people know that” in.
Even comes top of the list! So there’s probably nothing to worry about.
I have had other comments today, but please let me know if you still get problems.
Thanks
Paul
Paul,
You might be interested in the text on page 156 of the linked document (in the public domain) that talks about the effect of climate change on aircraft safety. Extract: However, greater weather changes are anticipated as a result of global warming, with lightning implications.
Click to access 2011_03.pdf
Regards
Steve
Paul – your post about the EADT article I tipped you yesterday has created a bit of an opportunity. One of my friends has emailed the editor and linked to your article. He particularly challenged the use of “Carbon” pointing out that it was a meaningless term, that they should have used CO2, and how this was only a tiny percentage of the atmosphere.
He’s just had a response from the editor inviting him to submit a reply or article, and thinks you would be able to produce a far better answer than he could. As I can’t find a direct contact on your site, would you be good enough to email me (at the address on this post) and say if you are prepared to help? If you are, I will put you in touch with my friend and he can pass on the correspondence so far.
Many thanks in anticipation.
Sorry – I meant at the email address you should have from my comment in your logs. I don’t wish to post it in public, to avoid being hit by spammers!
Paul – As you have posted regarding Kevin Anderson and Tyndall recently you may be interested in an appearance last night on an Irish television programme, Eco Eye. I think you can view the RTE player in the UK (I could in Australia, but it may be country specific. Here I can view theChannel 4 player but not the BBC player, other than for radio. The URL is http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10244927/
The other main interviewee was one John Gibbons, who has earned a mention at Bishop Hill. I’ve earlier this week posted at http://oneillp.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/gibbons/ on a blatant misrepresentation of IPCC projections by him, and by An Taisce, the Irish National Trust, which has as President an IPCC AR4 lead author and review editor, who has, in my opinion, unwisely said nothing. As for John Gibbons it is nothing unexpected – I filled in someone else recently that the Irish Times allows columnists such as John Gibbons write pseudo-scientific nonsense and rarely prints corrections or dissenting opinions. (To be fair, John Gibbons does also sometimes make sense, although on those occasions I usually find myself checking if I’ve missed something. Surprisingly, he is prepared to support a nuclear option when this in anathema for virtually all Irish ‘environmentalists’. He is also thorough
when it comes to ‘disappearing’ blog posts which have become embarrassing by revealing a very poor scientific understanding, although he has not been able to purge these when reproduced elsewhere. It may help to judge the state of Irish Climate Science when you know that one of his past gems (“First, the science bit. Global average temperatures have increased by 0.8 degrees since industrialisation began. This translates to a world that has
become 6.5 per cent warmer”) is still carried without comment on the website of Professor Sweeney’s ICARUS (Irish Climate Analysis & Research Units) unit at NUI Maynooth!
H Paul
I noticed when reading your article about the bad weather in England on Anthony’s blog that
in the comments section you referred to a blogger by the name of Carbon500 who had a comment regarding your article. I would like to get in touch with this person re this as I think
he could help me in relation to ongoing battle I am having with the local FOE group. Of course
only let me have contact details if he is willing to let you release them.
Many thanks
Regards
John Craige
I’ve asked Anthony if he could pass the request on, John.
Dear Paul,
Your site is fascinating – thank you for all your work, and for my education.
I have a question about the recent UK rainfall articles you’ve written using Met Office data.
The articles are very clear as always, but can the data tell us anything about rainfall intensity, by which I mean lots of rain falling in a very short time?
This is always the response to the argument that rainfall totals are not all that exceptional. It’s also where the Met Office seem (to me) to be going (i.e. that the new improved models show increasing and more intense regional weather effects).
Clearly the effects of a given total of rainfall will be very different if spread over three months rather than one, but presumably a really wet year like 1929/30 must have had rainfall at least as intense as we’re now experiencing?
Is it just as simple as saying that “rainfall intensity” is directly related to the amount of rainfall in a period, therefore that it cannot really be varying as is incessantly claimed? Flash floods and local geography (Boscastle/Seaton) excepted of course.
Regards,
Steve Brown
The Met Office do keep rainday data, so you can work out daily averages. However, this only starts in 1961, which coincided with an unusually dry couple of decades. Therefore, any trends are unreliable.
I did do an exercise that used daily rainfall data on the England & Wales series, that records it since 1931. The exercise showed quite clearly the dry interlude (with fewer heavy rainfall days), and suggested that the last decade was no different to 1931-60.
Hi Paul
Had a couple of thoughts that I can’t find the answer – wondered if you might know!
1. What is the cost to maintain a wind turbine?
2. I am assuming that wind turbines are subsidized in a similar manner as solar pv and that the subsidy only lasts for 25 years. At the end of that time the wind “farmer” I presume, get the going rate per kwHour at wholesale rates (solar pv get 4.5p per kw). If so what is the actual average output of a turbine and will it be sufficient to cover the maintenance costs?
3. I just have a vision of lots of broken wind turbines in 25 years time that have become uneconomic to be fixed and that the wind farmers will just abandon them and build another turbine nearby to get the green subsidy again for another 25 years.
Wouldappreciate your thoughts/figures?
Alec
The subsidy for wind turbines will be for 15 yrs, under the new strike price contracts.
I don’t know mtce costs, but such marginal costs would bge fairly low – most of the cost is the upfront capital cost.
In theory, the planning process should ensure that they are properly decommissioned, but in practice what will happen if the operator just walks away?
Paul, I know your beat is weather history, so this is “off topic” a bit. I ran across information about a remarkable Englishman, a veteran of World War I. I believe I read he was England’s most decorated solider in that war. Being from the states, perhaps is why I have never heard of William Coltman before. Have you? Its just interesting. Here a couple links to biographical material. I didn’t see any books.
I do appreciate your work. No conversation about weather or climate is even coherent without a firm grasp of past observations. Its preposterous to model the future without apprehending the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Harold_Coltman
http://www.oxforddnb.com/templates/article.jsp?articleid=93495&back=
Paul, You’re going to love this one. Report on The Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/06/us_national_climate_assessment/
Apologies Paul, You have already referred to it in one of your earlier posts. Note to self: Use the scroll bar more often…
Hi Paul,
Have been following your blog for some time now and have recommended it to numerous people.
I wonder whether you might be interested in this article discussing the potential impact of climate change on the medical profession and what their ethical response should be. I came across this in the Student BMJ (my daughter is in her third year) and here is an online link:
http://student.bmj.com/student/view-article.html?id=sbmj.g2691&locale=en_US
You need to register (for free) to read the full article.
This is a good example of the way climate change has insinuated itself into every thread of discourse in modern life and is described as fact by someone who clearly has no knowledge of the subject he is pontificating on but is driven by the collective groupthink that pervades this topic.
Doctors and nurses have enough to worry and should (and probably do already given lack of comments) ignore exhortations to take part in a phoney war on climate change.
Steve Davison
So far you have avoided commenting on steven goddards claims about data tampering. Is he really that far off the mark?
I’m working on a post now!
Thanks; I have followed Steve’s blog for some time and dispite his personality he seems to be on to something.
Hi Paul,
In researching the recent Facebook psychological experiment scandal I came across this article about filter bubbles:
Nothing really surprising but in combination with the fact that Facebook have been manipulating the bubble to see the effects (without our knowledge or consent) one quickly realises the potential ramifications in terms of its misuse being able to influence what we think, buy and more scarily, vote.
Clearly none of us can escape from this if we spend any time on the internet and it does help to explain why a dangerous meme like CAGW takes hold so perniciously. A little depressing but I do wonder whether like the butterfly effect, there might sometime soon be a chaotic switch which consigns that meme to the dustbin of failed ideas. One can only hope!
I continue to share your posts with family, friends and colleagues but with little feedback. It would be interesting to know what influence your other readers have in this respect? I suspect several of my “friends” have already set their Facebook filters to quietly hide my posts!
Best wishes
Steve
I realise how old this comment is, but I read it just as I post the exact same thing on another site. I have tried, and now do not bother mostly, to engage friends and relations in this topic, but none has even the slightest interest, not even my own children at University.
Ok, so this website of yours is filled with information, but who, other than those that have an interest, will read it?
How do we convince people to even give a damn? Those that ignore my queries, have no interest in the other side either, it is just utter apathy for the whole subject.
AGW (or climate change as it is now) is such an influencing topic at high levels of world Government, but generates almost no interest in ordinary people.
How can we get people to care, one way or the other. I really don’t mind, so long as they choose.
Hi, an old reply to your reply! I have been concerned about this for some time and have unfortunately developed a “certain” reputation amongst my family and friends. I have had more success recently with some as the fraud has become more widespread. The issues of diesel pollution, steel plants being closed, wind farms springing everywhere despite local opposition and the sacking of Phillipe Verdier has been useful issues to bring out the general point. All these things appeal to people even if they don’t care about politics and the erosion of democracy that is required to support this fraud. I have “converted” a few people but you have to proselytise hard and be incredibly thick skinned.
Paul,
I have developed something that could be of interest. It’s a way of doing temperature trend analysis that neatly avoids all the data manipulations so much discussed recently. I have built an Excel workbook for this method, and have done a study of Kansas US in order to prove the concept and the tool.
At this point I need someone with a skeptical mind to critique what I have done. If you are willing I can email you the Kansas workbook and you can see if it stands up to scrutiny.
I have started building a Canada workbook with this template, but there are many stations, and it will take time. I also want to verify that I am on the right track before making the full effort.
I can also send a text document explaining the rationale for temperature trend analysis.
Please let me know what you think..
Thanks, I would be interested Ron.
I’ll email you.
Thanks. I have sent the material to you by return emails.
Paul – you may like to publicise this…
Or you may not! However, I thought I’d bring it to your attention
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61879
Classify the terms “denier” , “climate denier” or variants thereof as hate speech.
Cheers
Jeremy
Paul. See if you can access Sheffield Weston Park Weather Station records. You might have to make a trip to the museum…..
http://www.museums-sheffield.org.uk/blog/2012/9/130-years-of-weston-park-weather-station
130 Years of history
Its situated at almost exactly the same position for that time.
It MUST be one of the longest sited class A weather stations in the world.
There isn’t much development around the site which would change the conditions.
It would make a cracking blog post.
I bet you ANY money it doesn’t show dangerous warming.
Then see how this raw data compares with NASA, GISS and the like. There should be any adjustments really at all on it.
Hi Paul
Earlier this week the BBC website carried a piece by David Shukman on ‘the pause’ – as I recall, it was notable insomuch as not entirely discounting natural cycles as playing a role. It was at least questioning which surprised me given the BBC’s biased policy on the subject of anything to do with climate change. Anyway – having only initially skimmed through the article I returned to it the following day to find that it had vanished. Did you see it or did anyone else see it or was I dreaming or is it another example of BBC censorship at its ugliest?
Regards
Paul
No I did not see it.
Hi Paul,
Have just put up my first personal blog post with a link to yours here:
Hope you like it.
Best wishes
Steve
Private Eye has a good cartoon this fortnight on p24. A dog team labelled Arctic Ice Survey, is driven by a man crying “Mush!”
You could post it. I can’t.
Paul – image now missing https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608050417455075281&pid=15.1&P=0
on your blog page https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/10/10/the-green-jobs-mirage/
..your blog is nearly at 1 million hits I see ..965K so far
Thanks
It was just a pic of some windmills.
Hi Paul,
you may be interested in this link, commentary on the “landmark” deal between the US and China, which I had understood not to be that significant reading between the lines. However, this chap thinks it is a real step towards saving the world:
http://theconversation.com/us-china-deal-shows-all-that-effort-to-tackle-climate-change-might-actually-be-worth-it-34163
See if you can keep your face straight reading it.
They’re as deluded as Obama!
Just posted my analysis
You would have thought an academic could have taken the trouble to come up with something similar to your analysis, it doesn’t bode well for our educational system.
Hi Paul please read
http://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/renewable-energy-solar-and-wind-power-compared-with-gas-fired-generation-usa-germany-uk/
and / or
as well as
http://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/about/
for other articles
Hi Paul,
I have just added a comment to this funding notice here for a CCS projects – you get a mention, hope you don’t mind.
https://connect.innovateuk.org/web/energyktn/article-view/-/blogs/opportunity-alert-new-funding-for-carbon-capture-and-storage-ccs-innovation
Best wishes
Steve
Paul:
Had an interesting real-world demonstration of UHI yesterday. Was driving south from Green Bay, Wisconsin USA in a snow squall, temps just below freezing. Hit Milwaukee, approx. population 1 million, snow turned to light mist – temps just above freezing. Kept going same highway south of Milwaukee, snow squall again. hmm.
More cobblers from the Conversation:
https://theconversation.com/our-equation-proves-climate-change-is-linked-to-emissions-34897
Some of your favourites here Paul: steam cooling image, “carbon” emission, comparing their new equation to models, no hint of reality creeping in anywhere as far as I can tell.
I think I need to cancel my subscription to this idiotic publication before I blow a gasket.
I see they both receive NERC funding!
At a friend’s invitation in our climate change debate, I am reading Kathatrine Hayhoe’s “A Climate for Change” and wonder if you can point me to a good (therefore fair) review of it. Thank you.
I am not aware of any reviews, but much of what Hayhoe writes cannot be trusted.
e.g.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/katherine-hayhoe-explains/
My recommendation would be to not take anything she says on trust, but to check it out yourself. In particular, be very wary when she uses the 1960’s or 70’s as her basepoint for trends and comparisons
BTW Mark
If you want me check out some of her claims, I would be more than happy.
Anyone been to Ireland recently?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/massive-wind-turbine-collapses-in-co-tyrone-one-local-said-it-sounded-like-bomb-exploding-30879574.html
Thanks, Paul. I (a layperson re climate studies) intend to read carefully and check what I can. I think I followed links to you regarding her Figure 14 “Carbon Dioxide and Temperature: An Unnatural High” (in the glossy sheets tipped in halfway through the book). it gets hammered by critics for minimizing (I guess) both temperature and CO2 highs some seem to know of within the last 6000 years (the span of her Figure). If you can point me to a more accurate historical reconstruction of those, I’d be grateful.
There is a wealth of evidence that global temperatures were higher than now till about 3000BC. HH Lamb summarises many of these:
Ice core studies in Greenland are also quite clear about much warmer periods then, and more recently. Indeed, the 19thC was probably the coldest period there since the Ice Age
There is plenty more on my Holocene page
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/tag/holocene/
I’ll leave the MWP till later!
Paul, I think my comment went to the “spam” folder (probably because it has lots of links):
Sorry to post this here; I couldn’t find contact info for you. Would you mind sending me an email, so that I can email you privately next time?
Thanks.
For a long time I’ve been concerned about the scientific method used in climate science (and indeed all endeavours that aim to call themselve sciences but are not.) Rather than comment myself, here are some relevant quotes from probably the greatest philosopher of science in the 20th century, Karl Popper:
“Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.”
“True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.”
“But the secret of intellectual excellence is the spirit of criticism ; it is intellectual independence. And this leads to difficulties which must prove insurmountable for any kind of authoritarianism. The authoritarian will in general select those who obey, who believe, who respond to his influence. But in doing so, he is bound to select mediocrities. For he excludes those who revolt, who doubt, who dare to resist his influence. Never can an authority admit that the intellectually courageous, i.e. those who dare to defy his authority, may be the most valuable type. Of course, the authorities will always remain convinced of their ability to detect initiative. But what they mean by this is only a quick grasp of their intentions, and they will remain for ever incapable of seeing the difference.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume 1 : The Spell of Plato
“The more we learn about the world, and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific, and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know; our knowledge of our ignorance. For this indeed, is the main source of our ignorance – the fact that our knowledge can be only finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.”
“The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.”
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
― Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
“The discovery of instances which confirm a theory means very little if we have not tried, and failed, to discover refutations. For if we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmation, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in favour of a theory which, if approached critically, would have been refuted.”
― Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism
“With the idol of certainty (including that of degrees of imperfect certainty or probability) there falls one of the defences of obscurantism which bar the way of scientific advance. For the worship of this idol hampers not only the boldness of our questions, but also the rigour and the integrity of our tests. The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.”
― Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
“We all have an unscientific weakness for being always in the right, and this weakness seems to be particularly common among professional and amateur politicians. But the only way to apply something like scientific method in politics is to proceed on the assumption that there can be no political move which has no drawbacks, no undesirable consequences. To look out for these mistakes, to find them, to bring them into the open, to analyse them, and to learn from them, this is what a scientific politician as well as a political scientist must do. Scientific method in politics means that the great art of convincing ourselves that we have not made any mistakes, of ignoring them, of hiding them, and of blaming others from them, is replaced by the greater art of accepting the responsibility for them, of trying to learn from them, and of applying this knowledge so that we may avoid them in future.”
― Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism
Linked to the manipulation of the climate change agenda is the need for its supporters (now including all meteorological services and nearly all politicians) to convince the public of its supposed impact. Over the last year or two (at least in the UK) I’ve noticed an escalation in the language used in weather bulletins. Two examples spring to mind: “Weatherbombs” and “Embedded Thunderstorms,” both of which have connotations with terrorism, and lead to the thought: “Who or what is responsible?”
The answer is easy – climate change of course!!
Paul, The Canadian Newspaper, the globe and mail, has an informative article re the honest volunteers across Canada who record temperatures from their Stevenson screens daily. Do you know if Canadian temperatures are manipulated like the ones from S. America and Iceland that you recently reported?
Hi Paul,
Hot off the press from the BBC web site: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31604953 . Talking about 128mm rise in sea level north of New York city.
Hi Paul,
You may be interested in developments in Australia. A group of us has for some time been concerned about the homogenization of the very good raw temperature record for many parts of Australia. Late last year, after much disquiet, the government finally established a panel to oversee what out Bureau of Meteorology has been up to with all the ‘adjustments’.
So far this new panel has not asked for our opinions, but we have nevertheless made unsolicited submissions. You can read them here…
And you will get some idea of the extent of the problem with the official Australian temp. record.
You might also be inclined to make a submission to this panel, and if you do, please send me a copy so I can upload to this page.
Indeed it would be good if the panel was given some idea of the extent of the problem internationally.
Cheers, Jennifer Marohasy
Have you seen this report?
http://www.piercepioneer.com/officials-warn-global-warming-slowdown-actually-quite-misleading/38352
It includes this from leading Yale researcher Anthony Leiserowitz: “Indeed, many people were a bit surprised to find that global warming was not, in fact, a myth; and more importantly, that the state of global warming was nearing critical mass and we are now in a place where we must make drastic changes or face equally dire consequences.
The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication lead researcher continues, “There have been a number of studies that have shown that some people will change their views of climate change based on extreme weather. It’s not enough to simply experience a heat wave — it then needs to be contextualized. It needs to be interpreted by thought leaders and trusted people in a community and by the media and scientists saying, ‘This is an indication of global warming.’”
So dismiss the fact that it is just a theory, not fact, and use any extreme weather event to support the theory. Dishonest or what?
When will our academics understand that scepticism, rigour and honesty are the foundations of science?
Hi Paul,
A new post on my blog with a couple of links to your good self:
If you think there are better links for the hiatus and dodgy data manipulation please let me know.
Steve
Mr Homewood,
What is the utility of Benford’s Law in evaluating climate data sets? Is it applicable?
Never heard of it! Tell me more.
I’m not sure if you picked this up:
http://www.zmescience.com/research/discoveries/deepest-marine-drill-finds-life-0423432/
Penultimate paragraph:
There’s much to learn from extremophiles living deep below Earth’s surface or seabed. For one, because these organisms feed on hydrocarbons, they produce methane as a byproduct which is a greenhouse gas thousands of times more potent than CO2 at trapping heat. How many of these organisms are there below the oceans? Billions, trillions, billions of billions? We need to know if we’re to build a solid model that faithfully assess their impact on the climate.
We can’t even model the global economy and get it right, and that’s a human construct orders of magnitude simpler than the climate system
OMG now Naomi Klein’s on the bandwagon linking up everything she doesn’t like with climate change:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/video/2015/mar/06/this-changes-everything-naomi-klein-oil-video
Hi Paul
Any comments on this article in today’s Australian press. The Age newspaper is a major climate change supporter.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/record-seasurface-temperatures-in-pacific-point-to-record-warmth-in-2015-and-2016-20150413-1mjooh.html
You mentioned something about warming oceans in the southern hemisphere in the past few weeks I think.
Regards
John
May 7 07:03 PM
Paul,
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi posted this letter from Dr. Bill Gray on Weatherbell.com. Joe works for Weatherbell. Its a pay site. I think he would be happy if you read it. Its the best explanation of why the climate model feedback loops are completely unhinged from reality.
Dr Gray sent this out today to alot of people. I am of the impression he wants to make it clear to as many people as possible how he feels about the AGW situation, so I think its worthwhile sharing it with you. I think alot of the younger generation out there ought to listen to Dr Gray, because when I was freezing at PSU he was warning ( loudly) about the cyclical nature of climate and the coming uptick in hurricanes linked with warming overall. He also made clear that by 2020 we would be out of that cycle. So call me naive, but I listen to people who have proven themselves to be right, not Johny come lately Climate heroes that explain things after the fact, and in a way where nothing they said is accountable and is claimed to be right anyway
to the letter:
This is for your general information.
I am appalled that scientific objectivity has been so blatantly disregarded by our government and the world’s environmentalists who would use erroneous climate model results to justify their faulty AGW pronouncement which are injurious to humanity.
Gray’s View on AGW. We AGW skeptics need to be able to offer two basic plausible physical explanations in order to negate the AGW hypothesis.
1. Why projected CO2 increases over the next 50-100 years will only be able to bring about very small amounts (0.2-0.4°C) of global mean temperature rise.
2. Why there is natural climate change unrelated to CO2 variations? We need a believable physical explanation for the global climate changes over the last few thousand years (Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, etc.) and in particular the apparent quite modest global warming of the last century. We also need an explanation of the shorter time-scale multi-decadal global warming periods (1910-1940, 1975-1999) and of the global cooling or neutral periods (1880-1910, 1940-1974, and 1999-2015).
Explanation #1 can be understood as a result of CO2 increases causing more global precipitation and associated increase in the globe’s deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convective clouds. These CO2 induced precipitation increases bring about upper tropospheric drying which allows more infrared (IR) flux to space – a negative water-vapor feedback. This extra rainfall enhances surface evaporation cooling which acts to balance out most of the expected global warming resulting from CO2’s increasing blockage of IR to space (3.7 Wm-2 for a CO2 doubling). This prevents CO2 increases from bringing about any significant global warming. Only minimal warming (0.2-0.4°C) is going to occur with a doubling of CO2. The main effect of CO2 increases will be an enhancement of global average precipitation of about 3 percent. This enhanced global rainfall will occur in regions where it is already raining and should be hardly noticed.
Explanation #2 can be explained by the multi-decadal and multi-century variations in the globe’s deep ocean circulations (or Meridional Overturning Circulation – MOC) which are primarily driven by space and time variations of oceanic salinity. Salinity changes occur in ocean areas where there are long period differences in surface evaporation minus precipitation. This is especially the situation of the Atlantic where ocean evaporation is 10-20 percent greater than precipitation. Salinity driven ocean changes bring about alterations in the strength of the Atlantic Ocean Thermohaline Circulation (THC), and through Pacific basin upwelling response variations to variation in the Pacific multi-decadal oscillation (PDO) as well. There is also salinity driven ocean subsidence around the Antarctic continent. All these factors influence the strength of the MOC.
Most of the globe’s last century weak global warming has, in my view, been a consequence of a modest slowdown of the global oceans MOC. This last century long MOC slowdown is also detected in an associated weak increase (in milliseconds) in the earth’s rate of rotation.
Lack of Ability of Other Suggested Non-ocean Climate Change Mechanisms to Rival or be Superior to Coming CO2 Influences. The many other non-ocean proposed physical ideas for climate change (where orbital parameters do not play a role) such as
1. Solar variability
2. Sun-spot changes
3. Cosmic ray variability
4. Aerosol changes
5. Human land use changes
6. Volcanic activity
may each play a minor role in some aspects of the globe’s climate alteration. But the individual physical influence of each of these suggested mechanisms is too small to be used as a dominant physical argument against the CO2 change hypothesis.
None of the above proposed climate change mechanisms well match the observed past changes in global temperature. In addition, the magnitude of potential energy change from these above non-ocean physical mechanisms does not have the power to come close to producing the climate changes which the variations of the deep ocean circulations are capable of bringing about.
We AGW skeptics who have proposed non-ocean climate change mechanisms as an alternate to CO2 induced climate changes will continue to have difficulty in rebutting the CO2 advocates. These alternate physical hypothesizes do not have enough supporting observational evidence to allow any one of them or a combination of them to be judged to be more dominant than the changes which future CO2 increases will be able to bring about.
We critics of the AGW CO2 warming hypothesis need a more dominant alternate physical hypothesis which is stronger and which better conforms in time with the global observations. Changes in the ocean’s deep circulation currents appears to be, by far, the best physical explanation for the observed global surface temperature changes (see Gray 2009, 2011, 2012, 2012). It seems ridiculous to me for both the AGW advocates and us skeptics to so closely monitor current weather and short-time climate change as indication of CO2’s influence on our climate. This assumes that the much more dominant natural climate changes that have always occurred are no longer in operation or have relevance.
Cumulus Convection Influences. Most cumulus convection is organized in meso-scale cloud clusters containing 10 to 20 individual Cb convective elements which are typically concentrated in areas of 200-500 km wide. The individual deep Cb convective cells within these cloud-cluster systems are often arranged in lines and new convective elements are continuously being formed and dissipated. Each new Cb convective element goes through a typical lifecycles of an hour or so. The strong downdrafts from the late stages of these dying Cb elements typically contribute to the low-level mass forcing needed for the initiating of other new adjacent Cb clouds. This is why multiple Cb clouds tend to cluster together.
Cb clouds penetrate well into the middle and upper troposphere. The excess mass within the weakening upper-level Cb elements diverge and spread out as cirrus clouds. This higher level extra mass and cirrus cloudiness then begins to undergo sinking so as to make space and satisfy mass balance for the new emerging upper tropospheric Cb penetrating elements.
Subsidence Drying. Cumulonimbus updraft elements have very high rainfall efficiency as they weaken and die in the very cold upper troposphere. The very cold air at these upper tropospheric levels can hold (even at saturation) very little water-vapor (only about 1% of the low-level moisture content by mass and 0.1 of 1% by volume) compared to the middle and lower tropospheric moisture contents. This very low water-vapor content air from the upper Cb outflow then sinks, evaporates its cloud particles, and arrives at lower levels where the saturated water-vapor contents are much higher. The original upper-level dry air then mixes with the lower level air. This mixture of air at the lower level becomes drier than the air at this level was before any of the upper-level air mixed into it.
A saturated air parcel from a dying Cb cloud which sinks from the 200 mb (12 km height) level to the lower pressure height of 300 mb (10 km ht.) will arrive at this lower-level with a RH of only 10-12 percent of the lower level air. These unusually large upper-level subsidence drying amounts are a consequence of the very large gradient of saturated vapor pressure in the upper troposphere. Vertical gradients of saturated vapor pressure at middle and lower tropospheric levels are, percentage wise, much smaller.
An increase in global deep convective (Cb) activity as a result of CO2 increases will thus bring drying (not moistening) to the upper troposphere, just the opposite of the climate models projections. This upper tropospheric drying acts to lower the infrared (IR) radiation emission level (EL) to a lower height and a warmer temperature where larger amounts of IR energy (σT4) are able to be fluxed to space. Increases in net global Cb convective activity results in higher amounts of IR energy being fluxed to space, not lower amounts as all the climate modelers and their fellow AGW advocates believe.
Our extensive analysis of the ISCCP data well shows the degree to which the broad upper-level sinking air from the global rain areas have had their RH reduced when an enhancement of the global rainfall rate (and accompanied increase in Cb convection) occurs. Please see the attached short write-up “Crux of AGWs Flawed Science” for more detailed discussion and clarifying figures and tables.
How Global Temperature Will Change as CO2 Increases. The rise of CO2 gas occurs very slowly. By contrast, the troposphere’s hydrologic cycle and its energy dissipation cycle operate on a time-scale of only around 10 days. Any CO2 radiational induced warming will be quickly felt by the earth’s surface and will immediately act to enhance surface evaporation. The more surface evaporation, the less the surface will warm.
A doubling of CO2 gas in the atmosphere will cause an alteration of our global climate but not in the same way as envisioned by the climate modelers or by the majority of scientists studying this topic. Most researchers concentrate only on the direct radiation influences which CO2 increases bring about. They tend not to consider the other related feedback mechanisms which will be simultaneously activated as CO2 amounts increase. The increased global evaporation from CO2 increase will extract energy from the earth’s surface and enhance surface cooling. This will act to reduce the pure radiation assumed 1°C warming through both enhanced IR energy flux to space and enhanced surface evaporation. The more evaporation from a doubling of CO2 will act to further reduce the 1°C direct radiation only temperature response. As the CO2’s induced speed-up of the globe’s hydrologic cycle continues the cooling influences of the enhanced surface evaporation-precipitation will greatly suppress any pure radiation assumed rise of 1°C. Doubling CO2 will thus be able to bring about only a quite modest global warming. The main influence of a doubling of CO2 will be to increase average global precipitation.
Basic Flaw of the AGW Hypothesis. It is the climate models parameterization schemes for cumulus convection (particularly the deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convection) which are grossly unrealistic and which completely negates the global modeler’s projections of 2-5°C warming for a doubling of CO2. This does not mean that the globe won’t be measurably influenced from CO2 doubling. But this CO2 influence will occur primarily as an enhancement of the global hydrologic cycle (precipitation) and only minimally from a rise in global surface temperature.
The AGW hypothesis that warming from increased CO2 will enhance global rainfall is correct. But the assumption that this added rainfall and added tropospheric condensation warming will greatly increase upper tropospheric temperature and water-vapor (through the assumption of constancy of relative humidity) is not at all valid. The opposite occurs. Increased deep Cb convection causes dryness to the upper troposphere. The climate modeler’s large increase in upper tropospheric water-vapor and temperature from added CO2 does not agree with the physics of how real-world deep Cb convection functions. And the additional positive feedback doubling of the upper troposphere warming and moistening which they add to the direct CO2 radiation blockage is completely bogus. This additional feedback assumption greatly increases the divergence of their model simulations from reality.
Summary. The global climate modelers assumed that CO2 enhanced global rainfall will bring about large upper-tropospheric water-vapor and temperature increases. These upper-level water-vapor increases are then projected to bring about even larger temperature increases and additional water-vapor (positive water-vapor feedback) amounts which add twice as much additional blockage of infrared (IR) energy to space than the initial influence of the CO2 blockage alone. Such large water-vapor and temperature increases are not at all realistic. This is the Achilles-heel of the whole AGW theory.
Comment. None of the global climate modelers or other AGW advocates seem to know that the globe’s deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convection processes act, not to increase upper level water-vapor, but in an opposite sense to reduce the globe’s upper tropospheric water-vapor content. The global climate modelers live in a very isolated Ivory Tower world. Their positive water-vapor feedback schemes in their doubling of CO2 simulations shows that they know next to nothing about how the atmosphere’s cumulus convective and moisture processes really function.
Gray Research Project. I and my Colorado State University (CSU) research project have a long background in studying cumulus convection, and particularly deep and intense cumulonimbus (Cb) convection of the tropics associated with meso-scale rain systems and tropical cyclones. We have published a lot of material on this subject over many years. These convective studies appear to provide crucial background information fundamental to establishing the invalidity of the AGW hypothesis. My CSU project’s over 50 years of tropical meteorology research has, by necessity, had to make the study of cumulus cloud convection a priority item for the understanding of tropical circulations and tropical cyclones. Our information has been gained from my project’s extensive involvement in many field experiments and from rawinsonde compositing activities over many years and recently through extensive analysis of ISCCP and NOAA Reanalysis data. To my knowledge, none of the AGW proponents have ever referred to any of my project’s many published papers and project reports.
Any scientist having advanced and detailed knowledge and working level experience of the globe’s deep cumulus convection process can completely negate the scientific validity of the AGW hypothesis. This could have been done decades ago if there had been an open and honest debate and further research on how changes in cumulus convective dynamics are related to CO2 increase. This greatly needed open and objective debate on cumulus convection process began and was taking place during the late 1960s and 1970s. But these studies were discontinued during the 1980s-1990s when the global models began to show useful results which the politicians, environmentalists, and the world government advocates could use to back up their desired AGW hypothesis. They did not want any further tampering with the models and the earlier momentum build-up for cumulus-moist process research did not go forward. The AGW advocates needed to utilize the unrealistic CO2 doubling climate model warming results as a scare mechanism to advance their agendas. And the CO2 global climate modeling community was quite happy to provide this justification and be well rewarded for their efforts.
Please see the attached paper “Crux of AGW’s Flawed Science” for full background discussion with figures and tables.
Best regards,
Bill Gray
Here is Grays paper on the Meridional Overturning Circulation ( MOC)
Click to access gray2012.pdf
As a new commer trawling the archives, is there any chance you could put the whole months’ archive on 1 page please? Every time I have to “show more” to get the next article, and that after going “Back” (maybe a “Next/Previous Article” button could be found at the bottom of each page.
If you scroll down the right side bar, you’ll see the monthly archives.
Maybe it is my browser (Firefox), but each month has more than a page worth of articles (something each day more or less, GREAT), so when I read articles not on page 1, I have to go back, then “Older posts”, at the end of the month I can be doing this 5-6 times each article. Maybe it is the way it is, but if it can be fixed, all to the good.
Can I ask opinion on this (if already covered ok).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/water_and_ice/ice_age#p00gtnlg
… I ask because the obvious question ” Do they think we have stopped ice ages forever?” is never asked, or even posited.
The article itself seems ludicrous as it claims that a few hundred thousand farmers produced enough GHG (ok ok they didn’t. But the article says ….) to stop a cycle of climate change that is shown to have been in place for at least 2 million years.
Where the Hell did some one come up with this from?
The BBC are very good at overstating Mann-made effects!
My reaction is that the ice age was already ending then anyway. Certainly, farming did not really take off till maybe around 5000BC.
If farmimg was increasing emissions, then why are temperatures lower now than in most of the Holocene?
We know that when global temperatures rise, as at the end of the ice age, CO2 levels rise as the oceans release it. Any influence from man would pale into insignificance in comparison.
First the BBC have a Uni Bristol story of Antarctic peninsular glacier catastrophe, now we have this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/
Now we have cli-fi novels being written specifically to indoctrinate the young: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/11624736/Climate-activists-targeting-children-with-range-of-cli-fi-novels.html
The operative word/contraction here is “fiction”.
California mandates oxygenated fuels. It is supposed to clean the air. It is lower in energy than HC based fuels and you must burn more of it. Since we have to burn more the only winner is the state in selling more fuel. Oxygenated fuel is another environmental scam. Thanks for what you do.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33315125
Paul: NY Times on Greenland glaciers: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/greenlands-iceberg-factory-where-the-empire-state-building-is-too-short-a-yardstick/?emc=edit_tnt_20150704&nlid=4912725&tntemail0=y
This article appears today, without comment or analysis in a UK tech farming blog. As per usual the original paper PIK is paywalled
http://www.farmingfutures.org.uk/blog/record-breaking-heavy-rainfall-events-increased-under-global-warming
Stunning new scientific discovery! Planes only fly into the wind. Look at this drivel:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3159421/Vicious-cycle-Extreme-weather-FUELS-global-warming-planes-spend-longer-air-battling-strong-winds.html
Hi… has anyone else had a look at this so-called ‘Handbook’ for dealing with we dreadful ‘Deniers’. Seems that their main defence lies in just finessing their presentations, nothing as straightforward as relying on properly stated science – that’d be too easy for us to counter! Take a look…
http://oncf.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8effb1ec23802aa40a449cc4c&id=e1239d2913&e=325ac1bffd
Or if you can’t download it look at the COIN website.
Cheers
Downloaded it last night, Wow have they have got the ‘marketing’ right !!
“telling human stories about the people affected by climate change (and how they are responding to it) is crucial – shifting climate change from a scientific to a social reality.”
“One strategy is to create a vivid ‘mental model’ of climate change in people’s minds. A visual artist can capture the concept of sea level rise better than any graph”
“But flip the statement around — using an ‘uncertain time’ framing — and suddenly it is clear that the question is when not if sea levels will rise by 50cm.”
I love these bits –
on pg5 – “ Emphasise that science is an ongoing debate, and just because scientists don’t know everything about a subject, they do know something.” BUT on pg6 – “the science is effectively settled. Communicators should not shy away from stating that clearly.”
We should ALL download it & learn the techniques from it.
“Recent temperatures have once again broken all records for a British July. We are now approaching the 370th month in succession that global temperatures have been above the 20th-century average.”
Staggering claims still abound:
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/07/why-are-we-still-waiting-solution-climate-change-because-it-s-hard
On top of climate change models we now have ‘thought experiments!’
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/03/stop-burning-fossil-fuels-now-no-co2-technofix-climate-change-oceans
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33818276
BBC quotes “hottest temperatures ever”
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/07/before-the-century-ends-it-may-be-too-hot-for-people-to-work-outside/ – bless!
Where’s the electricity going to come from? http://www.theengineer.co.uk/automotive/uk-to-trial-on-the-go-charging-for-electric-vehicles/1020900.article
BBC once more come out with a “story”, complete with Global Warming
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33690694
I read this story a few weeks ago;
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/6/e1500157
BBC comes to the party a month late at least. (and uses odd language in the article to boot)
UNEP miscounting the number of trees planted just came up.
In response to a poster that Canadian Oil corps planted 12million trees and Greenpeace zero, you’d expect GP just to fire back with the ‘huge’ number of trees Green NGOs as a group plant… but when I checked UNEP it seems there is something fishy with the stats ?
When that poster came out in April their lot just posted the same old angry snarly nasty comments against oil companies. With valid credible comments being overshadowed
like : that those oil trees might be monoculture, that some seedlings might have died.
I can actually see a UNEP page whose target makes that 12million look like a speck ie its 250,000 times bigger at 14billion PER country but so far AFTER 8 YEARS they are at 14billion total ie 0.4% of their target (at rate it’ll take 2,000years)
However you know Green groups have a terrible reputation for flaky figures.
If 14 billion trees have already been planted then as one of the world biggest tree areas, you’d expect Canada to have planted at least 1 biilion maybe 4 billion but the top two for Canada are reforest corps that planted
100 million in 2010
and another that planted 12.4 million in 2011
with the next 10 biggest totalling about 19million
– The entire Canada total listed there cannot be more than about 150 million. As someone says “Itdoesn’tAddUp”.
http://www.plant-for-the-planet-billiontreecampaign.org/Getinvolved/SeeLatest.aspx
I reproduced a screenshot of top Canada planting stats on The Galileo Movement’s FB post
Of course they actually mean 14 billion total target for the world … The wording “GOAL 14,000,000,000 PLANTED TREES PER COUNTRY” is faulty page layout on their part… but even with the target 250 times smaller
..their listed total of Canada planting less than 1% of the worlds trees seems fishy.
like where were the other 99% planetd ..I can’t imagine net gains in countries like Russia/China/India.
“There has been an exponential increase in weather-related natural disasters” – really?
http://www.farmingfutures.org.uk/blog/future-shocks-how-resilient-uk-food-system-extreme-global-weather-events
http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/08/27/sea-levels-are-rising-3-feet-unavoidable?cmpid=ait-fb
Latest catastropic warming claims being passed around on the internet. . .
Watch out extremes/worst ever
“These heavy rains are unprecedented. We can say this is an abnormal situation ”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34205879
Met Office and BBC; another “could be” story: hottest years evah!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34226178
But it must be true, Horrid Harrabin says so !!
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/one-image-captures-shocking-potential-future-polar-bears
Please what is the real source of this story as it is spreading fast on Facebook Thank you.
I don’t know, Penny. It is the first time I have seen it.
Polar bears, as all wild animals, commonly die of starvation when they get old. This is probably the main cause of death for older animals, as they no longer have the strength to compete for food.
For a proper analysis of polar bears, Susan Crockford, who is a biological expert on them, is definitely worth a read.
In reality, polar bear populations are thriving in most regions.
8.3 earthquake 11.30 last night • possible 2m tsunami •
full details –
http://earthquake-report.com/2015/09/16/massive-earthquake-near-coast-of-central-chile-on-september-16-2015/
Paul you need to check out the stats from the Indonesia haze, every year for more than 20 years now, but 2015 is a mega year, which must be having HUGE health and global temp effects NOW
see my post http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/9/16/the-monsoon-variability-climate-change-cartoon-sketchnotes-b.html?lastPage=true#comment21421135
Paul, as part of my research I have been collecting comprehensive daily weather data since Oct 1998. I was wondering if you might like to use it? My contact no. is on my website
With the recent suggestion from Sir Paul Drayson that diesel cars should be subject to a scrappage scheme to encourage drivers to switch to electric or hybrid vehicles, I started to wonder what the emissions of an electric vehicle might be when power generation emissions are taken into account.
Coal is around 900Kg/Mwh, while gas is around 500. Then there is nuclear, and of course solar, wind and biomass account for around 25%. Lets be generous and assume that biomass is indeed carbon neutral.
Lets assume the average CO2 emissions from generating 1 Mwh is 500Kg (=500g/Kwh). The best power consumption figure I’ve seen is for a Nissan Leaf at 34Kwh/100 miles. This means that the Leaf would indirectly cause CO2 emissions of at least 106g/km. However any dramatic increase in electric vehicle usage is likely to come largely from traditional (non-green, non-nuclear) generating capacity which has a higher emissions content. So taking these factors into account, together with real life consumption of say 120% of the quoted figure, we could easily end up with a real life emissions figure approaching 200g/km.
I suggest he is careful what he wishes for!
On the biomass subject, has anyone calculated the acreage of woodland required to ‘sustainably’ produce one ton of material per annum?
Richard
PS any corrections to my schoolboy maths welcome!
Transmission loses? I believe they are about 30%. Are you figures for power generated or power at the domestic socket?
The figures are for power generated, not at the socket so that makes the emissions equivalent higher.
Hurrah!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-34420631
Have you seen this yet Paul?
http://www.thegwpf.com/australian-mathematician-develops-new-climate-model-predicts-global-cooling-soon/
Paul,
I see Scientific American is re-promoting a 2012 E-book – ‘Storm Warnings: Climate Change and Extreme Weather’
( “Hurricanes. Blizzards. Flooding. Drought. Extreme events like these seem to be on the rise….. The likelihood of these extreme weather events are increasingly being tied to anthropogenic—or manmade, mostly through overproduction of carbon dioxide—global warming.”)
http://books.scientificamerican.com/sa-ebooks/books/storm-warnings-climate-change-extreme-weather/?WT.mc_id=SA_ebook_StormWarnings_standalone_hero
Presumably foreplay to get the troops aroused for the Paris orgasm.!!
Paul
Do you have any thoughts on this article?
http://www.thegwpf.com/australian-mathematician-develops-new-climate-model-predicts-global-cooling-soon/
Regards
John
I try to steer clear of science!
But it is obvious to anyone who studies climate history that the Earth has natural mechanisms which prevent runaway cooling or heating.
Paul,
Just completed the BBC survey … wasn’t able to submit it because I live outside UK (though, of course, am UK citizen). Mentioning this so that others in same position don’t waste their time.
Best wishes,
Niall
Thanks Niall
I’ve added a footnote
Have you seen this?
Good news, a spot of media coverage.
Perth Edition, The Sunday Times
Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate
Photo: AustralianClimateMadness
A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says…
The series of posts flows under the tag: “Climate Research 2015″
Rating: 8.9/10 (153 votes cast)
All the links to the Sunday Times story are on JoNova’s page here
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/
except that someone at the Sunday Times decided the original title was too strong “Originally published as Climate change debate cracks”
You must go back to the original article to see the 800 comments
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6#
Paul,
The University of Nebraska invited me to a meeting, (seminar) about Climate Change and its coming impact on forestry in Nebraska. (They will undoubtedly regret inviting me.) I have been collecting your ‘extreme’ rainfall charts and graphs (Holland and Texas) and it has occurred to me how much I would like to have the same type data for Nebraska. The meeting is on October 14th. If you can’t do it in the time frame — You have already given me great ammunition. Nothing speaks truth to power like data.
from ‘Real Science’
“AndyG55 says:
October 8, 2015 at 6:58 am
For those that haven’t seen it..
This is TRULY UGLY for the AGW scammers..
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/cruz_vs_warmist_its_ugly/
Sit back and have a good laugh.. avoid coffee on keyboard etc etc
I really would ask that everybody PLASTER this video URL far and wide.
Twit it, Faceplant it, whatever. 🙂
If it “disappears”… I have a copy of the video.”
I concur ( at least 97% of me does, my left knee is uncertain), spread it far & wide, pure gold from a warmister top gun !!!
An article in the Guardian this week that would have been enhanced by some evidence to support the assertions of the journalist.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/08/are-we-killing-our-rivers
Well Blogged. Many thanks.
*** Albedo regulation of Ice Ages, with no CO2 feedbacks ***
My analysis of Ice Age initiation and propagation is now up on the Warwick Hughes site. It speculates that the primary feedback for Ice Ages was actually albedo, not CO2. The overwhelming power of albedo was only overcome when CO2 dropped to dangerously low levels, resulting in widespread plant dieback and several millenia of dust storms. These dust storms reduced the albedo of the ice sheets, and allowed the Interglacial warming periods.
But Interglacial warming only happened when the precessional Great Year’s summer season increased insolation in the northern hemisphere. So several components are necessary for an Interglacial — very low Co2, plant dieback, dust storms, low ice albedo, and a Great Year summer season. So CO2 does falicitate Interglacial warming, but only by getting so low that all the plants die !!
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=4019
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri15/ralph_ellis_oct15.html
Ralph
From the Washington Post: U.S. Exports its Greenhouse Gas Emissions as Coal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-exports-its-greenhouse-gas-emissions–as-coal-profitable-coal/2015/10/08/05711c92-65fc-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205_story.html
This is similar to the way the developed world has exported its greenhouse gas emissions from consumer goods production to the developing world. We still consume just as much if not more than we did; the CO2 isn’t produced here any longer, but it is still produced, and arguably in greater volume and with more pollution than if it had remained onshore in a more tightly regulated environment.
Anyone here seen November’s “Focus” magazine from the BBC? In the first paragraph in a story about Conspiracy Theories (non-existent moon landings, JFK, 9/11 etc etc) it adds “Global Warming is a hoax”.
Now I know we all disagree with AGW (as a major like, thing), and accept GW up to the late 1990’s, but does anyone call GW “a hoax”?
This seems to be just a part of BBCs attempts at discrediting the whole AGW debate, or worse, putting a spin on the whole thing, after all, who wants to be associated with Conspiracy Theorists. They even do the whole “Tin Hat” meme, with pictures.
(BTW, I do not get Focus, but my father in law has received a free copy somehow)
BBC Goes all Permafrost/methane gooey.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34540414
Hurricane Patricia: Mexico awaits ‘strongest ever’ storm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-34614864
Have the Alarmists finally got what they have waited almost a decade for?
Hi Paul
Have you seen the latest Met Office blog reviewing October’s weather?
The headline reads ‘Warm, sunny and dry October’, and the introductory paragraph reads ‘Sunshine and temperatures were above normal in most places’.
However, this is grossly misleading, for the so-called warmth of the headline is not reflected in the mean temperature record, which shows them to have been ‘near average’ (their words later in the blog): the Met’s own records show an anomaly of only 0.3 to the 29th).
Interestingly, the blog does not show the anomaly map of mean temperatures for this month, only those for sunshine and rainfall; I suggest that the mean temperature map would not look ‘warm’ at all.
Next, the headline says ‘sunny’, but the sunshine map tells quite a different story, with only Scotland and parts of Northern Ireland showing above-average sunshine for the month.
Finally, why publish this three days before the month has ended?
Look here!
Oct. 30, 2015
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Any one noticed this: http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf
(I saw it on Ice Age Now: http://iceagenow.info/ )
25th Oct JoNova covered it
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/french-society-of-mathematicians-global-warming-crusade-is-aburd-and-pointless/
Be careful and check if is the official French Maths academy (it isn’t)
It sounds as if it is a private company run by Bernard Beauzamy
\\But, in 1995, I decided to leave my Professor position at the University and to start a company, named “Société de Calcul Mathématique, SA” (in short, SCM). What this company sells, and how it sells it, is the topic of the present talk. We have four branches: defense, environment, statistics and operations research.//
If you wade thru jonova’s commenters there’s more info
“Seems to be a 20 year old group, 10 staff. Central Paris. Assets of $500K. Profitable. Specializing in mathematics and mathematical modelling in the natural sciences field. A few books published and other works. Qualified people. It seems to be outside academia, competing in the commercial world of mathematical modelling”
When it was like that then I know w lot of it when it is the best reason to always tell someone about it and it is a lot with loads me people there
Hi Paul, not sure about this but there is an intriguing comment at WUWT:-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-2/#comment-2077424
Dear Poul
I have followed your checking of the temperature compilations and got more and more in doubt. Ole Humlum has also grown more sceptic to the main temperature series.
As usefull it is to do just an anomaly, it is so much easier to introduce a bias that’s very hard to check.
In theory the anomaly is computed for every station and then the anomalies are averaged.
So long so good, but as they do that, you can’t se if the reference for the anomaly changes or the recent temperature has changed. All anomalies back to 1900 or before is calculated every time, so you can not see if the anomaly for say 2000 changes when you update from 2014 to 2015. (Unless you have saved it). Everybody thinks it must stay constant, but it dos’nt.
The anomaly way to do it means, they can change stations at will, take some out or put others in, it is anyway “just” anomalies they average. Every station comes with its own reference, so you can not check how the references changes with station changes.
The history of changes to old temperatures is strange, but it seems just as strange, that they have to change the way to calculate these averages nearly once every year, and every time the changes goes the same way.
What are the reasons for updating the way to make those averages? What new information have they got between 2008 and 2014 of the old data from 2000 or 1900, that could justify these changes that Ole Humlum has saved?
I have not the skills to dig into these matters, but i hope you will follow up.
Regards
Svend
Teflon Tim the Trougher Trashed. He lied in libel trial !!!
Tim Yeo Ex-chairman of the energy and climate change select committee lied in his libel trial
His ‘Evidence was untrue & dishonest’ (no change there then )
Dismissing the case, Mr Justice Warby said he was unable to accept Mr Yeo’s evidence that he was unable to remember an email which mentioned a “generous remuneration package”.
“I can think of none who convincingly claim to have no interest in money, yet end up with an annual income in excess of £200,000,” the judge said.
“I do not consider that Mr Yeo is such a person. In my judgment this evidence was untrue.
“I am not persuaded that it was honest either.”
Yeo has agreed to pay legal fees of £411,000 within 28 days, with any further costs to be assessed.
He spent most of his life lying & bullying, shame its taken so long to get him in court, Gummer, Davey, Hune & Milliband need a trip there as well.
Sorry missed the link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12014863/Ex-MP-Tim-Yeo-loses-High-Court-libel-action-over-lobbying-claims.html
Paul, have you caught any of the current BBC series “Power to the People”?
Lots of inside information about Ferrybridge in the first episode and interesting to hear what some of the workers think about wind turbines and climate change
A statement at the end of the second programme stated:
“In spring 2015, renewables generated more electricity than coal, or nuclear, for the first time.”
I am not sure what “or” means. i.e. does it mean either coal or nuclear but not both?
My recollection is that it was for a short period of time (24 hours) but not the entire spring.
Incly hydro and bio, renewables are slightly than coal or nuclear, but not both.
Wind and solar on their own only reached 15%, less than coal’s 20% and nuclear’s 21%.
Also conveniently ignores gas leading the way with 30%
You may find these UK energy sites useful –
http://nationalgrid.stephenmorley.org/
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
The DECC data is also here
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/electricity-statistics
I usually use the “Quarterly & Monthly Data”
Yup, DUKES is required bedtime reading in this house too !
note to self must get out more (:-))
Thanks, I’ll have a look.
A pretty damning story from the North Devon gazette:
http://www.northdevongazette.co.uk/news/barnstaple_civic_centre_solar_panels_to_be_binned_1_4324946
£375,000 of public money, & the potential maximum saving a year was only £3,600, do the maths = 104 years
(the life of solar systems is ~ 25yrs).
Looks like a bean counter needs sacking
“2005 in a project led by North Devon Council and thanks to a grant from the Department of Trade and Industry.
In 2011 the Gazette reported how the system was not working due to inactive panels.
DCC said at the time the potential maximum saving a year was £3,600, depending on electricity costs, so over 10 years it will not have paid for itself.”
…Steps back in amazement, Your Devon Council people are good at maths !
A £375K projects savingmaxm £3.6K/year didn’t pay for itself in 10 years ..wow
Thanks, I thought the information was misleading.
Sorry, my previous replies haven’t appeared where I expected them to.
Hot News #1 , Swansea redundancies,
#2 Humber mothballed gas plants reopening
#1 Tidal Lagoon Power axes 17 jobs after Swansea Bay project delay
Meanwhile near my village
#2 £63m power station joy for South Humber Bank Grimsby Telegraph
being refitted prior to 2017 re-opening
“guaranteeing the future of the site up to 2027, while creating 10 more jobs.” 1.3GW
Meanwhile Keady is ALREADY switched on now
The Nov 1st story :Keadby Power Station to re-open two years after being mothballed
“The gas-fired plant will reopen on Monday, November 9, more than two years after it was mothballed in March 2013.”
They’ll move workers from Ferrybridge coal PS (closing sometime)
(early 2015 I listed other local gas PS which were scheduled for closure like Killingholme and Brigg)
oh hangon – South Bank power station (Brigg) saved from closure
70Km south Sutton Bridge was given permission in September to build new 1.8GW (awaiting corp final decision
I guess the windfarm engineers are still flying in on their special daily flights from Denmark to Humberside Airport . No, no they ran for 6 months and got cancelled.
Thanks Stew.
That answers a question that DECC could not tell me!
All these mothballed plants are still in DECC’s list of current power stations, which I based my capacity load scenarios on a week or two ago.
Hmmm ….
Click to access nt164-forecast-changeable-report-17.pdf
Baroness Scotland claimed today that tropical storm Erika (and the flooding in her cottage) were caused by “climate change”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06qkl13
(approx. 39 minutes in)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p039wmhq
I don’t know whether there is anything in her claim that “nobody knew it was coming” and her claim about it;s effect on Dominica’s economy.
direct link to 39th minute . First Talking about Commonwealth of Dominica on 27th August “lost about 35 people”.
And then “Sir David King talks about the damage here in the UK”, “I’ve a cottage at just outside Witney, at village called Asthall. We were flooded to about 5 foot”
blah bhah : “keep if to one point five”
presenter :”so a tougher target than even the two PER CENT that people say is not achievable”
“We all ahve to set our own priorities” ..Yeh check her carbon footprint
..I’ve told her a million times not to exaggerate !
A news report with her about Storm Erika but she gets a kicking in the comments :
“sounded like she did not know much about Dominica. Before the interview she should have done some research or maybe read a good book about Dominica, especially about hurricane David. “…
“In her interview she said Tropical storm Erika killed 31 people and many more are still missing. Then she went on to say that Erika killed more people than David. I mean is 31 greater than 56 Ms. Scotland?”
Paul, given your profession you may find the following opinion piece in ‘The Actuary’ to be of interest:-
‘A climate of doubt’
‘Climate Change Working Party’
Why do I have problems posting links on this site?
‘A climate of doubt’ should have linked to:-
http://www.theactuary.com/opinion/2015/12/a-climate-of-doubt/#sthash.7u056wuL.dpuf
‘Climate Change Working Party’ should have linked to:-
https://www.actuaries.org.uk/practice-areas/resource-and-environment/research-working-parties/climate-change
works elsewhere, why not here? What am I doing wrong?
I’m afraid George Monbiot made mincemeat of Jane Collins MEP (UKIP) on today’s Any Questions today.
Monbiot was allowed to get away with statements like “climate change is a remarkably mild term for what we are facing, what we are looking at, ladies and gentlemen, what we are facing is climate breakdown, unless major action is taken.
Of course it would have taken more of an expert to take him on, and she probably shouldn’t have tried especially taking into account that she was in a minority of one on the panel.
She and UKIP need to be better briefed in future.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06qmyyl#play
It seems the warmists are now trying to prove the Medieval Warm Period was little more than a few good summers enjoyed only by Europe.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm
Paul, BBC Pension fund 2015 has a smidge : news of new Green investment but no $$ amount “Extracts from B.B.C. ‘Pensions Report and Accounts 2015’
“the Scheme has committed to an investment in UK renewable
energy assets with BlackRock” (page 8).”
See WUWT comment
I see the MO web forecasts have gone to 7 days now.
Given that only about 1 in 3 of the hourly forecasts for the first day are entirely accurate, this seems like an exercise in futility.
I see that in the excitement of COP21, I missed you breaking the 2,500,000 hits mark. Congratulations and BZ
Thanks, and yes I did miss it!
well done Paul….shame it’s not ££s
Paul, did you see this post on the “Real Science” blog?
The PDF file to which it links, makes reference to the “EMID” (East Midlands) dataset, which seems to start in the early 1700’s, i.e. earlier than the MO HadUPP series.
Have you encountered this dataset before?
Click to access scho1206blsm-e-e.pdf
BBC and M.O. at it again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35121340
Paul,
I was just perusing the 2016 New Year Honours List, and it appears that there has been a gross omission in the section titled; Bringing some sanity to the Climate Change debate.
Oh, well, maybe next year 🙂
Happy New Year, and keep up the fantastic work that you do, highlighting the truth behind the facile reporting from the BBC and the Met Office, et al.
Great website! You will be interested in Spectator leading article today:
UK spend on river and sea defenses this financial year: £695 milllion
UK spend on subsidising ‘green energy’ : £4300 million
In Holland, with quarter population of UK, river defences this year,spend £1900 million
Source:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/why-cant-we-go-dutch-on-flood-defence/
Dear Paul,
I have a comment I want to send (nothing terrible) but it is not for publication … can I post it here
I’ll email you if you like, Niall
Dear Paul
I have been following your story about mashed temperature records. I have looked at several of our local sites, and been suitably horrified. However, I have been trying to find the metadata, and repeated requests to NASA have met with no success? Any idea how to access?
Whereabouts are you, philip?
Re: Modulation of Ice Ages via Precession and Dust-Albedo Feedbacks
A new paper proving that CO2 is a minor player in the drama that is the Earth’s climate.
Abstract
We present here a simple and novel proposal for the modulation and rhythm of ice ages and interglacials during the late Pleistocene. While the standard Milankovitch-precession theory fails to explain the long intervals between interglacials, these can be accounted for by a novel forcing and feedback system involving CO2, dust and albedo. During the glacial period, the high albedo of the northern ice sheets drives down global temperatures and CO2 concentrations, despite subsequent precessional forcing maxima. Over the following millennia CO2 is sequestered in the oceans and atmospheric concentrations eventually reach a critical minima of about 200 ppm, which causes a die-back of temperate and boreal forests and grasslands, especially at high altitude. The ensuing soil erosion generates dust storms, resulting in increased dust deposition and lower albedo on the northern ice sheets. As northern hemisphere insolation increases during the next Milankovitch cycle, the dust-laden ice-sheets absorb considerably more insolation and undergo rapid melting, which forces the climate into an interglacial period. The proposed mechanism is simple, robust, and comprehensive in its scope, and its key elements are well supported by empirical evidence.
https://www.academia.edu/20051643/Modulation_of_Ice_Ages_via_Precession_and_Dust-Albedo_Feedbacks
Sincerely,
Ralph Ellis
New to this blog – stumbled on it from WUWT. Nice to see a UK based balanced view on the scam of climate change.
I have been trying to find out why solar farm panels are at around 30 degrees from the horizontal rather than a much steeper and efficient angle? Any posts/discussions on this?
Cheers
Skyman
Welcome Brian,
I don’t know but you can go into the search box
(RH column, above best European Blog box & Archives)
or,
use the blue search words in the list
Below Recent Comments.
If the panels were steeper, tops would be higher so rows would need to be further apart to prevent shadowing ??? just a guess.
This really puts the science of CO2 emissions into perspective! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/12098431/Global-warming-delays-next-ice-age-by-50000-years.html. So we’ll only need to wait 100,000 years to test this theory! One ace quote: “The carbon emissions produced by humans burning fossil fuels would be sufficient to radically delay the timing of the next ice age, they predicted.” Maybe there’s a greater risk of nuclear annihilation or pandemics that threaten the human race in that timeframe, yet we use this as a justification to worry about CO2.
Bainbridge – the new Honister?
The Beeb and MET office are getting excited about readings from Bainbridge:-
claiming 496.2mm rainfall in December (previous 327.2mm in 2006).
Even more exciting is the fact that they are saying that this is why the pumps in the York Foss Barrier (which they operate) were “overwhelmed” leading to 600 properties being flooded on 26/27 December.
They are less forthcoming about the fact that they took fright at the water entering the electric/ control house, raised the barrier (ensuring the lower end of the Foss catchment would certainly be flooded) and turned off the pumps, for good measure.
They also don’t point out that Bainbridge is nowhere near the Foss catchment area.
Can you suggest how I can get hold of rainfall records (if any) relevant to the Foss, both for the period up to 26 December and any historical figures?
You’d need to contact the Met Office
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/contact
Is Peter Stanford in the Telegraph getting his years mixed up?
Dear Paul,
After some calculations on raw and homogenised data sets from the KNMI, I have visualized the temperature corrections for KNMI’s main station de Bilt. Main conclusion is that the corrections clearly cool pre-1950 summers, and that the correction for urban heat effects is cancelled from 2006 onwards, for undisclosed reasons.
Full story with all graphs can be found on my new blog: tradingmagicforfact.wordpress.com. Feel free to share the story if you think it’s interesting!
Best regards,
Laurens
This looks interesting …..Gravity Maps
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=87276
Didn’t know where to stick it !!
john
Strangely reassuring – Piers Corbyn, the climate sceptic – that is, scientist!
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/24/piers-corbyn-other-rebel-in-the-family-jeremy-corbyn-climate-change
Paul
fyi – https://consult.defra.gov.uk/water-and-flood-risk-management/national-flood-resilience-review-call-for-evidence
Paul, here is an update from Dec. on the EPA’s spill into the CO Animas River.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/11/government-report-highlights-epas-involvement-in-colorado-river-spill/
Thanks for the update. Its a disgrace that the EPA clearly considers itself above the law. A regime change is sorely needed in the USA.
Forecast sea level rise of 1m in next 100 years is being used as an excuse to abandon the village of Fairbourne in Wales by ceasing to maintain sea defences: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/residents-living-village-damned-consider-10879413
The next carriage on the gravy train ??
New Scientist sucks on CO2
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2077540-the-big-carbon-clean-up-2-steps-to-stop-global-warming-at-1-5c/?cmpid=NLC|NSNS|2016-1802-GLOB&utm_medium=NLC&utm_source=NSNSAL
Green eco-warriors spend 10 mins protesting that we must be carbon free….
then rush into a carbon fueled building to get warm !!
Bless.
http://www.thecornellreview.org/cornell-climate-action-plan-rally-a-dud-students-complain-of-cold-and-retreat-into-fossil-fuel-heated-building/
If you missed today’s Infinite Monkey Cage on BBC R4, it’s a must listen.
The climate change guest was so appalling bad – and unchallenged.
The boy Cox stated that a sceptic denies the climate changes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-35641766
At disused station, maybe during demolition?
Paul, Stats on BBC mentions of FoE, WWF, Greenpeace for the last 16 years collected by BH commenters would make an interesting graph.
The rising curves might be a result of :
#1 possible insider connections
#2 The large PR spending of these trans-global mammoth NGOs
Another hockeystick ??
Paul
I’d like to beg a HUGE favour. At least I’m honest.
Any chance you could email me.
Thanks
Adrian
UK government gagging scientists….again
http://www.nature.com/news/confusion-reigns-as-uk-scientists-face-government-gagging-clause-1.19454
I get an error message
Hi Paul
I just tried it –
http://www.nature.com/news/confusion-reigns-as-uk-scientists-face-government-gagging-clause-1.19454
worked OK for me in firefox
I still get “Internal Server Error” (On firefox)
Strangely, I get it when I go on Nature’s home page too!
put
Confusion reigns as UK scientists face government ‘gagging’ clause
into google – comes up as first hit, 2nd hit is Junk science carrying the story.
Paul, did you spot the article in the Sunday Telegraph linking abrupt weather changes during pregnancy to ‘smaller’ babies. No direct mention of agw but now I tend to see it even when it’s not there.
Another arctic expedition rescued, perhaps there is a need for a roll of costly rescues. 🙂
“Two British adventurers had to be rescued by American coastguards after getting stranded in Alaska.
Neil Laughton and James Bingham were attempting to cross a remote area from Little Wales to Little Diomede on cross country skis and by kayak.
But the ice became too thin to walk on and too thick to continue in kayaks, leaving the pair stranded.
Two British adventurers had to be rescued by American coastguards after getting stranded in Alaska.
Pic: Bering Strait 2016 Facebook
They were eventually winched to safety by US Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak air crews.”
http://news.sky.com/story/1654494/stranded-british-adventurers-rescued-in-alaska
Cato.org, in the U.S. has a relevant article on the political nature of ‘science’ re climate change.
Any links?
I thought this was quite illuminating – no talk back from Kirsty
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072ht0p
Just listened to a BBC program on fraud in science –
‘Saving science from the scientists’ 1 of 2 programs.
Listen again – http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072jdqm
with Alok Jha – Science Correspondent at The Guardian & ITV
Alok graduated from MSc Science Communication in 1999, after completing a physics degree at Imperial
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0742nzq/broadcasts/upcoming
Surprisingly even handed for the BBC, I’m amazed Horrid Harrabin allowed it to go out.
Geoffrey Lean has new article about fracking in the Independant http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/fracking-to-prompt-sharp-rise-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-study-says-a6928126.html
More baloney
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13669877.2016.1153506
Paul Re your piece of less extreme precipitation see:
Click to access trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900–an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.pdf
MJK
Did the MOD’s desire to make our warships green lead to failures in the power systems?
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/ships/2016/03/23/destroyer-royal-navy-uk-power-plant/82167048/
Right Now on You are yours R4 Fairbourne The Welsh Sea Level rise village about 12:20 around 20minns from the end
(Sea defence maintenance will end in 40 years time ‘managed retreat’ due to extreme sea rise predictions made in old IPCC reports of 50cm for 50 years later ..which were actually later revised down to 20cm )
Villagers are set to sue the council for drop in property prices.
Matt Ridley points this out. http://freepressstandard.com/university-of-cincinnati-study-finds-frackings-bad-rap-is-not-supported/
FT article “Two of the country’s largest coal plants have been saved in recent weeks thanks to back-up contracts from the grid and government. ”
– Fiddlers Ferry in Cheshire, SSE One of its four boilers is being mothballed, while the other three will be kept open. Subsidy via “capacity mechanism”
– Eggborough in Yorkshire announced last month it would be just mothballed, after securing new payments from the grid to remain available as emergency back-up.
– Longannet + Ferrybridge, in West Yorkshire, 3.4GW closed last week.
Article quotes stats from Sandbag – why do that on the day the official figs came out ?
.. and then quotes Doug Parr, Greenpeace’s chief scientist, then IPPR
– NPower guy says “hand direct subsidies to energy companies to build new gas plant.”
– Other expert says all this uncertainty puts people off building new FF plant
Thanks Stew
Unfortunately it’s paywalled!
I’ll try and dig out elsewhere
Just sign up for a free FT account . I can see about 10 free articles/month.
Strangely I could see that page without logging in but an hour later it was behind the paywall, but i could still login an see it.
Help the climate …..Have more sex !!!
Ever thought of having more environmentally friendly sex?
Well you could soon be giving your bedroom a green tinge of eroticism thanks to a new invention.
I Love the quote –
“We are passionate people and now we can have that passion anywhere and we are helping the climate too!”
There is a new posting at http://www.ecofascism.com containing a list of 356 climate sceptical and enviro-critical websites plus additional info on the enviro-critic community and its funders.
Interesting article in today’s Derby Telegraph regarding two Wind Turbines that you featured in a previous post…..
http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Wheels-motion-city-s-wind-turbines-turning/story-29043875-detail/story.html
Paul I am catching the BBC making all kinds of FREE adverts for the Greens
– This weekend 2 slots for Tesla promotion – yet the new model by their own admission is not much cop..At the End of the TechTent item they explained the flaws : No new tech, not deliverable until 2015 and £25,000 is not really entry level car.
yesterdays 10pm R4 news mocked up an advertising page by inviting a Tesla supporter.
//////////////////////
Meanwhile Ecofacism.com has an article on the background of sceptics online ..including leftists
whereas Alarmists are often big biz
so don’t fall for their framing of Left vs “Right wing denier”
Solar Corps bankruptcies etc. I found some negatives of the Morocco Noor project
– While the news media has a love-in with GreenDream it’s difficult to find critical stories before the corps collapse.
..eg all stuff about Morocco’s Noor project is treated optimistically despite it being 3 months late before it started
Now I find an article by a London based Algerian-anti-capitalist who has actually been there, which lists problems
He claims poor people were kicked off the land
“One noted that “the project people talk about this as a desert that is not used, but to the people here it is not desert, it is a pasture. It is their territory and their future is in the land”
He claims local wealth is being expropriated and handed over to big guys who call themselves Green biz
“the duped local population were surprised to find out that the money from the sale was not going to be handed to them, but that it would be deposited into the tribe’s account at the Ministry of Interior.”
Hey this thing uses a LOT of water
“The biggest issue with this technology is the extensive use of water that comes with the wet cooling stage. Unlike photovoltaic (PV) technology, CSP needs cooling.”
“Morocco will host the climate talks (COP22) this year in November …
For this purpose, the Ouarzazate solar complex will be used as a flagship ”
” If the Moroccan state was really serious about its green credentials, why …Why is it also ignoring the devastating environmental and social effects of the mining industry in the country?”
Hi,
You might be interested in this story.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/advice/is-it-greener-to-travel-by-bus-or-by-car/
I have the research it’s based on if needed.
Regards
Sean Corker
Thanks Sean
Is there anything on CO2 as well?
Paul
Yes I see spin that article
“When… asked councils to provide figures for bus passenger occupancy per kilometre, only two did so. One, Sheffield City Council, revealed that during the morning rush hour (7-10am) its buses carried only 2.3 passengers per kilometre. The average bus occupancy was a shade under 12 people.”
*** OK what was the other council ? and what were their figures ?
… I suspect Sheffield has been cherrypicked as a low example.
and anyway one area one area is too low a sample size for a whole country.
Otherwise the article may have good points.
Same points were made in 2009 : bus are geared to peak , so rest of time empty
On Bus Occupancy Data The EU pages says
“This indicator is discontinued. No more assessments will be produced.”
“Bus and coach data is difficult to obtain as it is rarely made publicly available due to the increasingly privatised nature of national public bus services. The result of privatisation has been the closure of less profitable bus routes (those with low occupancy rates) and a shift to smaller sized buses.”
The UK gov has stats but it’s 2004/2005 (even tho the main page is 2015
Tip : I see a “front page editor for BBC News” is quite enthusiastic about a training workshop they did
: “How could you help people take collective action on climate change? Friday 03 July 2015,”
not organised by the BBC but by the Global Editors Network conference in Barcelona,
..See the link and highlights over on BishopHill Unthreaded
BBC Green Room logo
Tip : Another BBC advert for a subsidy farming Green Corp here on this page
In cahoots with Newsquest regional newspapers who are big on pushing green news and censoring comments
This morning BBC Farming Today featured a report on one of the winners of the Northern Farmer Magazine awards. (Coincidentally owned by Newsquest)
Which category did BBC pick out off 10 ?
………………….That’s right ‘Green Farmer of the year” …He lives in Cheshire
He talked about his Hydrogen project : They use electrolysis to split water into hydrogen which they then burn to heat the house ..surely there is a lot of waste in those steps. Why not just use solar hot water ?
He claims he does it to save money..subsidies were not mentioned , but surely that the only way he can be quids in is if he has subsidies.
That Magazine has no website, but Newsquest newspapers mention the news
“Green Farmer of the Year – Sponsored by Clean Power”
That
might beis the same Clean Power Solutions who just supplied that hydrogen system which the BBC TV were on hand to film.I see David MacKay has died.
Acclaimed expert on energy and engineering Sir David MacKay dies aged 48
more on Twitter
David MacKay: A reality check on renewables | TED Talk
On Sunday 10 April he blogged “I’d like my posts to have an ending, so I’m going to make this my final one”
There are now about 30 comments of memorial there
Tip : Words from
theirBob Ward’s own petition“This is an attack on academic freedom as it would stop grants for university research being used to influence policy-makers.”
The Cabinet Office has announced that a new ‘anti-lobbying’ clause will be included in all Government grants from May 2016.
Petition :Exempt grants for academic research from new ‘anti-lobbying’ regulation
…Created by Bob Ward …………Deadline 29 August 2016
The creator of the petition is the PR guy for Big Green hedge-fund founder Jeremy Grantham.. and basically works full time as a fully time time UK Climate Policy lobbyist .
He is not a scientist, although the BBC have in some of frequent media on air appearances , mistakenly introduced him as one.
Peter Stanford’s column in the Sunday Telegraph predicting El Niño induced summer heat wave. I take it he didn’t get the memo?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/27/emma-thompson-breaks-injunction-to-stage-fracking-protest/ Farmer retaliates by turning the muck spreader on them.
I have just been watching the South Today lunchtime news on the BBC which carried a story about an embankment land slip on Farnham to Alton railway line. It was reported this was due to last weeks heavy rain. However, what nearly made me choke on my lunch was when the reporter went on to say that Southampton University are blaming it on “climate change” and that we should all expect a lot more land slips delaying trains!
I’m afraid that to propagandists there is now no distinction between weather and “climate change”.
Even though erosion due to weather has been going on since the beginning of time and there is no evidence to support the belief that it is increasing.
More on the enduring costs of wind wnergy for Danish consumers (from The Australian!) here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/danish-consumers-pay-big-and-long-to-subsidise-wind-turbines/news-story/f325bf64189961bfd2946e305d420e5e
Paul, what’s going on at your 2015 How To Complain To The BBC thread ?..comments have started again one year later ..and they’re a bit strange : Like one guy thinks the BBC are out to get Corbyn etc.
I wonder if it’s been used to test bots, or young guardian cyber disruptors in training
I did wonder myself!
This from a Metro article on Lake Whillans.
‘It is exciting to see such a rich dataset from the lake, and these new data are helping us understand how lakes function as part of the ice-sheet system.’
The latest research also showed that the lake’s waters periodically drain through channels to the ocean.
Researchers are hoping to use this information to help assess the contribution that subglacial lakes may have to the flow of water from the continent to the ocean, and therefore to sea-level rise.
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/03/hidden-continent-found-underneath-antarctica-5857426/#ixzz47o7xyEdb
I bet that’d have some strange impacts on the climate down there.
tip : Onsite Frack gas fueled power station vs a wind farm
see BH Unthreaded comment May 5, 2016 at 2:50 PM | Radical Rodent
Needs verifying I guess
DECC directly lied in their news release today.
“It is driving down costs and securing electricity at the lowest possible price for bill-payers.”
Securing the UK’s electricity supply h/t Phillip Bratby
BBC Costing The Earth managed to do a new episode The Sun King of China lionising Huang Ming, he employs 3000 people in solar research
Maybe someone can listen and check if the prog mentioned the giant failing Chinese solar corps Hanergy and Yingli Green Energy Holding who employed more people
(news for Yingli from 1 hour ago Yingli Green Says It Probably Can’t Repay Debts Due Thursday )
“Unprofitable since 2011, Yingli has breached its debt covenants for more than a year and has been kept alive by state-backed institutions led by the China Development Bank “
Hi stew, no mention of fails or how small solar PV is in china, did ( rightfully ) push solar hot water & mentioned it’s use in cooling
cheers
BBC News acting as a FREE ADVERTISER forclimate porn from a charity again
“A British aid charity is warning that by 2060 more than a billion people worldwide will live in cities at risk of catastrophic flooding as a result of climate change.”
The article is just full on cutnpaste quotes
What the hell is the point in running a news item off a press release unless you challenge it or add a third voice ?
I guess someone like Paul Homewood will tear it apart soon
Technical note re China/HK renewable bankruptcies.
– US : stock gets overblown, shortsellers come in and market corrects , even if stock gets suspended the closure limit is 10 days.
– Hong Kong : stock gets overblown, shortsellers WANT TO come in but the market self correction doesn’t work ..e.g. Hanergy shortsellers can’t cash out cos the stock is still suspended after 1 year
ideally they would buy now at a low price and hand the certificate over to their customers, who will hand them the cash for the OLD higher price
So Shortsellers are being deterred in China/HK and markets getting overblown
FYI
https://www.rspb.org.uk/community/ourwork/b/martinharper/archive/2016/05/24/choices-for-nature-the-rspb-s-vision-for-energy.aspx
Paul pop over to BH Unthreaded for links on RSPBs new report OKings lots of new windturbines
The man from the SUPER IMPARTIAL BBC hands out £10,000 each to 3 sets of artists for Climate Change projects”
background
An extraordinary claim, I wonder if an analyser blogger has had a good look ?
#1 warmists show a gloating graph showing renewables just touch demand
whereas
#2 @Gareth says At the data source Agorameter ” Set the start date for 15.05.2016 and the end date for 15.05.2016 and you’ll see the data has been revised” and shows renewables supply doesn’t get close and maxes out at 10GW below demand.
Are they the same graph and data ?
Bloomberg’s is labelled : “Germany’s power supply by hour” and shows 3am
Agorameter’s is labelled : “Power Generation and Consumption”
BH May 25, 2016 at 7:10 PM | Gareth
ah I found a quote elsewhere “No, it was reported by Bloomberg e.a. on the basis of provisional data, which turned out to be wrong.”
We know Warmists go for PR over truth every time..these links are doing the rounds
Notice how they immediately mislead cos they say ENERGY when they mean ELECTRICITY ONLY ..which is only a fraction of all energy a country uses
That last bit again
Notice how they immediately mislead cos they say ENERGY when they mean ELECTRICITY ONLY ..which is only a fraction of all energy a country uses
The transition to safer, cleaner and cheaper alternative energy sources continues
Germany Achieves Milestone – Renewables Supply Nearly 100 Percent Energy for a Day (copynpaste of Bloomberg BUT with open COMMENTS)
Portugal ran entirely on renewable energy for 4 consecutive days last week
…Notice how they immediately mislead cos they say ENERGY when they mean ELECTRICITY ONLY ..which is only a fraction of all energy a country uses
Yes a there is a debunk .. it was indeeed faulty provisional data
Reports of 100% renewable power in Germany vastly overstated
The wamist Blog posts will not get corrected cos with then ..It’s not about truth , it’s about PR
…No TrickZone dont have the story yet
and correction statement from Agora
..I guess further into the summer there could be sunny windy days ..and the line could be crossed.
Today’s Climate crap the Greenblob have made for the BBC to air to scare the public
is a UNESCO report saying all heritage sites are at risk #WorldHeritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate.
..Over on BH-U I quoted the BBC dialogue
Ah The Greeniverse is now full of this news “Australia lobbied its way out of any mention in a UNESCO report on grounds it could harm tourism”
ABC : Australia references stripped from UN climate change report over tourism concerns
France. If they continue with worker disputes, and the striking Nuclear workers eventually lead to the closure of plants;
What would the loss of our “French Connectors”, mean to UK power supplies?
… and if it happened mid-winter?
RS
I missed this article when it was first published.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/19/national-grid-profits-rise-as-uk-imports-cheap-french-power/
Trumps new Energy speech is amazing
..whoever wrote it seems pretty sensible
– There is a script, but Trump adds extensively Bismarck, North Dakota (5-26-16)
(NPR has decided it’s listeners must have a filtered version)
This guy doesn’t seem that he is a normal politician.
The speech is filled with policies eg “We are going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement
..and stop all payments of US tax dollars to UN Global Warming programs” point in video
Priorities “clean Air and Clean Water” for Americans
“This [Paris] agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much our energy and how much we use, right here, in America. So, foreign bureaucrats are going to be controlling what we’re using and what we’re doing on our land in our country. No way. No way.” … point in video
I posted tips about Trump Energy speech ..maybe in spam
cos I put 3 links in it
Same old Trash : Same old place #CrookedBBC
BBC’s Matt McGrath lionising renewables Renewable energy surges to record levels around the world
eg BIG LIE “green power is now the leading source of electricity, providing 44% of total EU capacity in 2015.”
CAPACITY is not PRODUCTION or source
..Solar/wind have rubbish capacity factors so a large capacity produces much less that conventionals.
5.03am ..Ah now Matt was doing his item on BBC WS news
Type Renewables REN21 into the Twitter search box and you’ll see that Matt McGrath is just parroting REN21 (LOBBY ORGANISATION of the biz) without challenging their assertions or mentioning #SUBSIDIES paid by poor to rich. (solarpanel/windfarm owners, electric car buyers etc) h/t PhilBradby
Meanwhile on the Greenpeace website : Cooling technologies set to become red hot sector is a fawning report after reading a report on “the Cold Economy”/
It wouldn’t have been written by IMPARTIAL BBC enviro reporter like McGrath\s stablemate RHarrabin cos he would have challenged and tested assertions like a proper journalist /sarc
Strange how i get BBCEnviro and Greenpeace pages mixed up
#BBCFreeGreenAds
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/01/plans-to-curb-diesel-power-could-raise-risk-of-blackouts/
Interesting what they say about diesel not being charged for network costs.
I wonder who supplied the cutNpaste this time doesn’t look like DECC
If Emily was writing at article about solar do you think she’d select every photo to be of black sky with no blue? There is so much black in the 2 photos she uses here.
http://www.davidlenigas.com/vw-lithium-redemption/
Green tech, corrupt EU bureaucrats, lobbyists and emission cheats, all in one post.
Hi Paul
I have put together a paper on the Little Ice Age Theory. It is available at http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Little_Ice_Age_Theory.pdf
James
Thanks James.
Just posted
Portland school bans Climate Change Denying textbooks and materials
http://portlandtribune.com/sl/307848-185832-portland-school-board-bans-climate-change-denying-materials
Chile Renewables Fantasy : Anyone got any light on this ? : Chile is 100% renewables is a story in Green echo chamber Reddit
The guy who told was unaware that Reddit bans skeptical comments
I don’t rule out a solar/wind surge ontop of a big hydro base, but when a green mag recently posted
Renewables on course for 25% Chile share by 2018, says president..so claiming 100% today seems 2G2BT
Other hype is Chile introduces world’s first metro to be powered largely by renewables
Wiki – Total installed nominal capacity in April 2010 was 15.94 GW.[1] Of the installed capacity, 64.9% is thermal,[1] 34% hydroelectric[1] and nearly 1% wind power,[1]
Yes Chile is exporting free electricity, but not cos it has fulfilled 100%, but rather cos the connections means excess solar can’t get to Chilean customers Bloomberg
Seems this cock-up story is being spun as a success
Seems my green PhD friend has got his page set up for his favourites like Green Topics
So his homepage shows such happy Green headlines
… and he only sometimes checks deeper
This time the initial poster has CREATED a happy clickbait headline and thousands of Greens have leapt in to upvote it
Thread 1: 6117pts Chile Has So Much Solar Energy It’s Giving It Away for Free
Then someone else has copied it
Thread 2: 4414pts Chile Has So Much Solar Energy It’s Giving It Away for Free
but some sensible people manage to get a sensible comment buried in about 200 wacky ones
(confirms my view Reddit is crap)
The excess power was NOT exported but given away locally for free
BBC4 Storm Troupers trotting out usual bull on climate change. Repeated tomorrow (Tuesday)at 8pm.
I have followed the “Reynolds SST Analysis” for a few years and was recently a little irritated by the change in the colour charts, that was maybe intended to give the overall appearance of a rather warmer N Atlantic. I was just getting used to the change and rather enjoying seeing most of the N Atlantic turn blue (negative anomaly), but then this last week, the ocean has “turned” almost completely yellow, showing a supposed a rise in temp of around 2deg on the East coast of the US and an almost unbelievable rise of up to 4deg in a couple of the Great Lakes. Surely this temp rise isn’t possible in just one week? What on Earth is happening?
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/sst/
Deception…..again
Paul you seem to have missed this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iranian-womens-clothing-is-causing-a-river-to-run-dry-cleric-says-a7077021.html
Well I’m convinced, don’t know about you.
Certainly as a convincing causality as agw
Iranian women’s western clothing ‘causing rivers to run dry’, says senior cleric
& the proof is in Paris…lots of hijab’s = floods
Who needs science when you have a faith
New US nuclear to come on line ..(there a huge delay in construction 1985-2007 due to change of rules etc.) The Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Watts Bar Unit 2 was connected to the power grid on June 3, becoming the first nuclear power plant to come online since 1996 1.5GW
That’s in the FT Energy Source newsletter
….Ed Crooks of the FT seems to be a greenblob stooge often make propagandistic statements like making wildly optimistic claims about pseudo renewables etc.
oh another bit
>>The world will within a decade reach “peak fossil fuels” for power generation, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance June 13.<<
..seems a pretty trashy item
There lies wouldn’t last 5 minutes if they allowed open comments, ..but no comments are allowed
I see Crooks material is used on an ambush name website
royaldutchshellplc.com
Yoiu have to dig deep to find this
“We are not Shell, but an independent non-profit website monitoring Shell’s activities.”
This looks like a very sad state of affairs..
Tesla bubble still on path to bursting
#1 When their autopilot mode resulted in an owner death, which could easily have been a bystander death, they held the news for 8 weeks until the holiday weekend.
#2 Well at least they have stormed back to make delivery targets…NO NO only joking they are even further behind than last time.
FT >>The number of vehicle deliveries fell 15 per cent short of the company’s forecast and was even lower than the first quarter of this year, a period when Tesla blamed its own “hubris” in being too ambitious with the vehicle design.<<
Look across at the other cars and pray that none of them are a Tesla on Autopilot mode.
Do you think Tesla will survive when a car in autopilot mode kills a thirdparty ? Or that its cars will be insurable
BBC and other media reported that a Tesla ‘self driving’ car had crashed the driver was killed.
BUT BUT It was NOT ‘Self-Driving’ but rather a NORMAL car of a normal person in self-drive mode ..something Tesla stupidly call Autopilot.
BBC video foolishly use the title “Self Driving technology” and then “”Self Driving” interchangeably In the first one you CANNNOT take your hands away from the wheel cos you are supposed to be able take over immediately.
The Tesla Autopilot is basically cruise-control-plus ie extra tech collision detection it can’t detect kids jumping out ..so it is unbelievable it is legal on some US roads BBC news-story
Similar non fatal accidents have happened in the past.
The dumb guy had Youtubed last month about the car preventing a near miss
I keep seeing reporters writing that Google cars are safer than humans..Actually that is NOT provably true humans driverscause a death every 100 million miles, and Google has only driven 1.5 million miles.
Tesla claim 130 million miles before this death
New software update planned
A US Exec recently said why self driving is not coming soon
>>Self-driving cars are getting better, but there’s a long way between now and the world that is promised, because safety is a complex phenomenon,” he writes. “You can’t just extrapolate Google cars driving ~1.5 million miles under specific conditions (weather, topology, construction, traffic, accidents around it, etc.) to usurping the ~3 trillion miles/year under all conditions in the US. 1.09 fatalities per 100 million miles is the current non-self-driving numbers.”<< link
The NHTSA plans to release federal regulations in July and states will add additional regulations on top.link
Hangon “The crash happened on 7 May, but we learned of it 56 days later—on the Thursday evening that inaugurated the long holiday weekend in the United States ending in 4 July. ” IEEE
Autopilot used in the UK, In Today’s Times the journalist talks about letting it take over on the M4.
his argument was in’s no more dangerous than cruise control cos he kept his hand on the wheel..but the thing is letting the autopilot make the decisions could be habit forming..until it crashes you.
Paul, I have in my possession a booklet that was printed in 1960 to raise funds for those affected by flooding in East Devon in that year. It was printed quickly in order to aid the needy and therefore reused blocks donated by local newspapers. Along with much interesting detail, it has a refreshingly phlegmatic approach to the risk of flooding in an area constrained by geography and tides. If you are interested in having it, I will gladly post it on to you, the quality of the print making copying and email unlikely to be worthwhile. Please advise.
Hi Paul, did you spot the above comment and if so, is it of interest to you?
We’ve go theanti frackers 2 miles down the road even tho there’s going to be no proper fracking, cos it’s just a new well like the local Gainsborough ones
protest meet
There is another meet the public day next week.
Local paper just said the full permit is in. site website
Permit doesn’t talk about fracking just Proppant Squeeze a kind on mini-frac that has been used many times around here
“Unlike hydraulic fracturing, a proppant squeeze requires the use of only a small volume
of proppant and carrier fluid as it seeks to only bypass the formation damage rather than specifically to enhance the natural permeability of the formation.”
Green self-sufficiency…… 58% powered by diesel !!!
Another Green fail – Gapa Island South Korea
The project to bring energy self-sufficiency to South Korean’s Gapa Island was launched in 2011. The reason that the island was selected for the trial project is because of its small size (0.85 square kilometers), its plentiful wind power and solar energy.
The population of the island is 178 people; the electricity powers the 97 households on the island, four electric cars and a desalination plant.
After 5 yrs, the island is meeting 32% of its energy needs from wind power and 10% from solar power. The other 58% of energy is still supplied by 450kW diesel generators.
A total of 14.3 billion won (US$12.49 million) was invested in the project. Two 250kW wind turbines were installed, along with 174kW solar panels in 49 locations, plus an energy storage device, a system control center, power conversion equipment and remotely controlled power meters.
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/752623.html
Capital expenditure spread over 20 yr life is –
$12.49 million / 178 = $70,168 / 20 = $3,508 per yr per capita
or
$12.49 million / 97 = $128,763 / 20 = $6,438 per yr per household
for just 42% green energy
A 450kW 562kva Cummins GTA28, 2006 model Genset is $59,950….
Lets allow a just a 10 yr life & lets buy 3 for ‘energy security’ – $180,000 / 178 / 10 = $101 per yr per capita
for 100% energy
But what about the fuel ???….
Well, I doubt each single person is going to use $3,407 worth of diesel per yr.
As the Americans say – “Go figure”
Climate science education
An article describing the replacement of science by advocacy here: http://canadafreepress.com/article/science-or-advocacy
Knowing the speed at which the UK government works, I won’t be holding my breath.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/26/please-build-mini-nukes-in-wales-say-welsh-mps/
Not Climate Science, but Big Physics… the Large Hadron Collider hasn’t discovered anything beyond the Higgs.
Juicy quote from the Sabine Hossenfelder a
Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies:
“We’ve maneuvered ourselves into a dead end by relying on aesthetic guidance to decide which experiments are the most promising.”
“I hope that this latest null result will send a clear message that you can’t trust the judgement of scientists whose future funding depends on their continued optimism.”
http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-lhc-nightmare-scenario-has-come-true.html
Good evening, I discovered your website and liked the Oppenheimer and Eisenhower quotes advocating freedom for scientific inquiry and also the advisory to remain alert to large federal funding influencing group think. I am not a climatologist but just joe citizen trying to self educate. Thank you for creating this blog. Question at the moment – can you direct me to references providing insights to the past few decades of receding ice and resulting warm temps (or vice versa) near Barrow, Alaska. Most sites I sought interpret as prima facie evidence of apocalypse yada yada, however I am looking for actual rational science. Lots more questions but am interested in this for the moment. thanks and hope to study more, jm, wash dc
JM,
You may find useful stuff in ‘Source Guide’ at bottom of this page https://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
Start with this post:
Note also the Uhi effect in Barrow
Also if you search for Alaska, there are some posts on glaciers. In particular how the remains of medieval forests are now emerging from receding glaciers
My favorite reply to the “settled science” crowd.
The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there’s no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. The history of our study of our solar system shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources. -Carl Sagan
Paul
You might like a look at this if you haven’t already spotted it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/10/bbc-let-emma-thompson-get-away-with-inaccurate-climate-change-cl/
Maybe there is a glimmer of hope at last!
A couple of articles in today’s Telegraph of interest. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/17/alaskan-village-votes-on-relocating-due-to-climate-change/
and A E-P gives us the benefit of his knowledge of nuclear energy, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/17/britain-should-leap-frog-hinkley-and-lead-21st-century-nuclear-r/
A E-P at it again. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/21/carbon-capture-can-drive-a-21st-century-revival-of-british-indus/
Hello…in your pursuit of ‘climate sanity’ I think you might enjoy my new semi-popular book ‘Climate Chaos’. Apart from trying to put current ‘changes’ into a 4.5 billion year context I compare published high resolution spectral ‘fingerprints’ of a dozen regional climate series with published spectra of several solar activity proxies…but allowing the possibility of simple non-linear relationships which generate well known harmonics and interaction frequencies. The bottom line is that much of climate series (such as El Nino, PDO and AMO) spectral power, in some cases over millennia, is down to solar variation. With solar activity in decline (according to recent astrophysical research) I would expect cooling to swamp the current modest CO2 warming for some decades. If so the crap will soon hit the fan!
The book is also on Amazon (under Green Man Books).
Professor David P Gregg (retired)
Temperature adjustment:
See here how the maximum temperature for the period 1901-1950 is drastically changed down for the main location De Bilt with up to 1.9 degrees celsius. Tx = old, TX_H is new.
16 of the 40 official heat waves about 1901-2015 are thereby deleted.All in the 1901-1951
https://cdn.knmi.nl/knmi/map/page/klimatologie/gegevens/daggegevens/temp_260.txt
Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years
John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett and Francis W. Zwiers
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 3 | SEPTEMBER 2013 | pg 767-769
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models.
“The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming2–4. The divergence between observed and CMIP5-simulated global warming begins in the early 1990s, as can be seen when comparing observed and simulated running trends from 1970–2012”
The AIS tracking on the Polar Challenge yacht Northabout appears to have been switched off as of sometime last night (24th August) and there is currently no image of their track on the website.
http://polarocean.co.uk/thankyou-sergai-deynekns-hello-wrangel-island-james-gray-hairy-mammoths/
The latest Masie ice chart of the Chukchi Sea that they are currently crossing shows a menacing tongue of ice snaking their way. There could very well be rather more ice around than they’d anticipated.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/masie_all_r02_4km.png
Our Local paper has info about local biz constructing a new 43MW waste CHP powerplant attached to a paper mill in Kent. The operator is called Wheelabrator and it says the corp has 20 such plants across the UK/USA..I just wonder how much subsidy money is going in to all these types of projects, cos I keep finding about such small power plants I never though existed. 40MW would be 1/30th the size of a proper gas fueled power station.
More info at wtikemsley.co.uk ..Green Investment Bank money is going into Wheelabrator projects eg £80m at Sittingbourne in Kent
Windmills can replace Hinkley Point C.
http://news.sky.com/story/hinkley-point-not-essential-for-uk-energy-10552188
But only if lots of gas power stations built as well.
In the past 12 mths the UKs 6,867 wind turbines produced only 7.7% of our electricity demand •
Coal 14.9%, Nuclear 23.4%, Gas 38.6%; another 7.7% came from Nuclear & Gas via the European interconnectors & 1.3% from hydro, the other 6.4% came from sewage gas, biomass, solar & diesel.
Over 50% of UK It’s a breezy day; UKs Wind capacity is ~ 14GW but wind is currently supplying less than less than 1GW….where’s the other 13GW we’ve paid so much in subsidies for ??
Scroll down this page for more info –
http://nationalgrid.stephenmorley.org/
Burning rubbish was always the largest renewable
..while the publicity is always about wind/solar while hyping the 25% claim
Much of that 25% must be new biomass then
Quite, I generally use http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ for a quick view of the wind follies frequent lack of contribution. Gridwatch includes a biomass dial which guessing by similarity of output values might be the contribution classed as “other” at the site you list. Otherwise a useful looking site, easier to read history graphs compared to gridwatch.
Sky disabled their comments following Brexit, maybe because many of the comments were negative to the way Sky cover that event and others including energy. Shame, now they can plaster the “wisdom” of Black without being exposed to clarification by comments on their own website.
Tip : Today’s Times Pg 27 Surprising debunk of Ashton Hayes magic eco-village story
: Eco village turns a paler shade of green”
Progess is slowing in one community’s drive to go carbon neutral
400 homes in Cheshire
– Camera crews from all over world flew in
– Eco claims are made by resident – Roy Alexander ..prof of Eco- &Sus @Chester
– Claim was 21.4% fall from 2006-10 ..the number reached 24% by 2015 (claim that newer villagers are big barn converter types with profligate lifestyles)
(higher figures are claimed by discounting the villagers most frequent flyers)
– Received a £400K grant for solar panels and Nissan Leaf ….But that didn’t work cos villagers already have own cars, so the charging point has been “disused for years”
– Villagers say there are 2 electric cars in the village
– The people with the greenest-house go to Mexico and will be there 3 months this year.
Peter Wadhams solves the Climate Change Catastrophe on the BBC ‘today program’
He gets 6mns repeating Catastrophic Climate Change at ~08:50
“This year sea ice in the Arctic has been melting at one of the highest rates on record. Peter Wadhams is professor of Ocean Physics at the University of Cambridge and author of A Farewell To Ice.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07q8y2h
Arctic circumnavigation boat Northabout starts at 02:44:30 then Wadhams at 02:46:10
Post glacial climate warming not advanced enough to allow land migration southward into North America
Subject: Indians probably did not migrate down North America on land
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/08/12/death-bering-strait-theory-165452
That the land was completely naked and barren in the ice-free corridor and incapable of supporting plant, animal and in turn human life, is not surprising – because there was not enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to support the plant life that is the base for human and animal nutrition.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The advancing ice sheets increase the Earth’s albedo, reflecting sunlight and resisting natural cyclic warming. As the ice sheets grow and the seas cool, CO2 in the atmosphere reduces as it is absorbed by the oceans. Most plants suffer severe stress at 190 ppm CO2 and die at 150 ppm, because CO2 is a primary plant-food. The concentration finally reaches the critical 190 ppm level where world flora begins to die and the Gobi steppe-lands turn into a true sand desert. The ensuing dust storms dump thousands of tonnes of dust onto the northern ice sheets each year. Ice core data shows that every interglacial warming period is preceded by about 10,000 years of intense dust storms. The dust on the ice absorbs solar radiation. When the next natural warming (or Great Summer) comes along, the dusty polar ice sheets can warm and melt and the next interglacial is born. Low concentrations of CO2 near the end of an ice age causes a die-off of plants leading to dust storms, reducing the ice sheet albedo, resulting in warming and the initiation of the next interglacial period……. see:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo …
Meanwhile the high amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water was able to sustain the entire aquatic food chain based on photosynthetic phytoplankton so that fish and other sea creatures were available to sustain migrating peoples as they made their way south along the west coast of North America.
Peter Salonius
Wind farm industry pays for upgrade to RAF radars.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/551614/desider_99_sept2016.pdf Page 32
Hi Paul,
Andrew Simms and 100 months to save the world.
Andrew began this in The Guardian on the 1st of August 2008 so the time is up on the 1st of Dec 2016. It might be interesting to have a look at the actual changes that have taken place in this 8 years+?
Ed.
the link –
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions
Good idea!
Paul,
Have you seen this article and especially the comments. It seems interconnectors are not bees knees after all!
http://euanmearns.com/uk-electricity-interconnectors-a-double-edged-sword/
Paul,
You have a great site. I’ll do my part to get the Wadham Unit into popular circulation, although my site is not specifically Climate centric ..
https://notonmywatch.com/?p=807
-the old man
Great site old man, an amazing life story. No comments or follow option?
Steve – aka wolsten
naw… I just like to keep it low profile.. need a hobby, but not the angst. 🙂 take care.
Not a problem, I have book-marked and will try to revisit.
Hi Paul,
Have you seen this paper:
Click to access cutting_the_cost_of_keeping_warm.pdf
a fascinating insight into the thought processes of DECC at the time on Cutting the cost of keeping warm – a fuel poverty strategy for England. Includes the following howler from the Ed Davey”
” We need to get to grips with this problem once and for all, so people don’t have to pay such large electricity and gas bills, so people’s health doesn’t suffer from lack of warmth and so we aren’t making climate change worse as our fellow citizens shiver.”
Not quite sure how he could write this with a straight face.
More seriously, the paper describes many convoluted methods to achieve the goal, many requiring extensive research by DECC, but not one includes repealing the Climate Change Act or opening up a competitive open market in energy like what we had once.
Steve
Hi Paul, Paul Matthews on BH Unthreaded has mentioned a paper on ethics from Neil Lavery which is over at the Conversation
It’s just toto hilarious for words – considering it’s supposed to be a serious commentary. You’ll love the idea of how the consensus supposedly works, oh, and the fact that Lavery thinks climate scientists do not have to use common sense, just the assessment of experts. Priceless.
It is a bit hilarious Paul the (scientist writer) turns out to have been funded by one of the orgs listed on one of the pages he claims is a list of orgs who “fund deniers”
He’s just doubled down by saying “It’s a false flag operation”
So that’s a second unevidenced conspiracy theory from him
..Mail Paul and he’ll fill you in on the details
Hi Paul, are you or any of your readers aware of any onshore wind specific targets within the overall CO2 reduction targets for 2050 under the climate change act or other policy directives? Thanks, Steve
To the best of my knowledge, there are no technology specific targets, either UK or EU
Thanks Paul
Paul, have you seen today’s Matt cartoon in the Telegraph? Definitely a keeper.
Hi Paul et al, has anyone checked how many lead-acid batteries of the type in a car would be required to store a day’s worth of energy, say for a wind farm operating at an average power generation capacity of 11MW (i.e. not the name plate capacity but the actual average generated power)?
Piece on Weds Newsnight about the lack of evidence to support shaken baby syndrome. It seems the BBC is capable of arguing against the scientific consensus when they want to.
Good piece on subsidies at WUWT
Does anyone know of a similar graphic for the UK subsidies ??
The Telegraph fails to realise that having lower power kettles does not reduce the amount of energy it takes to boil a quantity of water. Come to think of it, once you take into account heat loss, they probably use more. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/12/climate-advisers-pour-cold-water-on-idea-of-high-powered-kettles/ Our old friend, Lord Dreben of Police squad, gets a mention.
“National Grid will pay for 10 coal and gas-fired plants to keep spare capacity on standby, with further sums to be paid if they are called into action. These include coal plants at Eggborough in Yorkshire and Fiddlers Ferry in Cheshire that had previously been earmarked for closure.”
FT ..sign up for free account
“It shows how the segue from old, fossil fuel power stations to a system based on renewables and increased flexibility is taking place without the need for large capacity surpluses, which represent wasted investment,” said Jonathan Marshall, at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, a think-tank.
FOFL
Important story Paul “Big Green admitted Lying”
Oct 10 Page 3 of the Times …shows the Eden project is based on a LIE valued at £56m
The Dutch man who founded it Tim Smit found he wasn’t getting any money from the Millennium Commission
“faced with the “car crash” of being turned down for public funding, he decided that it “was surely the time to LIE”.(thats a quote)
so he set up a fake press conference in a tent saying that they actually had ..So the Times wrote a glowing leader saying the how insightful the Millennium Commission was ..and they came round over the next 6 weeks
\\He told the festival that fibbing was the “telling of future truths”//
Other stories say “ah but Eden has contributed £1bn to local economy” but that’s BS there’s no source and that works out at £50 for every man/woman/child
I’ve got a BBC page here that says “Eden received more than £132m from 2001-2009” well that works out at £14.7 to 16.5m/year ..which is about the same as the damn turnover. (avg about £16m)
What kind of business receives grants that are the same as its turnover ?
By the way the Alton Towers parent company has a £250m annual turnover from just a few themeparks
You see what is happening there ? you pay £60 to get a family in but another £60 comes from grants .
My free beer business could just take the £60 grant, give free beer to guests and argue it’s bringing cash to the local area, like Eden argue.
Peter Stanford in the Sunday Telegraph claims that Nicole was the biggest hurricane to hit Bermuda in thirty years. Really?
[Ed: HTF do I post this as a discussion topic?]
NANNY-STATISM & THE ENVIRONMENT:
Nanny-Statism is rampant in the modern world (Canada included). But the reality is that the primary beneficiaries are not the babies but the State, ever keen to superimpose its command and control instincts & methodology, and empower itself, its bureaucrats, and its influence-peddling, profit-seeking, grant-receiving sycophants who back-feed the Party by way of indirect funding & promotion. We proles are *nowhere* in this game of the rich & powerful.
Nanny-Statism reduces to the: “We’re in charge, don’t worry, be Happy!” To which I reply: “Don’t Happy, be very, very Worried lest the State takes over your life in-toto.” for which, read Totalinarianism.
So, in this perspective, the State is the Enemy of the People and their Individual Freedoms. Do we want to go the way of Communist China? Russia? Etc.? “Toe the Party-Line or else?!”
And driven by a cunning agenda of supposedly catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, albeit a fallacious & self-serving one at worst, and — objectively — very questionable at best, the U.N. is militating to ascend to a position of Global Power. Some would say, “High time”, but not on this tendentious, ‘gravy-train-riding’ agenda.
Our chums in the Insurance Industry are frantically virtue signalling again.
http://www.aviva.com/media/thought-leadership/climate-change-value-risk-investment-and-avivas-strategic-response/
Nice to see Amber Rudd gave the keynote speech.
Only real outcome I can see (apart from Aviva’s Mark Wilson’s warm feeling inside, presumably) is that it is now impossible to obtain even Public Liability insurance (let alone Professional Indemnity) for any inspections / reports / expert advice on anything to do with Coal Mining.
No doubt they will still happily accept insurance premiums from the largest consultancy practices (who, however, mostly lack any practical experience in this field.)
No doubt other fossil fuel companies / experts have similar problems.
I’m watching Sunday’s Horizon episode, ‘The wildest weather in the universe.’ Interesting that they say that Death Valley’s high temps (and by extension Venus’) are due to the high atmospheric pressure and not the composition.
BTW that BBC WWF species decline piece actually doubly debunks it’s own headline
“World wildlife ‘falls by 58% in 40 years'”
cos buried in the text is
“This analysis looked at 3,700 different species of birds, fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles – about 6% of the total number of vertebrate species in the world.”
#1 It’s only vertebrates
#2 They didn’t include 94% of vertebrates species in the survey..just 6%
French Nuclear in a bit of a mess: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-27/french-shocked-power-prices-spike-8-year-highs-nuclear-reactor-probe-shutdown
So one may guess that the Inter-connector will be quiet this Winter, unless of course, they need our power,
RS
WE get 7% of our electricity via the inter-connectors
But no matter, Dick Ed Davey’s ‘renewables’ will save us…as long as we get the hottest, sunniest, windiest winter ever …start praying (if that’s your bag), but stock up.
Tabloid retelling:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/nasa-scientists-suggest-weve-been-underestimating-sea-level-rise
Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/2016GL070552/abstract
Title: Are long tide gauge records in the wrong place to measure global mean sea level rise?
Computer models suggest that there’s less than 1% likelihood that the tide gauges are sufficient to match computer models.
Paul
Have you seen the article in today’s FT http://on.ft.com/2fBweC9, by Martin Wolf. He is an economist, but has clearly been fed a story by the AGW camp and has not bothered to check his facts.
Kind regards
Cameron
It’s behind a paywall, Cameron
Is there any alternative source, or can you copy it?
I had a look it’s got 279 comments (now closed)
half from Green-loonies and half from anti-greens
Paul, the Telegraph is putting some content behind a Premium pay wall
I wonder if Booker can wangle some free accounts for us stringers ?
Introducing Telegraph Premium
Free 30-day trial then £2 per week billed as £8.67 per month or £90 for 12 Months
plus a free Amazon Echo Dot worth £49.99 (UK only)
The good news comments are being reintroduced (not just premium I think.)
“You need to register for a free account with the Telegraph in order to post comments.”
I wonder how much the BBC spends on Guardian subscriptions ? FOIA ?
I have been paying the online premium for a while. It started at £2 per month a couple of years ago!
I’ve not noticed anything extra in the new Premium Account!!
I don’t pay for my access, but it means I’m limited to a certain number of articles per week(ten I think). It just means I’m more choosy which links I click on.
To be clear this is the brand new Premium service which just launched.Guido just mentioned teething troubles
The main thing is you can comment on articles
A Free account gives : One Premium article per week, Comment on articles
It’s different from the old system cos now most items are free..but special commentators are in the Premium section
hmm signup doesn’t work right now. After input it just resets to start again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37846860
You’ve gottta laugh!
I was considering a response to the letter from Hugh McNeal. the chief executive of Renewables UK, in today’s Sunday Telegraph. His claim that they ‘are not asking for special treatment- just a chance to compete’ seems open to dispute. As your understanding of the system is no doubt more solid than mine, maybe you might be persuaded to give a refutation?
8:30pm R4 Future of the car
Evan Davis with the BBC giving a free plug for his Tesla mate
2 other guests
#1 Gett | NYC’s Black Car App
#2 Bloke from Driverless car software lab
Hi Stew, yes it was sickening, the radio was lucky not to go through the window!
So BBC admit making basic Climate Science error, in a news post which is intended to show that the BBC know more about Climate Science that Dumb Donald Trump
I say “admit”, cos they admitted it by making a stealth correction 7 hours after publication
Link to that modified BBC Denier Donald post #Donialists
(Donialism = denying Trump is pres elect)
I put screen shots etc in our BH discussion here
Southampton, Soton Cafe Scientifique event @the Pub Southwestern Arms, 36 Adelaide Road
November 14 Monday, 7 :00 PM mingle then 7:30pm-9pm Talk/break/Q&A
The use of satellites to monitor sea levels
Paul, do you have any explanation as to why the DMI’s Arctic temp plot is running so much warmer than usual? http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php Is it just weather, or could there be a technical reason? Even in recent low ice years the temp stayed closer to the mean.
PR not news ?
“More than half of electricity low carbon” in Yorkshire Post also here
Comes out of a Report from Imperial and Drax
“Between July and September 2016, the contribution of nuclear, biomass, hydro, wind, solar and low-carbon electricity imports from France peaked at 50.2%, up from just 20% in 2010 – demonstrating the scale and impact of Britain’s renewable energy revolution over the last six years, and the unprecedented changes taking place in the UK energy sector.”
“According to this quarter’s report, nuclear energy provided the largest share of low-carbon energy over the last three months, generating over a quarter of the UK’s electricity (26%), followed by on-shore and off-shore wind (10%), solar (5%), biomass (4%), low-carbon energy imports from France (4%) and hydro (1%).”
Hmm ..You can’t just assume all French imports are low-carbon, as it comes from a whole network , which is currently using a lot of coal cos of nuclear repairs
– hydro seems low
– Technically you can’t say “more than half” cos that 0.2% is probably within the margin of error.
– that a solar seems suspiciously high
– I wonder if the wind total has had the electricity USED by wind turbines deducted ?
– Biomass has basically been burning rubbish in the past and has been higher
Drax isn’t doing vwery welll if their bio is included within that 4%
– again has transport CO2 been deducted from biomass ?
So a network without all the big subsidies for solar/wind would have only 15% less electricity
I like the photo on the main BBC website accompanying the headline “2016 ‘very likely’ to be world’s warmest year”:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
The implication is that a higher global temp. would mean hotter summers in UK, which isn’t necessarily the case.
I wonder why they didn’t use the same photo as on the actual article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37949877
Although, that one is probably no more relevant and is all part of the “Marrakech” propaganda campaign.
Paul Bill McKibben is tweeting a ridiculous ..world ice coverage graph
no one has debunked him yet ..I would guess instead of adding Antarctic and Antarctic together itr’s subtracting one from the other …or something
I found this:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/17/13667630/global-sea-ice-concentration-graph-science-twitter
May be something to do with the fact that the scale doen’t start at zero, which makes it look worse.
oh On B-BBC someone posted these 3 graphics against BBC anti-truth
The BBC reporting on Antarctic ice extent this morning but of course it’s all about the sea ice
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b084jqx6
News : I can tell European Environment Agency and Client Earth have put out a press release today about NO2
Each news org has put its spin on it …Here’s a Google news list
see more on BH unthreaded : Nov 24, 2016 at 11:30 AM stewgreen
note the slippage :NO2 certainly doesn’t 100% come from diesel cars, their is aircraft for a start.
Price pressure on OUR and French electricity due to French nuclear repairs/checks being given 1 more more month for 2 reactors
“The reactors had been due to restart on November 30, but further checks will be required to satisfy ASN, the French nuclear safety regulator, that they are safe.
Another EDF reactor, Saint-Laurent 2, has been given permission to restart three days earlier than expected, on November 24.” Times
How much would you pay for a Scottish Aluminium smelter including 2 hydroelectic dams ?
Lochaber 82MW and Kinlochleven 24MW
Liberty house just paid £330m
That seems reasonably cheap to me ..you could shut the smelter and still make a profit running the dams… depends the debts I guess
Light Relief from SNL video
After the US election a special real estate advert Bubbleworld a place for mad liberals to live “as if the election had never happened
Dear Paul, Thank you for the recent link to GWPF Lords select committee article. I listened with interest to the meeting. I have to say that I didn’t quite see Mr Nolan from Ofgem as a consumer’s champion, although he does appear to have a grasp of the renewables subsidy problem. I was more encouraged by the select committee’s general scepticism towards renewables. Hopefully, this might spread to the other chamber.
An interesting point that arose in the course of the interviews was the comparative size of the UK gas grid to the electricity grid. Mr Sheppard from Nation Grid mentioned that the gas grid carries 5 to 6 times more energy than the electricity grid. Later, Mr Nolan mentioned that the gas grid was 3 to 4 times larger than the electricity grid; I assumed he was referring to capacity. He also mentioned the planned switch from gas to electricity for heating (2030’s), which made me think: The infrastructure required to expand the electricity generation and supply over the next 10 to 15 years would seem to be a huge undertaking. I’m no expert, but I can’t imagine this is cheap? Especially when one adds in all those electric cars that will need charging. Any thoughts?
Paul, this article by David Whitehouse of GWPF http://www.thegwpf.com/satellite-data-reinstates-temperature-pause/ , has been getting quite a lot of attention recently. One query I have with it though is that it uses land only and highlights the big drop in temperature since the middle of the year. As most of the land is concentrated in the northern half of the globe, which has gone from summer in to winter,isn’t this only to be expected, or am I missing the point?
Don’t forget these are anomalies, so the winter/summer split should not affect matters
Should’ve put my glasses on.
Paul,
Here is a short article with links leading to documentation exposing an egregious wind farm scam/fraud in New Zealand. Worthy of a post.
http://www.wakeupkiwi.com/news-articles-42.shtml#Windfarm
I’ve just started an information only website
http://www.use-due-diligence-on-climate.org/
as an adjunct to sites like this.
Hope you find it useful in getting the message out.
Will add more as time goes on.
Happy to receive constructive criticism / more info,… when I get contact page connected.
For another very thorough treatment of interesting data and explanations go to:
https://friendsofscience.org / /click on CLIMATE SCIENCE on the left side of the page that comes up a virtual library on climate change / / which features a wealth of realistic climate history and information.
Peter Salonius
Paul 6pm news be prepared for BBC PR onslaught from Doctors Against Diesel
#1 Yesterday they did not exist
#2 Bottomline $$ spent on gas stoves for Indians save more LifeDays
than $$ spent on electricTaxi subsidies for Londoners
#VirtueSignalling + #EVsubsidyMafia
My notes
New type of gas turbine will find first application in CCGT. http://aviationweek.com/technology/aerojet-rocketdyne-explores-detonation-engine-options Potential of 15% improvement in fuel efficiency.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/mitsubishi/mitsubishi-outlander-phev-long-term-test/
Paul here is something not even the mighty minds that run our lives have pondered before.
Where do lekky and hybrid cars get heat to keep you toasty on a typical uk day, rather than a Californian one.
Latter have to run engine just to warm you. Former bye bye actually moving
Another point is look at the actual mpg in this case. Or should I say the total inadequacy of the ‘official’ testing.
Just a thought because it’s such a fundamental part of my driving experience. OK I live in the Highlands but I don’t recall it being a lot better down south.
I made the following complaint to BBC about this article on their website.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5qBNHFTFCNnsdzklrPQTK37/meetings-with-seven-remarkable-christmas-trees
‘Let It Snow, London, 2015’ ‘Sledging on London’s hills at Christmas hasn’t been possible for many years due to lack of snow. Once the tree was dismantled all the sledges were given away to local people, or sold to raise money for charity.’ Simply not true that there has been no sledging for ‘many years’ and why give away sledges to Londoners if there is no snow? It snowed at The Oval on 26 April 2016.
My impression is that there have been better than average sledging conditions in London in the last few years but I don’t live there now. Your research skills would probably back this up. The BBC text was taken more or less straight off the PR puff of course, typical BBC churnalism. They changed ‘recent years’ to ‘many years’ for added eschatological effect.
http://www.surelight.com/led_lighting_news/let_it_snow_christmas_tree.htm
Reply from BBC, note that ‘climate’ becomes ‘weather’ as the opening savo of the tissue of lies and evasions. All too depressingly familiar of course but a Happy New Year to all despite that!
Dear Mr S
Reference CAS-4150811-3C6H1Q
Thanks for getting in touch with us.
I understand that you feel the article contained an inaccuracy with regard to the weather.
The main focus of the article which asked “Do you wish your Christmas tree had just a little more artistic credibility?” was with regard to the artistic creativity involved in making the trees that were “a little different” and not climate change or the weather.
Nevertheless we acknowledge that you feel this was an inaccuracy and we appreciate that you have taken the time to bring this to our attention.
I have made sure to record your complaint on our daily Audience Feedback Report that is compiled and circulated right across the BBC.
These reports can be used to inform future broadcasting and policy decisions so please be assured that your complaint has been sent to the right people.
Thanks once again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind regards
Brian Morgan
BBC Complaints Team
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.
On BBC Radio 4 at 8pm tonight:
“Climate Change: the Trump Card”
A year on from the Paris climate change talks, Roger Harrabin asks if the world can limit the global temperature rise to under 2c.
(or as the Today programme put it, can we “save the planet” !)?
Nice story in today’s Daily Mail about the DeltaStream tidal turbine project that failed within weeks of being commissioned. The operator, Tidal Energy Ltd, has gone into Administration and the Welsh government is now searching for a buyer, claiming the project had achieved its objectives and ‘helped make Wales a key player in the industry’. A waste of £8.5M public funding.
A ‘key player’ in the Solyndra sense perhaps?
Times
Front page : Ski Holiday ruin : Alps drought zone
Article is speculative “if there is no snow by the weekend” : Twitter shows me it did snow around Annecy on Jan 4th
and Ski resort forecast is snow this week
https://www.j2ski.com/ski_resorts/Airports/Annecy_snow_reports.html
For the avid readers out there I’ve stumbled upon a strange site (and sight) with some really good links…
100 Legal Sites to Download FREE eBooks and Literature from
http://theglobalelite.org/100-legal-sites-download-free-ebooks-literature/
and for all you science and computer types there’s
http://techbooksforfree.com/science.shtml
The question of Climate Change came up on this week’s Any Questions on BBC R4.
Lucie Green, unfortunately, demonstrated closed mind (for a scientist) and couldn’t resist challenging Owen Paterson, putting forward the “scientific consensus” argument, when he expressed the point of view that a rise of 0.5 degrees in 50 years did not frighten him.
Incredibly, Margaret Beckett argued that the temperature had risen 2c since the last ice age.
It’s a pity that Paterson didn’t ask her if she would have preferred that hadn’t happened and we still under miles of ice in Britain.
Obviously some “global warming” is acceptable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b087ts7p
About 29 minutes in.
hi Paul, you may be interested in this piece of mine today, re Earth Hour 2017
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2017/01/earth-hour-3d-dim-dark-dopey/
Cheers and love your work, Tonyt
I assume this blog is manned. Comment for this would be helpful
https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/16/we-ve-never-seen-global-sea-ice-levels-this-low-before/
I did a couple of posts a month or two ago, Chris.
The Antarctic reduction has been caused purely by a change in wind direction, which has pushed the ice towards the shore.
With the Arctic, the main factor is an influx of warm Atlantic water around Spitzbergen, something very similar to what happened in the 1920s.
This is the post on the Arctic:
I’ll dig the other one out later
Two more posts here Chris:
1) Arctic – https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/11/21/arctic-sea-ice-update/
2) Antarctic – https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/antarctic-sea-ice-retreats-due-to-wind-patterns/
Paul apparently Gatwick Airport will be Carbon Neutral by spring and is run entirely by renewables!
http://www.traveldailymedia.com/246124/gatwick-airport-to-be-carbon-neutral-by-spring/
Not sure if this means they stop flying on dull windless days or in fact how they fly anything at all on 100% renewables.
BBC had a Horizon programme Sun 22/01/17 addressing recent changes in global weather patterns. It was a very objective presentation, largely focussed on jet stream and supra tropospheric influences on weather patterns at terrestrial levels. At no point was there blame on mankind’s influences leading to ‘global warming’ and the accompanying link to carbon emissions that we normally see with BBC presentations.
Most of the statements were uncontroversial but a few slightly dubious ones crept in. However they did not take away the impact of a programme looking at factors that are only recently coming to light through proper scientific research. There was none of the wild speculation derived from suppositions made by pundits who project beyond the facts presented by a particular scientific study. Can it be that the BBC are learning to present science factually? If so let us have more programmes like this. Scientific debate is needed.
There is hope yet for the so called sceptic who says that while the world has been getting warmer over the past 10,000 years man’s influence by producing carbon dioxide as being the cause has not been proved.
That programme was a repeat, although I don’t remember when it was first broadcast.
It was probably discussed here at the time.
I don’t recall that the programme was particularly objective.
I doubt if the BBC is changing it’s attitude to “climate change”.
Can it be that the BBC are learning to present science factually?
Not while ‘Horrorbin’ is in charge
The programme was first broadcast in July 14, so a lot that was said about “our recent extreme weather”, is out of date.
Yorkshire Post Full page News-Vert from GreenBlob Corporation
Global climate warning as the world gets warmer
I left a longer comment https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/arctic-heatwave-it-was-warmer-in-1985/#comment-86258
Vaccinating against Climate Denial
Sander van der Linden , a Lew sidekick
my comments
http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2017/01/23/start-the-week-open-thread-110/comment-page-2/#comment-807834
Mail also has the story
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4145688/Britain-climate-change-sweet-spot.html
Not sure what the Telegraph are up to today. Reporting on Hurricane Gustav flooding Cuba and threatening to increase to Cat 5 before hitting Florida. Apart from fact that hurricane season ended in November, Hurricane Gustav was a 2008 hurricane. Gustav is not even a name to be allocated in the 2016-2020 name list. Maybe the NOAA is planting ‘false news’!
How do you know its a recent article?
The only Telegraph articles I found were dated 2008.
Paul, I would very much like to make contact with you directly in connection with your truly masterful review of Prince Charles’ recently published Lady-book on climate change. I have an idea which may be of interest to you. Best regards, David Cosserat, Oxfordshire, England. Email: cosserat@gmail.com
Paul
impartiality has for the first time been enshrined in the BBC’s mission
BBC impartial…that’ll be a novelty
The Charter has given the BBC a new public mission, which is
To act in the public interest, serving all audiences with impartial, high-quality and distinctive media content and services that inform, educate and entertain.
The BBC is required to deliver duly impartial news by the Royal Charter and Agreement, and impartiality has for the first time been enshrined in the BBC’s mission in the new Charter. The government agrees that it is vitally important that accurate and impartial news is at the centre of the BBC’s output.
see more
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/159140?reveal_response=yes
This from Andrew Ward at FT https://www.ft.com/content/fc9d036e-ea44-11e6-967b-c88452263daf
A new series of “Costing the Earth”, begins on Radio 4 on Tuesday (15.30) with a programme about wildfires, which it will no doubt blame on “climate change”.
Hi Paul
Good article in Mail on Sunday today (5 Feb) by David Rose about NOAA and their dodgy reports and impact on Paris Agreement.
More lunacy for us to pay for
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/POST-PN-0549
Typical BBC nonsense:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/38888624
German ship powered by LNG. http://www.4allports.com/first-bunkering-of-an-lng-fuelled-chemical-tanker-in-german-port-nid5280.html#sthash.IWWMLDUI.UyAJsRHy.dpbs
South Australia’s wind farms fail again, grinding out just 2 per cent power when the wind’s die in a heatwave.
Result: blackouts to 40,000 homes as the temperature soars above 40 degrees. And lives put in danger by this green madness.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/sa-loses-power-in-another-wind-farm-fail/news-story/8e5db34f658a3153f7f0a8d91a077b82
Interesting interview with Myron Ebell, Trump’s Director of Competitive Enterprise, available on BBC World Service – HARDtalk.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04sd21x
Paul last night Science In Action began with a report how GHG science isn’t working on Mars but there’s a lot of irony cos the previous Stephen Sackur prog had just spent half an hour telling Ebell the science is settled.
My notes are on BH unthreaded.
Feb 10, 2017 at 9:59 AM
Also here
http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2017/02/10/weekend-open-thread-135/#comment-813197
This is content on a Manchester University MSc course
The lecturer requires students to ‘comment’.
‘comment’
Cracking looking women,
I particularly like the one playing with her organ, lovely touch.
Alpine snow may shrink 70% by 2100 – Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-16/it-s-snow-go-for-skiers-by-2100-as-climate-change-hits-the-slope
I’ve been watching the NASA press conference about the exo planets around Trapiste 1.
They say that there are three Earth sized planets in the habitable zone where they receive about the same energy as we do. However because their sun is a red dwarf, most of that energy is at the infrared end of the spectrum, so the question is, would that energy penetrate the atmosphere enough to raise the temperature?
http://nativespress.com/2017/02/08/earth-has-shifted-inuit-elders-issue-warning-to-nasa-and-the-world-video/
If the Earth had experienced an uneventful developmental history — its geographic poles / axis would be vertical and the world would be without seasons.
There are suggestions in the literature that external forces such as those generated by a passing highly charged comet/ asteroid could easily interact with the Earth pulling the geographical axis away from its default vertical position and shift its rotation axis to a tilted position — and that over time with no interference the Earth’s axis of rotation will SLOWLY move toward its default vertical position (because of the inertia of the gyroscope that is the planet Earth).
A highly charged comet passing close is thought to be able to exert an even greater electro-gravitational force sufficient to tilt the Earth’s rotation axis than the mechanical consequences resulting from a direct impact.
The observations of Inuit elders deserve careful consideration.
http://nativespress.com/2017/02/08/earth-has-shifted-inuit-elders-issue-warning-to-nasa-and-the-world-video/
Peter Salonius
=================================================================================================
________________________________
Hi, Paul. I know you are interested in boondoggles of the climate-related variety so I thought you might be interested in this: http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/01/23/solar-inconvenient-truth-ivanpah-plant-top-fossil-fuel-burner/
Paul – I stumbled across this 2011 paper today. I don’t have the ability to sense-check it – maybe others here do
Click to access the%20methane%20misconceptions%20published%20version.pdf
Hi paul – Just read this quote in Quillette online mag from a Professor Clay Routledge and thought it might interest you and your readers.
‘The important point is that people are biased and this influences scientific work. I and others have written about the problem of ideological bias in the empirical sciences. However, postmodernists horribly misdiagnose the problem. Science isn’t the problem. People are the problem. Scientists are people, so they can be biased. And this undercuts our ability to develop an objective understanding of the world. This means we need to increase our efforts to remove human bias. Postmodernists oddly go the opposite direction. They increase potential bias by rejecting the methods that help reduce bias. They put their faith, and I use the term faith purposely, in subjective human experiences instead of trying to remove subjectivity from research.’
Hello Paul
I am a techno peasant
I have in the past replied to various posts — but I have not been able to have you feature a New comment on NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT.
The New Comment I would like to share — but can not figure out how is as follows:
Do you mean a guest essay, Peter?
Hello again Paul
NOT A GUEST ESSAY — but the following observation by Inuit about the tilt of the Earth having shifted that I thought your readers may find interesting:
Earth axis shift influencing the climate(No subject)
PS peter salonius [https://boomerangoutlook.baydin.com/static/img/icons/ribbon/boomerang_64_blue.png]
[https://cdn1.evernote.com/outlook/v1.6.3/images/app-icon.png]
[https://www.wunderlist.com/office-add-ins/img/wl_icon_standalone.png]
Reply |
Wed 02-22, 3:19 PM NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (comment+rg8fv2-6jqg1po9u5zcqty-7k06gcm3snds5xqlsp36_0abp@comment.wordpress.com) …
http://nativespress.com/2017/02/08/earth-has-shifted-inuit-elders-issue-warning-to-nasa-and-the-world-video/
If the Earth had experienced an uneventful developmental history — its geographic poles / axis would be vertical and the world would be without seasons.
There are suggestions in the literature that external forces such as those generated by a passing highly charged comet/ asteroid could easily interact with the Earth pulling the geographical axis away from its default vertical position and shift its rotation axis to a tilted position — and that over time with no interference the Earth’s axis of rotation will SLOWLY move toward its default vertical position (because of the inertia of the gyroscope that is the planet Earth).
A highly charged comet passing close is thought to be able to exert an even greater electro-gravitational force sufficient to tilt the Earth’s rotation axis than the mechanical consequences resulting from a direct impact.
The observations of Inuit elders deserve careful consideration.
http://nativespress.com/2017/02/08/earth-has-shifted-inuit-elders-issue-warning-to-nasa-and-the-world-video/
Peter Salonius
Interesting! Surely astronomers would have already spotted this though?
I think that if this had happened within living memory, we would have ALL noticed!
The motion of the stars relative to one another (proper motion) is known about but is very small.
It wouldn’t cause the sun to set in a different place or the other changes the inuit were talking about.
HI Paul, another quote from this article: http://quillette.com/2017/02/23/on-meaning-identity-politics-and-bias-in-the-academy-an-interview-with-clay-routledge/
He is talking about social sciences but I think this is the fundamental problem with Climate Change.
‘I have been at talks where people present very poorly conducted research related to ideas that failed to replicate or were never well-supported to begin with and watched as hardly anyone in the audience offered even the slightest challenge. It is very strange to see well-trained scientists so blatantly ignore fundamental research flaws because they find the conclusion ideologically affirming. This is precisely why we need to make our methods more rigorous, fight for an academic culture that challenges groupthink and prioritizes the pursuit of truth over tribal loyalty, and encourage diversity of thought.’
More boll-ox via the BBC…this time from Sheffield Uny – ‘bread causing climate change’
Sorry here’s the link –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39106180
I don’t see any suggested solutions, i.e how do we increase yields without carbon emissions?
I wonder if they took into account the fact that c02 is plant food?
Simple solution, don’t let warmists eat bread…..or cake
Hi Paul,
I recently had an interesting experience discussing climate change with “young people” which I have blogged about here:
I am waiting to see whether there is any reaction.
Best wishes
Young people will believe what they are told, particularly if passing exams depends on it.
True but it is much deeper. Essentially during all of their learning years they have been told the world is going to burn up (despite the rising seas!). We older ones are more amenable to changing our viewpoint given we had previously been subjected to the previous new ice age scare. I am guessing for them it would be akin to finding out they were adopted, their whole view view would be skewed.
Today’s PR in my face
Front page of Times
‘Diesel creates Superbugs’ paraphrase
Notes/caveats
http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2648447?lastPage=true
Climate change makes volcanoes worse:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170306-volcanoes-could-erupt-much-more-thanks-to-climate-change
Which has the most ridiculous opening sentence: “On the face of it, climate change and volcanic eruptions are completely unrelated.”
“The year without Summer” springs immediately to mind
If melting glaciers does cause an increase in volcanic activity, there may be a feedback mechanism in the eruptions which would have a long term negative effect on temperatures.
I also notice that according to the scientist in the video, Iceland was covered by glaciers 1-2 km thick 12000 years ago. If I am not mistaken that was during the glacial period, when the British Isles and most of Northern Europe was also covered by glaciers. The melting of the glaciers 12,000 years ago was not caused by CO2 emissions.
Love the “Climate Change is melting the earth”
Paul 3 Things
PR experts are clearly backing off the Global Warming narrative
And regrouping around air pollution narrative as a strategy.
Now I bet The BBC has been some secret #SoICanBreathe meeting with the NGO PR guys again like 28gate ?
Today the BBC started a campaign saying that the diesel cars is the new paedophile & directed the baying mob to them.
Every live program me throughout the day had PR tricks stirring up hate against them.
Stuff like getting children to stand in front of school with placards etc.
This is wrong !
I have no objection to the Green Party participating in political campaigns, but the BBC is unelected and undemocratic it should not be driving politics.
Here is a graph showing the official UK trend
This twitterfeed carries most alarmist PR
Stu,
Completely predictable there would need to be another scare to take its place. The fact that reacting to the previous scare was what to great extent caused this one is not lost on the shameless BBC.
One claim too far?
Musk Bets He Can Fix Aussie Power Woes in 100 Days or It’s Free
https://bloom.bg/2lK2g2b
He thinks 100MW of powerwall will be enough
..Is it ? ..seems quite small to me
and will have running costs
GREEN BANS “DEINDUSTRIALISING” AUSTRALIA
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun March 8, 2017
low down on power cut costs
Paul,
Not sure how best to contact you, so posting a link here to an article by Richard Black (yes, ex BBC) titled, “We need electricity to be our flexible friend”.
https://capx.co/we-need-electricity-to-be-our-flexible-friend/?omhide=true
The intriguing thing is that he advocates markets to deliver best price, though he rather spoils that with this, ” If we want the overall amount of electricity to come from the cheapest form of generation, that would inevitably be onshore wind – but the Government has effectively decided to ban it.”
You and your more expert readers might well have something to say.
Regards
David Bishop
Paul,
Here is another example of “consensus” science at work –
35 yrs as a Pariah .
Prevailing archeological thought was that humans crossed from Siberia to Alaska and the Americas over a land bridge approximately 13,000 years ago ( they became known as the Clovis people).
In the 1970s a French-Canadian archeologist Jacques Cinq-Mars and his team found evidence of human activities much earlier & between 1979 and 2001, he published a number of papers arguing for his original theory, this went against the consensus so he was viewed as a pariah in the archaeological community for ~ 35yrs.
Another archaeological team in oxford confirmed in Jan 2017 that people were in the area ~24,000 yrs ago; now, the Clovis people theory has been set aside vindicating Cinq-Mars.
See:
https://www.hakaimagazine.com/article-short/archaeological-find-puts-humans-north-america-10000-years-earlier-thought
Full paper – http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169486
Paul,
please contact me via my email ASAP
something I don’t want to post openly.
Ah : Adult tour of a proper Power Station Free
Fiddler’s Ferry Power Station, Warrington , Cheshire
Sat 18 March 09:30-13:30
More Climate Events this week from British Science Week, Cambridge Science Fest,Newcastle Free Thinking Fest
Here’s a Link to the Hydrological Summary for the UK http://nrfa.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/HS_201702.pdf
Thanks to T2mike on xmetman.com
http://xmetman.com/wp/2017/03/18/is-the-uk-getting-wetter/#comment-478
So what do you have to say about this report in the Daily Telegraph then? Sounds pretty conclusive to me – human influenced climate change is real and should not be ignored..
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-real-extreme-weather-wmo-world-meteorological-organization-global-warming-a7640376.html
They are confusing weather with climate. Of course we have never had bad weather in the past!
I thought I had already posted this once and so does “WordPress”, but I can’t see it.
I can’t tell from you post what your attitude is to the article but it is base on a biased source (WMO) which takes extreme examples of weather and calls them “climate change”.
For example the “wettest winter on record in Scotland”, is actually only the wettest since 1910 (because the records don’t go back any further) and winter 2017 rainfall has been below normal.
Each example used is probably an outlier and no mention is made of the “normal” weather experienced in most places, a sure sign of confirmaton bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
As for temperature, you have to trust the source of the data and as many of the figures are estimated and continually being upwardly adjusted retrospectively, I don’t.
In case their is any confusion, this post is in response to Dave Brittain’s.
Dave, this shows the catastrophic rapid change in temperature since 1880
from
PR not news ..laying the PR tricks on thick.
There’ll be a debunk a long from WUWT or Tony Heller or Paul soon I suppose
I’m sure it sounds pretty conclusive to you…but that doesn’t make it fact.
Same as you convinced me to read something from the Daily Telegraph….then linked me to the Independent.
You may find this info site useful –
http://www.use-due-diligence-on-climate.org/
Laid out as simple bullet points, simple explanations, through to full scientific papers & stuff you’ve never heard of; plus loads of charts, links & refs. Work your way through; It’s well researched & is fairly easy to navigate.
I have just listened to an extremely alarmist report on sea level rise in Miami, on the BBC R4 World at One.
I expect it will turn up on TV news.
The programme on iPlayer with the report at about 25 minutes.
The report is by Nick Bryant, the BBC’s “New York” correspondent, so what is he doing reporting on Miami!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08k19mn
There’s more to Miami than vice & sea level rise…start with geology, years of water abstraction & geography.
They had the answer 2,000yrs ago –
Matthew 7:24-27.
And they shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
According to this report, referring to Miami, “water levels here are rising at nearly 10 times the average world wide rate”.
Yet according to Wikipedia, global sea levels are rising at an average rate of 1.8mm p.a., and according to NOAA the rate at Miami Beach is 2.39mm +/- 0.43mm p.a.
So where does Bryant get his figure from?
I was trying to work out who actually claimed that. There were so many people talking, it was to keep track.
Who is Bryant?
According to this page, he is the BBC’s “New York correspondent”, although I must admit I don’t recall hearing much from him.
I am sure it was him who mentioned the “nearly 10 times” figure.
Maybe “climate change” isn’t his speciality and he was taken in by the propagandists.
It doesn’t seem to have made it on to the telly yet.
I missed off this link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/nickbryant
On “Outside Source” last night, Christiana Figures was making some claims in relation to President Trumps Executive Order and Climate Change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08l5mkp/outside-source-28032017
They sounded pretty suspect to be but I haven’t had a change to check their veracity yet.
BbcOS on Twitter generated no comments
Just 6 people tweeted the Live Periscope feed
Now they’ve off air the Link’s dead
Theres this
“Mar 28 Alicia Trujillo @aliciatrujillo
@CFigueres hi I work for the BBC and we are interested in talking to you about the EPA. pls DM me your contact.”
Then this
A bit of a niche market but, some prospect of hydrogen cell development.
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/hydrogen-fuel-cell-technology-could-bring-stealth-to-army-vehicles
Hmmm. http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/04/sam-hall-conservative-voters-are-more-green-than-stereotype-would-suggest.html
How about this for a weather record – 800ad to 2016. Japanese cherry blossom flowering dates . . .
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/04/elephant-bloom?cid1=cust/ddnew/n/n/n/2017046n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/uk/Daily_Dispatch/email&etear=dailydispatch
Hi Paul, I know you have done a lot of work on the CET and so would like to share this with you.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2951507
“Subsidise” renewables, by charging power stations more for water:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170412-is-the-world-running-out-of-fresh-water
It is not hard to see here the formation of a plan; Charge power stations more for their water use (cooling etc) to make them less competitive.
It is also mind-boggling that a Manchester University (where it rains 12 days a month they tell us) has a rainwater harvesting/treatment system to reduce costs. It seems very unlikely that it is cheaper for the University to harvest rainwater and treat it for human use (showers and toilets; who showers in water not suitable to drink?) than it is to simply use the vast supplies of the Lake District.
the future does not seem bright,
RS
On a recent “Breakfast”. Samantha Franks, of the BTO, cited “climate change” along with habitat (loss of?) and predators, as a cause of some species being in decline, but offered no examples.
I have requested a single example, but have so far received no reply.
I have no doubt that weather is a factor, but climate change????
Just another example of where the obligatory cc has to be mentioned, with no evidence whatsoever.
Her Twitter timeline shows almost no mentions of topic
Except for one cherry picked species in Korea and that’s future modelling
Thanks,
“climate change doesn’t produce good picture for wind-supported migration of honey-buzzards”
What does that even mean?
What is she saying?
I’m afraid I am not into twitter!
Franks tweeted
If you search Twitter for BTO climate
You find some comfirmation bias type claims
Their latest blogpost is about migration getting delayed due to variation in cold weather.
http://btomigrationblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/still-waiting.html?m=1
Theyve had series of similar posts since March 20
After earlier March 3 excitement of early migration/spring
An item on “Breakfast” yesterday about native bluebells, similar to the one about birds the day before. This time apparently bluebells are flowering LATER than last year (when earlier flowering was of course due to climate change), and again the main threats were to “habitat loss, climate change and trampling”, with again no evidence for climate change.
Why do naturalists have to damage their case (IMHO), by mentioning climate change without any evidence, when the other threats are so much greater? Is it a standard script which they are obliged to use? I thought it was ironic that “trampling” was put forward as a threat, in an item which was encouraging people to go into the countryside and no doubt do a lot of trampling themselves.
I see that the person who gave the interview on Breakfast, Steve Marsh, is the woodlands trust PR manager. I suppose that explains a lot.
https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/authors/steve-marsh/
I requested evidence that climate change was affecting bluebells, and this is what he came up with:
http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/10/bluebell-woods-in-danger-of-being-wiped-out-by-climate-change-6439114/
Note the headline:
“Bluebell woods in danger of being wiped out by climate change”
Is not exactly borne out by the contents.
another article by the Times today trying to justify battery storage as being a feasible option to replace fossil fuels.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/power-shift-brings-energy-market-closer-to-holy-grail-2vr7q2cr7
How quaint.
Hi Paul,
Would it be ok by you if I collated your excellent rebuttal series of Nat Geos climate hyperbole into one post on my site https://climatism.wordpress.com ?
Cheers,
Jamie
Yes, that will be good
Post up. Cheers Paul.
Cheers Paul.
Climate change causes river to change course!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39634290
actually the headline on the bbc science page says it caused the river to vanish!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science_and_environment
“Their findings, published in Nature Geoscience, show how climate change can cause surprising geological events.”
No scientist should be surprised by this. the planet is constantly changing and always will.
Climate change yes, but man made climate change?
The link headline actually tells you it’s the mighty Yukon river that has vanished.
Screenshot
Strange, that’s not what I am seeing.
Mine says:
“Climate change makes Canada river vanish.
I suspect they mean “a river in the Yukon”, rather than the actual river Yukon.
Danish Wind Mafia demand subsidy money or else….
“When we see how few turbines it takes to replace the present ones, we really feel that it is a good way to preserve the Danish landscape”
“We face the huge challenge that support for onshore turbines expires on February 21 next year, and that means that onshore turbines won’t be erected after that date – at least, it certainly appears that way, given the amount you can earn under current market conditions,”
Because of this, electric companies are holding back from investing in new clean energy technology for as much as 5 billion kroner.
http://cphpost.dk/news/business/new-wind-turbines-for-old-theyll-be-larger-but-far-fewer-are-required.html
See, the wind industry really does care about preserving the landscape….of its bank balance.
&
‘Green Tomatoes’
In the Times20/4/17
“plugging in 6 electric cars may cause local power cuts”
Emily Gosden quotes ‘The green Alliance’ the government must mandate ‘smart meters’; Solar Panels threatening grid stability;…..
Latest from the independant “March breaks new global Warming record despite lack of El Nino” according to NOAA. I assume that they are using the “corrected” readings.
Paul, are you aware of this survey?
http://www.comresglobal.com/polls/energy-and-climate-intelligence-unit-climate-change-survey/
There is a link to the actual survey results (pdf) on that page.
The more I think about this survey, the more I feel it is a measure of the success of “climate cnange” propaganda than of the way people would actually think in the real world.
How many people would really be concerned about the forecasted effects of “climate change” on wildlife (or anything else for that matter), if they were not told to be concerned by organizations such as WWF in the first place?
just shows how ignorant people are
Went to a meeting of the local science café a few months ago & the conversation turned to photosynthesis, more than 50% of the university students wanted to have ALL CO2 removed from the atmosphere (because it was “the major pollutant” [yet most of them admitted to smoking] ) & didn’t know CO2 was a plant food.
A few thought CO2 was the main component of the atmosphere (up to 95%), & remember these are people at a science café….presumably with an interest in science.
Regarding Drax and biomass fuelled power generation, there is a complaint that was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) last year. The complaint document is very interesting, detailed and illuminating as it exposes in some depth the misinformation and misdirected policy initiatives assiciated with this project. Although some of these points have been mentioned here before, it is worth highlighting a few of them:
1. Dorothy Thompson (CEO of Drax) also heads up the body appointed to monitor biomass power generation!
2. The USA (where the deforestation to produce pellets for Drax takes place) is not part of the deforestation control arrangements under the Kyoto protocol – which means deforestation in the USA is not counted as such!
3.The DECC itself produced a report dealing with the carbon cost of deforestation, which is to be found on p.23 of the complaint. Here is a paragraph: “A modeling study from the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is particularly significant to Enviva and its main customer, Drax. The model compared net emissions under scenarios where trees are cut for pellets that are burned in a power plant, versus scenarios where forests are left to grow or are harvested for other products, and fossil fuels are burned for energy. The model “cuts” and “grows” the forest under the different scenarios, treating losses in forest carbon as an emission of carbon to the atmosphere, and gains in forest carbon as a negative emission where carbon is taken out of the atmosphere. While data from Drax show the facility’s 2013 CO2 emission rate for biomass was 2,128 lb/MWh (Figure 1), this is just what is coming out the stack and does not reflect net emissions over time, which including the loss in forest carbon uptake following harvesting (since reducing a sink for carbon has the same effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration as increasing a source). The DECC report concluded that for pellets made largely from naturally-regenerated hardwood forests, the net emissions rate remains high for decades, at 2,800 to 8,792 lb CO2e/MWh52 when analyzed over a time horizon of 40 years, and 1,689 to 11,407 lb CO2e/MWh when analyzed over 100 years.53 As we show below, naturally regenerated hardwood forests are already a main source of Enviva’s pellet feedstock, thus the scenario is directly relevant to Enviva’s current harvesting practices.”
The full complaint can be found at http://www.documan.net/d/SEC-complaint-U-S-Securities-and-Exchange.pdf
Scroll down to “Carbon emissions and Climate Change disclosure….” ond download the pdf. A good read!
I wonder what the progress of the SEC investigation is?
The BBC are reporting a “study” by the RHS, which suggests that:
“Climate change could transform gardens”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39710313
Haven’t we heard all this before?
“The key thing is that the south of England is going to be hotter and drier throughout the year with some heavy rain showers and then the north of England is going to be certainly milder but it is also going to be wetter in the summer and in the winter.”
Not much sign of wetter weather last summer in the NE of England!
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/anomacts
Some slightly contradictory statements on BBC news reporting of this.
The husband in one couple said, “there’s less rain every year (really?), while the wife said they had to cut the grass more often. Surely with less rain the grass won’t grow as quickly?
Paul remember BBC Head of Editorial Partnerships and Special Projects ?
You might have got to her
She appeared on a 7 min bbcWS Radio segment
to recap the SoICabBreeathe season
And emphasised 2 things
– It wasn’t a campaign (well it looked like it)
– ‘It was about just offering solutions ..look one prog debunked the idea that trees help against pollution’ (..em I listened to that prog and the presenters still seemed to be true believers)
Despite tweeting this “Important to show up in rooms where people are sceptical. And listen”
She failed to respond to my 3rd request for info on what NGO’s she met for the project
I should FOIA the info I guess.
Recent tweets make her look like campaigner
Paul RT had news on the Nord Stream – Russia to Germany gas pipeline
why aren’t the anti-frackers protesting against it ?
Another Big Win for Russian Pipeline Politics in Europe?
Apparently frosts in April have hit the wine industry in the UK and Europe:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/02/english-vineyards-frost-champagne-bordeaux-burgundy
It was the same last year:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/667799/wine-shortage-price-hike-Burgundy-Champagne-frost
Frost in spring, who would have thunk it?
Maybe they shouldn’t have believed the warming predictions!
Interesting programme available from BBC World Service, “What’s Wrong with Science?”
Panel discussion by eminent scientists. “…some of science’s keenest advocates fear that there is a problem with science, that there is something wrong with the way it is currently practiced…”
Readers here will most likely recognise just about all problems discussed as being relevant to Climate Science.
Listen or download here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p051b9zg
Great stuff!
Paul,
Would love to interview you for my podcast The Malacast, available at http://www.themalacast.com
I’ve been doing a series on climate change alarmism and am sure you’d be great (if you do voice interviews). Please contact me at adammala@themalacast.com if you’re interested. Thanks for the blog.
Anyone in Southampton ? next week 15,16,17 Southampton Pint of Science
– 3 nights of 18 different talks in 6 pubs across the town
The blurb from a lecture on Monday says
“there has been a recent shift in the denialist community away from flat out denial to instead questioning the accuracy of predictions made by climate models. ”
and
“Coastal flooding is a growing threat due to sea-level rise and changes in weather patterns associated with climate change. “
Here’s a Southampton Uny climate muddler –
no doubt they all sing from the same hymn sheet.
Pity its so far away (& my private jet needs a new elastic band).
on our topic is also
Climate Change: Cultural links and societal impact
17 MAY 19:00-21:30
Art and Science in the Arctic
Liveable Cities – Future UK Cities Patrick James
What will it be like to live in world of green energy and low carbon emissions?
16 MAY 19:00-21:30
How badly are we damaging our oceans?
Mark Hodgson has started a discussion about the new Matt McGrunt article
UN examines fossil fuel influence in climate talks process
(the BBC article is of course written by green NGOs)
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2672102?lastPage=true
Latest thing on the Greenpeace* website
Arctic summit: Alaskan fears amid the vanishing ice
“”The winters are colder and a little bit shorter and spring is coming earlier and a lot warmer, which we love. Summers are longer instead of shorter,” says Ms Olanna.”
talk about laying on thick …*BBC I meant
Can someone explain when they put a map of Alaska the corner inset is a map of Europe ?
“Can someone explain when they put a map of Alaska the corner inset is a map of Europe ?”
CO2 driven tectonic plate movement (feel the earth move for you)
This mornings BBC ‘The Life Scientific’, plant biologist Ottoline Leyser actually said we should remove politics from science & scientists should be less aloof, no mention of climate change !!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08q5wxx
& at 11:00 we had ‘Carbon – the backbone of life’ only a small mention of (CO2 = climate change).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08q5wy3
Are the BBC getting cold feet about global warming ?
Both programs were quite good.
BBC4 Green Energy propaganda show ..next week or week after
“The Great Village Green War for BBC Four,
follows green energy enthusiast Robert Llewellyn’s year-long campaign to persuade the residents of a Cotswolds village to generate their own power”
.. It’s in Frome local newspaper
Rich Cotswold village gets green energy subsidised by unicorns and poor grannies in rest of county
\\.Frome’s ground-breaking plans are also supported by the former President Nasheed of the Maldives who visited the town recently. He said, “My country has no future if we continue to use energy the way we currently do. The whole island will become flooded by rising sea levels. Even in Frome increased flooding means that 720 homes are at risk. We need to work together to urgently tackle this crucial issue.”//
more https://biasedbbc.org/blog/2017/05/15/start-the-week-open-thread-125/comment-page-3/#comment-835920
One month ago why would Guardian claim Climate Change causes river to vanish rivers sometimes
Cos it’s better than saying that sometimes mountain rivers CHANGE DIRECTION. …due to land slips etc.
BEFORE August 3, 2015 ..river flows north
AFTER July 4, 2016 ..river flows east
…Guess which photo shows far more ice coverage ?… yep 2016
I take it you’ve seen this in wapo . https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-spot-a-misrepresentation-about-climate-change/2017/05/24/fee19c1e-0b0c-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.b33f54a1388b
Great barrier reef is doomed piece in the independant today.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/great-barrier-reef-dying-coral-bleaching-global-warming-australia-climate-change-a7761351.html
I’ve got some info about last nights BBC4 show villageGreenCrusade
I’ll write a note here before lunch.
OK 3 Things about BBC luvvie Robert Llewellyn’s BBC4 Green Power show last night
I expected 90 mins of propaganda ending in a rigged but amazing success.
#1 As it was it ended on a squib. They’d hyped all the possible renewables up and all came to nought. They were too far up river for tidal flow etc. But the big deal came after 65 mins when they found their substation was not big enough for all the houses to start feeding into the grid.
So they end with just a 20KW community solar array on the barn of Cotswold Farm Park which will use the power and pay back the community “hundreds of pounds per year”
#2 Problem with the maths
– Show commences saying the village is “62 homes using 341MWh/yr”
I make that 5.5MWh each
– End of show they say “20KW barn solar offsets 5-6 homes”
Lets check that 365x24x20*0.097CapFactor =17MWh/yr
hangon thats Only 4 homes at UK av of 4.152MWh
but of this village @5.5 only 3 homes!
(And that assumes that CFP uses all the elec generated)
BTW turns out CFP have their own 50MWh array so even less likey to use all the power
#3 Interesting thing is when you look up Cotswold Farm Park.
guess who owns it …It’s actually titled Adam Henson’s
Cotswold Farm Park.
Yes the only reason they can do any green energy scheme at all is cos BBC luvvie is playing along.
OK 3 Things about BBC luvvie Robert Llewellyn’s BBC4 Green Power show last night
I expected 90 mins of propaganda ending a rigged but amazing success of powering his village greenly
#1 As it was it ended on a squib. They’d hyped all the possible renewables up and all came to nought. They were too far up river for tidal flow etc. But the big deal came after 65 mins when they found their substation was not big enough for all the houses to start feeding into the grid.
So they end with just a 20KW community solar array on the barn of Cotswold Farm Park which will use the power and pay back the community “hundreds of pounds per year”
#2 Problem with the maths
– Show commences saying the village is “62 homes using 341MWh/yr”
I make that 5.5MWh each
– End of show they say “20KW barn solar offsets 5-6 homes”
Lets check that 365x24x20*0.097CapFactor =17MWh/yr
hangon thats Only 4 homes at UK av of 4.152MWh
but of this village @5.5 only 3 homes!
(And that assumes that CFP uses all the elec generated)
BTW turns out CFP have their own 50MWh array so even less likey to use all the power
#3 Interesting thing is when you look up Cotswold Farm Park.
guess who owns it …It’s actually titled Adam Henson’s
Cotswold Farm Park.
Yes the only reason they can do any green energy scheme at all is cos BBC luvvie is playing along.
Alistair Buckoke says: comments about
batteries being pushed in the prog as a magic solution to balancing
http://euanmearns.com/the-lib-dem-party-energy-manifesto/#comment-29417
Yes, I suppose that having made the film, they couldn’t actually bring themselves to say they had failed, so achieving less than 10% of their objectives had to be called a success.
I also thought that the claim that Las Vegas powered 100% of its municipal buildings, fire stations, parks and street lights from “green” and renewable energy was misleading, implying that this represented all of the power consumed by the city.
INteresting post over on Stop These Things https://stopthesethings.com/2017/06/04/scotland-squanders-%E2%82%A4billions-on-subsidised-wind-gets-stone-age-power-in-return/
I’ve just finished watching BBC Horizon programme about the moving of the British Antarctic Survey Research station which was threatened by a crack in the ice shelf. During the whole programme there was not one mention of climate change despite there being several about the ozone hole. Are we seeing the beginning of something new?
Fascinating program –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08tj2zr/horizon-2017-antarctica-ice-station-rescue
Hi Paul
Could you review the Finkel report into Australia’s energy market handed down today. My home electricity bill in Adelaide is about to rise 20% next month. SOuth Australia already has the highest prices in the country. Gas prices like fuel are linked to international index’s in this country. In a blackout approx 2 months ago in Adelaide, a gas turbine wasn’t started because the gas has been presold for export and it also gave AEMO volatility to drive up the spot price of electricity. Two coal fired power stations have just closed. One in both Sth Aust and Victoria. No new coal fired power stations slated. Green energy has been built on the back of coal. The green energy is only being propped up by governments. The Sth Aust gov’t has been micro sleeping on energy security. I think it has fallen asleep at the wheel now in relation to RET renewable energy target. The COAG meeting Finkel report session today sounded like a love-in to take more profit and coal is not getting a look in. Austalia has so much coal its ludicrous. It is if some lobby group is writing cheques to bouycot coal, to COAG
Hi Paul,
Sorry about previous! Love your site and thought you might get a smile out of this;
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/climate-change-study-1.4157216
Best regards, Geoff Moore, Ontario, Canada
Latest piece of non reporting in the westcountry 4.7 per cent of deaths due to air pollution, but no evidence to back up the claim.
http://www.devonlive.com/air-pollution-deaths-rates-revealed-for-devon/story-30391686-detail/story.html?dwrMeth=addComment&afterReg=Y
Hello Paul,
you probably will not have seen this as it is in our local press but the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England have commissioned a report which has concluded the renewable energy industry in the South West “has been entirely dependent on subsidies for its growth and its survival”
http://www.devonlive.com/is-renewable-energy-in-devon-an-unmitigated-disaster/story-30398142-detail/story.html
Regards
Mark
Did you see this? Any response?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/the-great-myth-of-the-global-warming-pause/
Yep!!
Paul,
sorry, I should probably have directed my last post to you from here. http://www.climeworks.com/our-technology/
Paul – I don’t know if you pick up Matt Ridley’s blog, but his latest, comparing the Green Blob to “Baptists and Bootleggers” is worth a read. See http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/bootleggers-and-baptists-in-the-countryside/
Meanwhile, keep up the good work!
Paul, firstly thanks ‘carrying on’!
You may have already thought of this, if so then sorry I’m so slow. But, like you I get p.ssed off with met office picking whichever extreme temp to ‘prove’ their preconceptions etc, hottest March the 23rd in Weasleton for 56 yrs or whatever shite. However it is obvious for all hot extremes there are cold extremes on the same day, coldest 23rd june in inverarnie for 80 yrs or whatever, both equally important, or not, but it is a perfect counter to the ‘well what about the hottest day then’ umm ‘it was the coldest for.. yrs.
Don’t know but I look for things for you to do!
To recap some history, my original Communication against the EU led to a decision of non-compliance in International Law by the EU (Decision V/9g) adopted by the 2014 Meeting of the Parties:
Click to access Decision_V_9g_on_compliance_by_the_European_Union.pdf
There are 47 Parties (46 countries and the EU), which have ratified the UNECE Aarhus Convention and this Treaty Convention (Meeting of the Parties) is held on a three year cycle. While the Compliance Committee can adopt findings and recommendations, it is only following endorsement at the subsequent Meeting of the Parties that they become, as appropriate, decisions of non-compliance in International Law and part of the ‘case law’ of the interpretation of the Convention. This usually is a formality, with matters agreed behind the scenes in the run-up to the Meeting of the Parties, will practically no changes made to the Committee’s original findings and recommendations.
However, what has happened in the last two weeks shows that the EU and UNECE are on a major collision course with respect to the forthcoming Meeting of the Parties to be held in September in Montenegro. First of all the following is the draft decision of non-compliance against the EU to be agreed at that meeting:
Click to access ECE.MP.PP.2017.25__DD_EU__advance_copy.pdf
The first part of it reiterates Decision V/9g above in that the EU has not complied with those requirements over the last three years and clearly is intending not to comply with the Convention with respect to its post 2020 renewable programme. However, the real issue of contention is the recent findings on a long drawn out case on Communication C/32. EU citizens don’t have rights to challenge in the European Court of Justice in a manner, which is ‘fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive’ as the Convention requires Parties to ensure under its Articles 9(3) and 9(4). EU citizens can only challenge in their own National courts and hope that the judges might then refer the matter to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. As I know from my High Court case, this was a farce, which went on for three years and nine months, which finally ended up with an unprofessional and incompetent judge, who decided he didn’t have to decide. So the EU gets away with things, as it can’t be properly challenged, such as its gross non-compliance on the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs), yet at the same time it is constantly dictating to us through a series of Directives, etc., the validity of which we as EU citizens cannot challenge in the European Court of Justice. In particular, as under the Treaty of Lisbon, environment is a joint responsibility between the EU and the Member States and in practice all the major environmental issues are emanations from EU legislation.
First of all it is important to realise that the EU is not a country in the normal sense, it is for the purpose of International Law, and the Aarhus Convention in particular, what is defined as a regional economic integration organisation (REIO). Therefore, competencies are shared between the REIO and its Member States and as the EU declared in its ratification of the Aarhus Convention and as has since been clarified by the Compliance Committee in Communication C-123:
“The European Community is responsible for the performance of those obligations resulting from the Convention which are covered by Community law in force.”
“89. In short, the effect of the Party concerned’s declaration is that it assumes obligations to the extent that it has EU law in force; member States remain responsible for the implementation of obligations that are not covered by EU law in force”
If the EU hasn’t brought out specific legislation in a certain area, then it has no international law obligations related to that area. However, as we know the EU has brought out a lot of environmental related legislation, so why can’t a citizen get standing in the European Court of Justice to challenge acts and omissions of this law on the environment, as the Aarhus Convention requires? One could also point out that such as the Decision V/9g of Non-Compliance by the EU on the NREAPs is automatically a breach of EU law, since the Convention is an integral part of EU law, but then we are back to the point that as an EU citizen, you and I have no means of effective access to justice to enforce it………….
Since the Compliance Committee published their findings in March 2017 on Communication C/32 on the EU’s lack of Access to Justice, what has happened since is unprecedented. Usually, all of these issues usually get resolved behind the scenes before the actual Meeting of the Parties. However, the EU is divided into several bodies and institutions and the Council is the big one in terms of political direction, etc., and was responsible back in 2005 for ratifying Aarhus, etc.
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-council_en
The EU Commission being the independent executive arm:
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-commission_en
Therefore, one can only be surprised with the aggressive tone being taken by the EU Commission in its recent Communication in relation to the above Aarhus findings and in that the EU Council should use its position to refuse to endorse these findings at the upcoming Meeting of the Parties:
Click to access COM-2017-366-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF
The Compliance Committee has since responded following its meeting last week to the above, in a very fair and balanced manner, i.e. it is by no means going to be bullied and in particular the EU has obligations as a Party and it, UNECE, cannot be giving it preferential treatment:
Click to access ACCC_statement_on_Commission_proposal_on_C32_30.06.2017.pdf
The European Environmental Bureau, the main European NGO has clearly summarised its position about this completely unacceptable affront to democracy:
http://eeb.org/european-commission-seeks-to-block-access-to-justice-for-eu-citizens/
However, to date, the whole issue is only in the rarefied domain of environmental lawyers, although it deserves to get out to a much wider audience, as this goes to the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law. After all if you are being dictated to by an entity, which is pursuing an agenda which is detrimental to you outside of the rule of law and you have no means of effectively enforcing that rule of law………..
Finally, the report of the Compliance Committee on Decision V/9g from last week is now also published on the relevant UNECE webpage, as part of the background information to be adopted at this Meeting of the Parties:
Click to access ECE.MP.PP.2017.47_EU_advance_unedited.pdf
Regards
Pat
Critical information on S wansea tidal power! Buried reference in Roman concrete article is Prof. Jackson says it will take 120 years to amortize/pay out project!
I hope that is a typo!
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40494248
If you take account of ALL costs / intermittent benefits, 120 years to amortize/pay out sounds in the ballpark.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the Met. Office warning system is not fit for purpose?
There is currently a yellow warning for rain covering most of eastern England between 06:00 on June 6th to 06:00 on June 7th.
The area covers Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the north, but the only rain forecasted there is occasional light rain, with a maximum probability of precipitation of 40% for a short period.
On the other hand, yesterday there was blanket heavy rain over most of the north east with heavy rain recorded at Albemarle, but there was no warning in place.
I can’t make the Met. Office understand that such warnings (and lack of them), which bear no relationship to the weather forecast for a location are worse than useless. I get replies from them, explaining why the forecasts don’t match the warnings but with no indication that they are going to do anything about it.
It seems to me that with the resources at their disposal, they should be able to do something to correct this.
Bruce at exmetman also has problems with met office –
https://www.xmetman.com/wp/2017/06/05/problems-with-the-yellow-warning-in-more-way-than-one/
Thanks, I am not sure exactly what his attitude to the warning system but it seems similar to mine. I might log onto his site and post some comments there.
Have you ever logged into/posted anything on the xmetman site?
I am trying to log in using my WordPress details, but it doesn’t seem to work.
Also I can’t see any comments from anyone else.
“Have you ever logged into/posted anything on the xmetman site?”
Yes….often;
I think you may have to subscribe to xmetman (topish right) to log in & be able to comment ?
Nb: all posts are moderated so there is often a frustrating time delay.
Thanks,
Do you mean the “leave a comment” link?
I clicked on that and says I have to log in to comment.
When I click on that, I get the option to either log in with WordPress log, or Log in with user name and password.
When I try the former it says it can’t find my account and when I try logging in with either my email or user name, it either says they or my password are invalid even though they are the same as I use for this blog.
I am following xmetman on WordPress but for some reason I can’t post.
It may be because I haven’t registered separately with xmetman but I can’t see any option to do that. Is it different to the “leave a comment” link?
Oops, i have just spotted the “subscribe” option.
It was off the right side of the screen.
Why can’t people get everything on one screen without having to scroll????
That didn’t appear to help.
Still can’t post on xmetman.
Giving up!
quaesoveritas
When I just looked at the settings for my blog, it seems that the ‘Membership – anyone can register’ option had become unchecked!
My apologies, hopefully that should now fix it.
What a numpty!
xmetman
Thanks for fixing that.
I am glad that it wasn’t something I was doing wrong!
1saveenergy, thanks for your assistance.
Glad to be of service….Invoice in post (:-))
Well it looks like the forecast was correct and the warning was wrong for the North East.
A light shower at about 07:30 and none since. Certainly no heavy rain or thunderstorms.
You mean July (not June)
eg Mablethorpe ..for Thursday it says ” Increasing risk of thunderstorms arriving or developing, probably becoming locally severe with hail and large amounts of rainfall.”
Hence yellow warning
Go to NE whole region and then click Thursday tab and you’ll see explanation http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/mobile/warnings/NE
The sorms may stretech as far as Wales
Oops, I still haven’t caught up with the calendar!
The “explanation” still does’t explain why for some locations, the warnings and the forecast don’t match. At least there are thunderstorms forecast for Mablethorp, but not for Newcastle.
More BBC alarmism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40099384
Apparently Sout African apple growers are going to have to shade the apples in future, because they get sunburnt.
Sigh
I recently unintentionally caught part of an interview with author Neel Mukhajee (not an author I have read or intend to waste time reading), on BBC’s “Meet the Author”.
During the interview, there is the following conversation:
Mukherjee: “At this moment in my life, I am not hopeful about our species.”
Naughtie: “You think we’re done for?”
Mukherjee: “I think we’re done for, yes.”
Naughtie: “Why?”
Mukherjee: “Well I mean, you know, climate change is one very obvious reason why I think we’re done for, I think we have run out of time.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08xk0lf/meet-the-author-neel-mukherjee
I find it incredible that someone so apparently well educated, can come to such a conclusion.
It is an indication of how pervasive the propaganda has become.
There may be many reasons why the human species is “done for” , but “climate change” is not one of them, although erroneous belief in “climate change” may be.
I wonder whether he even knows what he means when he uses that term.
Please reverse the order so newest is first. Or, make – say – 20 entries per page…
I’ll have a look
In wordpress “Simply go to Settings » Discussion. Under the Other comment settings, you will find the option, Comments should be displayed with the older comments at the top of each page. Click on the drop down menu and select Newer.”
Bu that’s a problem cos it changes the order on all pages
And on Paul’s site the best comments come in first.
Maybe the about page could be changed to New About page2.
I’ve discussed this with Paul before. The about page is hard to use with oldest first. Few brand new visitors will bother scrolling to the bottom, for example.
None of the other posts have anything like the same number of comments, so scrolling to the best ones shouldn’t be that much of a problem. Perhaps try it for a month and see what people think?
Yes if it’s possible to do that for this ONE page rather than for all pages, then that’s a good idea.
I don’t think it is Stu, at least not without a plugin. Case in point though, to respond to your reply in context of the thread to date means I have to scroll for a long time on my mobile.
I have a trick, cos I once checked the reply box bit that says
“Notify me of new posts via email”
thus your last comment entered my email box,
… and when I just click the reply link in the email.. it takes me direct to the BOTTOM of the page
Mmm. I am using the WordPress app and it takes me to the top:-(
I recommend using https://www.inoreader.com to monitor new posts in forum since you last looked.
Click “add new content”, post in this URL https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/about
and click subscribe, click on the new link on left of screen
You’ll see Inoreader then gives you comments with latest at the top.
Thanks Stu, I will take a look
Paul, a sign of things to come? http://www.bnn.ca/siemens-to-close-ontario-turbine-plant-cut-hundreds-of-jobs-1.807596
Tillsonburg is a small town in southwestern Ontario. Thus, these lost jobs will have significant impact on the community.
This appeared on my Facebook page today:
Paul,
another telling insight by Matt Ridley on his blog, this time on on ‘beloved’ EV’s, and the comparison with £3Bn wasted when the country was compelled by big government to abandon incandescent light bulbs.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/electric-cars/
12:35pm R4 , a 10 min commercial for EVs
seemingly initiated by PR agency
https://biasedbbc.org/blog/2017/07/19/mid-week-open-thread-118/comment-page-4/#comment-853829
Claimed ‘This parliament has a 600m budget for spending for EV infrastructure/subsidies’
So much for BBC investigative journalism.
I mean Jeremy Vine only commands a salary of £700,000 for doing a 2 hour show, 5 days a week. Oh! I forgot, he does Egg Heads as well, trundled out to justify his eye watering salary.
And when challenged on his salary by a listener, he refused to engage in the discussion.
And Chris Evans, who is on £2M a year, justified it by telling everyone he spoke to his Mum on the subjects and she told him to say that he should earn as much as he could, when he could, for as long as he could.
She was, by his account, a nurse So that’s OK then. Oh! I also believe part of that salary is for Top Gear, which lasted for all of several months.
The recently posted UK sea level data again shows the awful mess that our government’s scientific advisers have got us in to. Good on Donald Trump for having the sense to walk away from the flawed Paris agreement. But how do we get the message over to our MP’s and ministers so they can make some sensible decisions?
#BiasedBBC’s enviro correspondent @BBCMarshall uncritically retweets GreenPeace propagandist Doug Parr on on Musk’s solar propaganda
Is that IMPARTIAL?
She also just said this on R4 FooC at 11:40am about Alaskan Inuit
“The Arctic is melting twice as fast as the rest of the planet”
‘Here we are in an Inuit cellar storage area and it’s melting, and it’s never done that before’
The old man says ‘all the old signs we used to read the ice can’t be trust any more’
CM ‘Down the road is a lab, the scientist likens climate change to a runaway car’
Direct link to segment
I guess this tweet is the guy she got her contacts from
Paul, I’ve got her banged to rights for #1 confirmation bias by cherrypicking and #2 Deception by omission.
#1 She’s lifted her main line straight from the opening line of his last blog
http://cooperisland.org/june-2017-the-arctic-continues-to-surprise/
“JULY 18, 2017 GEORGE DIVOKY
The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.”
Yet you get a massive shock when you look at the photo cos snow is MUCH LATER this year
#2 So that’s her Deception by omission.as the blog post is titled “SURPRISE” cos he eventually says
“However, unlike the past two years, snowmelt in Barrow was not early —it was extremely late. ”
“Snow at the NOAA station just outside Barrow was the latest since 1988, with snow disappearing on June 18th – compared to 2016 when melt occurred on May 15th.”
(for more summary see BH Unthreaded Jul 22, 2017 at 7:55 PM)
Paul, interesting article on the history of environmentalism
http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-review/article/americas-climate-of-crisis/20024
Paul I’ve had a surprising ‘tweet from the stars’ about your post.
Harra himself just tweeted me something , and since I had not addressed him, but merely explained the maths of the paradox that the £40bn saving is more that total annual household leccy bills , I’m guessing what has miffed him is that you sub headed it
“Another grossly one sided report from RH:”
hence his strange reply to me
“Calling yourself the open-minded questioner may be more persuasive”
I am not sure entirely what he means .
but what it does mean that he or one of his minions has read your post.
So it might knock some sense into them.
Hi Paul , I would be interested in an off line conversation about your dealings with Ecotricity planning. We are near Stroud want to destroy 100 acres of meadows to build a football stadium and business park that is not in the local plan and is not very green
I see @rich_yorks posted this
\\ Replying to @Eco_MarkJeff @ecotricity @Natures_Voice
Beautiful scene, much like meadows you plan to destroy for a biz park stadium complex creating 1 million car journeys #greenwash //
and then go blocked by the Ecotricity exec @Eco_MarkJeff
10 tips to save energy during the school holidays from British Gas:
https://www.britishgas.co.uk/the-source/our-world-of-energy/surprising-world-of-energy/summer-holiday-energy-saving/?cid=mem_MERCJul17_Fri_2017728_1289289&__ja=tsid:64897|cgn:MERCJul17|kw:1289289&dcs_em=a3a914bd779b748201d261fdf922508258c81ac0ef645ae6c4904362568be765
I suspect they were struggling to find nine, so they could make no 10:
10. Get smarter about saving energy with smart meters
Paul,
Interesting item by Dr. Roy Spencer on the hurricane “drought”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/4300-days-since-last-u-s-major-hurricane-strike/
Climate Change now blamed for Scottish Canals being damaged by deluges!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/deluges-damage-200-year-old-scots-canals-gzh32h7s6
British Gas prices going up discussed here:
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2017/8/1/6m-households-braced-for-energy-price-hike-after-british-gas-website-blunder
with this gem:
“Ofgem said last week that it will relax licensing in order to let tech firms introduce the new gas and electric tariffs which will have more control over appliances in people’s homes than traditional arrangements.
The plans will reward households for turning lights off at night and heat off in the winter, letting technology firms like Google and Amazon provide energy to British Homes.”
Just what I have always wanted, being rewarded for freezing to death in the winter.
And WTF are Google and Amazon doing providing energy in the first place?
In case you haven’t seen it – Scientific American July 28, 2017
“Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth in 2006, more polar ice has disappeared, and global temperature and carbon dioxide levels have climbed even higher. Hurricanes are growing stronger, droughts more intense and flooding more extensive.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/al-gore-returns-with-an-ever-more-inconvenient-truth/?WT.mc_id=SA_ENGYSUS_20170803
“Hurricanes are growing stronger, droughts more intense and flooding more extensive” !!!
Despite ALL scientific evidence to the contrary.
Pen Hadow sets sail for the North Pole:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40935252/pen-hadow-sets-sail-for-north-pole-as-arctic-ice-melts
Paul
Nice article on Scottish energy ripping off the rest of the UK for NOT producing energy. “The Scottish wind-power racket”
By John Constable and Matt Ridley
Not sure if you have covered it.
https://capx.co/the-scottish-wind-power-racket/
Plenty of guff/nonsense to raise your hackles here.
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/july-2017-earths-1st-or-2nd-warmest-july-record
In a review of “An Inconvenient Sequel”, on BBC’s “Film Review”, Jason Solomons, who obviously believes in “climate change”, never-the-less said he found the film “very boring” and a “cure for insomnia”, and that it “looked like propaganda for the people who believed in climate change”, while generally supporting the premise of the film. It’s difficult to understand what else he wanted from a documentary unless it was even more exaggeration and hyperbole.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0923gmp/the-film-review-final-portrait-an-inconvenient-sequel-the-hitmans-bodyguard
About 5 minutes in.
Sadly I am a follower rather than a leader. When I read the scholarly pronouncements here on your site I am embarrassed at the specious observations that I feel enjoined to make. In defence of my ignorance, I note that much of science is observation. Seeing something pernicious, such as the refusal in our society to embody all witness, enrages me to such a degree (a pertinent word) that I am more angered by the process than the fact.
This year has been a miserable one as far as weather is concerned (I live in the same latitude as you). Rain, low temperature and then more rain. I have had one evening when I have been able to sit in my lovely garden at twilight and enjoy the world. Recently, in the past few weeks, I have had to resort to central heating to make relaxation inside my home comfortable.
The weather pattern is one of a wintry aspect with the low pressures, that I was taught were centred over Iceland in our summer, a near permanent feature over our islands. If it is that this compression of the weather is taking place, the warmth ushered southwards away from us, then may it not be the fact that summer heat is being concentrated in a narrower band away from these dismal, and seemingly endless succession of lows? Could it be that temperature readings in areas away from these cold winds and rain are being boosted by the limitations that the weather systems we are experiencing impose?
As I say, I am a bear of little brain. I would hate to think that man’s purpose is to be handed over to the puritans or that scientific method, which up to this point has been scrupulous and reliable, given us a life of riches and hopefulness, should be subverted by people in bubbles who have only rhetoric as their understanding, a national broadcaster who is not beyond mocking reason and showing itself averse to that which is not fashion.
Paul,
I was just sent the following link to an article in which various executives in the automotive parts industry express their views on the future of EVs. Very interesting.
http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/motoring/an-electric-car-boom-parts-makers-doubt-it
Paul,
Don’t know whether you aware of this ultra-alarmist and ultra-unscientific thing of Schroders. Free access through Citywire & no doubt other financial portals. Schroders are no doubt aware that there are megabucks beyond the dreams of avarice to be made. .schroders.com/en/insights/economics/climate-progress-dashboard-forecasts-global-warming-of-more-than-4c/?utm_source=Citywire_Money&utm_medium=Content&utm_campaign=UKInvInsights
That should have been http://www.schroders.com/en/insights/economics/climate-progress-dashboard-forecasts-global-warming-of-more-than-4c/
It’s been around a month
I’ve not seen a debunk
Seems the same idea a Grantham’s Green hedgefund
Like who is going to be against more green subsidies ?
…”think of the children” and other catchphrases.
Jonova 2013
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/nearly-1-billion-a-day-to-change-the-climate-the-invisible-vested-elephant-in-the-room/
Paul
Have you ever plotted US carbon emissions for the past century against solar eclipes in US. I think you’ll find it convincing.
BBC will run it especially if you montage solar eclipse behind the deadly black steam of a power station and a sad polar bear.
Paul, I found your recent article on wind power in Northern Ireland very interesting. Does anyone know where I could find financial figures of the subsidies, constraints payments etc that have been paid out.
This is good for starters:
Most of the govt figures are on a UK basis, but you can get stats on wind power output here for NI (ET 6.1):
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-6-renewables
There’s something interesting NE electricity prices have just gone up by 6% after 4 year hiatus
The BBC NI podcast blamed the rise of FF
“There has been a 10% rise in gas prices and similar rise in the price of coal”
This raises the question over what period is this 10% gas price rise, where does NI power station coal come from etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05clffl
typo NI electricity prices = Northern Ireland prices
The BBC had a news item on the Today programme this morning about food production in Africa.
Of course they had to say claim that crop yields were being cut by “climate change”, by which they meant “drought”, without producing any evidence that this was not just caused be normal weather variation.
I suspect that the fact that the population in Africa is expected to double by 2050 in a part of the world which already has difficulty feeding itself may be the major problem.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b091s7zl
About 44 minutes into the programme.
Context is that we know Russia just had record grain yields
So their report seems like cherrypicking.
This just arrived in my inbox. People better equipped than me might want to rake it over
https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/news/climate-link-european-floods
Makes big claim
“This is the first time a link with climate change has been shown at a large, continental scale using observations alone, as opposed to using computer simulation models.”
Yet almost no one bit
cos that URL was only tweeted twice
and no one replied to the tweets
6 tweets mention the title words “Climate link to European floods”
Yet again no replies or retweets
Some of those are tweeting a Liverpool Uni press release
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2017/08/10/climate-link-to-european-floods/
Just one thing URL back searches on Twitter are not comprehensive if people decide to use a short URL in their tweet
(short URL’s are not really necessary cos Twitter automatically shortens long URLS anyway now)
Hang on searching on “Climate link to European floods” yields about 30 tweets cos that was used in an IrishTimes article on Aug 10th the same day that Science Mag published the article
However little traction gained no retweets
Paul,
Off Topic slightly, but an article in the Guardian today by Jon Snow relative to Grenfell Tower.
Jon states that the MSM are part of the liberal elite and disconnected from the public (now there’s a surprise) and goes on to describe how they all missed the Grenfell tower residents blog which stated the building was a fire risk.
He says the MSM should be taking more notice of the voices of the small people and investigating their causes.
Perhaps there’s hope for us yet when he comes to the aid of climate sceptics, on his white charger, with their numerous blogs pointing out the self same issues, except of course, they claim the world isn’t going to burn.
But I guess that doesn’t make for good headlines.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/aug/23/jon-snow-grenfell-mactaggart-media-diversity?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=240736&subid=22625440&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
Paul,
and here as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/23/grenfell-british-media-divide
The latest edition of “Weather World”, on the BBC News Channel, discussed the Urban Heat Island effect, although not much detail on how much effect it had on temperatures either at a local or global level.
Lots of examples of “extreme weather” in the rest of the programme however.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b093twx4/weather-world-26082017
Paul,
I know this is old, but it seems to make sense. Any mileage in it?
And the paper: https://www.clim-past.net/9/447/2013/cp-9-447-2013.pdf
Paul, Keady power station is near you.
The just upped the planning permission on the new Keady 2 to 910MW last year they said 810.
It’s CCGT gas
Benny Peiser was on the BBC news channel this morning, discussing the EU legislation limiting the power of vacuum cleaners to reduce carbon emissions.
Unfortunately they didn’t get his name right, spelling it “Paiser”
Actually, while I welcome the appearance of the Director of the GWPF on the BBC, I didn’t think he got his point across very well, concentrating on the use of new technology, whereas a simple “if you make cleaners less powerful, people will probably have to use them more, negating any reduction in carbon emissions”, would have sufficed.
Excellent article about flooding in Westmorland and Cumberland…http://www.thiswascockermouth.uk/derwent_floods_history.html
Paul,
Rent seeking on another level.
I’m an ex pat sweaty sock (does living in Kent qualify me as an ex pat?) retiring back to Scotland (Dumfries and Galloway being my first choice) in 4 or 5 years.
This is what I’m looking forward to. Truly stunning countryside plagued by windfarms so the landowners can cash in on government subsidies.
The SNP have made some insane decisions in the past, but contaminating the country with these monstrosities has to be up there with Alex Salmond as first minister.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/03/britains-largest-landowner-warned-plan-build-huge-wind-farm/
In a new documentary, “The Search for a New Earth.” on BBC2 on Monday, Stephen Hawking puts forward the opinion that “I am convinced humans need to leave Earth and make a new home on another planet.”, citing “a new virus, nuclear war, artificial intelligence gone rogue”, and (you guessed it) “climate change”, as possible reasons.
The Radio Times says it is a two part documentary but my EPG only says it is a single part, albeit 90 minutes long.
I am convinced Stephen Hawking & all his “climate change”/CAGW mates, need to leave Earth and make a new home on another planet.
That would allow the rest of us to enjoy / endure whatever nature throws at us.
I have now seen the programme which was IMHO frankly ludicrous.
Apparently the problems of sending a viable population to another solar system are easier than solving the problems on earth.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0953y04/the-search-for-a-new-earth
Personally I think we will be lucky to reach Mars within 100 years, never mind Proxima Centauri b, which incidentally, is NOT a new earth!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b
Paul,
two things that caught my eye.
Building regulations…….what fun!
I’m looking at novel ways to build an extension to our listed cottage and am looking at ICF’s (Insulated Concrete Forms) and stumbled on this.
“The requirement to restrict solar gain limits the demands on energy for cooling the dwelling
or building. The UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP)3.28 has indicated that the UK
annual temperatures could increase by between 2°C to 3.5°C by the 2080s. The summer
increase will be roughly twice that seen in winter, giving an increase of approximately
6°C. Overheating is already an issue in many buildings and this will worsen and become
more widespread3.29, increasing the demand for air conditioning, and thus energy for
cooling. Designers will therefore be required in the future to pay much more attention to
heat gains through windows and the rest of the building fabric. In addition to design of
the fabric to limit heat fl ow into the building, the structure itself can be used to control
internal temperature rises by making use of fabric energy storage (FES). This can reduce
or even eliminate the need for air conditioning, and thus lower energy requirement and,
consequently, CO2 emissions3.30.”
The second, and possibly more important issue is raised in this article I found when I followed a link from here, to repealtheact.org.uk.
I’m too dense to read between the lines, but when it appears Judith Curry acknowledges this, it might be something to consider.
https://twitter.com/faykellytuncay
And the article itself: http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?utm_content=bufferc40d9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Perhaps you have some insight.
Interesting.
Maybe they have allowed for this, but I would have thought higher crop yields, for whatever reason, would tend to restrict uptake of minerals, as there is more crop per acre.
It may even be that soils are now being depleted of minerals as they over farmed more and more.
Paul,
that’s the first though that jumped into my head.
It would therefore seem logical to fertilise those crops more, which would take more energy, largely provided by fossil fuels.
See this article from Capx….
https://capx.co/innovation-not-subsidy-is-transforming-the-energy-market/?omhide=true&utm_source=CapX+briefing&utm_campaign=e275bcc4f7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_07_17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5017135a0-e275bcc4f7-241779021
” Subsidies are no longer propping up the wind power industry”
Lies Richard Black!
What does he think the latest CfD round is? Scotch mist?
A couple of newspapers are reporting that “forecasters” are predicting a stormier that normal autumn, with 7 record storms before Christmas.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/britain-facing-stormy-autumn-with-11184485
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/uninvited-gusts-autumn-to-be-one-of-the-stormiest-warn-weather-forecasters-z3psdrrrd
These predictions seem to be coming from the usual dubious sources.
Parable of East vs West approach
West: Art project needs funding so they bang together buzzwords of Renewable Energy and Bitcoin.
They build a wind turbine that goes on the ground which is inefficient for generating energy and use software implementations of bitcoin mining protocol which is ineffiicent for mining bitcoin. They spend what remains of the grant money on publicising that any tiny amount of bitcoins mined will go towards green causes.
https://julianoliver.com/output/harvest – Wind energy used to mine cryptocurrency to fund climate research
East: Chinese Commercial Bitcoin miners build directly next to coal stations which are efficient for making energy ( and occassionaly a hydroelectic dam. )
They have custom built ASIC circuits to mine bitcoin, which is the most efficient mechanism.
https://qz.com/1055126/photos-china-has-one-of-worlds-largest-bitcoin-mines/
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mail-on-sunday-censured-by-ipso-over-story-which-claimed-world-leaders-were-duped-over-global-warming/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2017-09-18&utm_source=Press+Gazette+Daily+new+layout
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/we-were-wrong-worst-effects-of-climate-change-can-be-avoided-say-scientists-k9p5hg5l0
This could be big news.
Behind a paywall.
See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/09/18/immediacy-threat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/
I also made a comment over in the CCC thread.
“The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has found.”
Some of us knew that, without being told!
I thought this was going to be discussed on the BBC News Channel in the “Papers” section, but although it was mentioned they skipped over it.
The opportunity arose to discuss this in the “papers” section of BBC Breakfast, but the airheads preferred other important topics such as Boris Johnson, Rio Ferdinand and London Fashion Week.
Interesting article on EV’s.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/electrification-puts-car-industry-risk-says-psa-boss-tavares/
Paul
Also revealing.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4901278/Report-shows-world-isn-t-warm-greens-warned.html
Paul,
Article on the profligate waste of taxpayers money on green NGO’s from the Taxpayers Alliance, posted on Guido Fawkes site.
Is it just me or are there more lower tier political organizations and individuals suddenly coming out the woodwork and objecting to wasteful green spending recently?
An interview on the Today programme this morning (about 2hrs 40min in) with Sir David KIng (former government Chief Scientific Advisor) about why the UK Government should revise carbon reduction targets to achieve net zero carbon emissions.
Unfortunately, the question not asked was, what difference the UK contribution would make to global temperatures and “climate change”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b095ptpk
Paul, this is a long way from your usual fare but I thought there were some interesting parallels with the cagw debate. https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2016/04/13/greater-cholesterol-lowering-increases-the-risk-of-death/
Will you be doing an update on your post of last year about transits of the NWP? I came across this site but unfortunately they don’t appear to be updating it anymore.
Found this:
https://theconversation.com/we-looked-at-1-154-climate-science-results-and-found-no-evidence-of-publication-bias-84500
Any ideas?
Paul,
NEW EV battery technology!!!!!!
Toshiba have developed a battery that “allow for a range of 320 km (186 mi) after just a six minutes of ultra-rapid charging, which is around three times the range offered by a standard, similarly charged lithium-ion battery.”
Now that seems like a good deal and a big step forward. http://newatlas.com/toshiba-scib-battery-triple-range/51667/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=a6404ae594-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-a6404ae594-92281965
Until that is, one reads the two comments:
“Eric the Red5 hours ago
Does that mean it takes 500 amps to charge a 50AH battery in 6 minutes?
teddilu4 hours ago
@eric yes”
As I understand it, most households can handle, at the most, 100 amps. So no fast charge there then.
So that level of charge needs to be delivered from charging stations. Most of that would presumably be done between 9am – 5pm, drivers stopping for a 6 minute charge after a 150 mile drive, easily achievable by commercial travellers/couriers/sales/etc.
So during peak hours, how much load would that place on the National Grid? I assume a numerical comparison could be made with petrol/diesel use in today’s figures i.e. daily fuel use across the UK representing the numbers of miles driven by vehicle type, converted to a charging equivalent.
But I have no idea how to do that. Any one else?
Grey literature from vegans telling us how to live
http://www.fcrn.org.uk/projects/grazed-and-confused
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScPZ0NF7UQdoyTyyW9bvIxdAAXEPNlqsG1DlEUhKbsF_vz5Pg/viewform – this is a link to a PhD students survey on climate change. Could you help him get some feedback by putting it on your blog?
Note he did a similar survey back in April
Looked at it –
Great example of a biased survey, most questions assume your belief in ACC,
He asks “how many meters sea level rise since 1880”
“What level of education should climate change be taught at?”….
What aspects do they want to teach?
He quotes Cook et al. (2013) saying that ‘the majority of published academic literature supports the idea of human-made climate change’.
Another rent seeker.
“Could you help him get some feedback ”
yes but he wont like it & it wont change his mind.
Yes, the questions do seem to lead respondents in one particular direction, but the replies might give him something to think about. Just trying to be helpful.
Penguins suffer from too much ice. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/13/just-two-penguin-chicks-colony-36000-survive-catastrophic-antarctic/
Tip : OK so Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia has been working on a project
WikiTribune is supposed to be the antedote to FakeNews
It will be an online newspaper of pure truth
That of course is impossible since Jimmy is such a whining SJW activist
Their first taster article was such a mess it had to be rehashed
It was about Global Sustainable goals and Climate ..ie already showing bias in choice of agenda
My notes https://biasedbbc.org/blog/2017/10/13/weekend-open-thread-164/comment-page-2/#comment-873562
and https://biasedbbc.org/blog/2017/10/13/weekend-open-thread-164/comment-page-2/#comment-873452
Paul
It seems CO2 is rampant and its not just man that’s the problem. But of course man is still the culprit:
“NASA satellite spots cause of unprecedented spike in atmospheric CO2”
https://newatlas.com/nasa-satellite-co2-increase-cause/51764/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=87a4464d07-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-87a4464d07-92281965
The full paper is here although paywalled.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6360/eaam5690
Paul
A victory, it seems, for common sense in Australia.
“Cabinet dumps Clean Energy Target for new ‘affordable, reliable’ power plan”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-16/cabinet-dumps-clean-energy-target-for-new-plan/9056174?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=10391a4097-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_10_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-10391a4097-36447077
And further down the page:
“MP suggests Paris target delay”
It seems the effects of Tony Abbott’s speech to the GWPF is taking effect.
Paul
this is interesting although badly presented (it barely works on Opera browser) but it has lots of interesting facts and figures in one place. At the very end, tonnage of concrete for wind turbines to provide the equivalent output of one nuclear power station is mind bending.
https://spark.adobe.com/page/1nzbgqE9xtUZF/
The alarmists seem to have missed a trick by not blaming this on “climate change”:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41670472
I suppose it is only a matter of time.
BBC Alarm over decline in flying insects
Germany 60 sample sites, 75% decline in 30 years.
ONE report
Haven’t we seem similar before out of Potsdam institute ?
“Where have all the insects gone?
Science | AAAS
http://www.sciencemag.org › news › 2017/05
10 May 2017 · Surveys in German nature reserves point to a dramatic decline in insect biomass.”
Paul
things are getting very interesting.
An article on The World Bank by James Dellingpole in the Spectator describing Africa’s dissatisfaction with it’s now entirely green agenda which is being directly blamed for poverty, a task it was formed to alleviate.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/how-the-world-bank-keeps-poor-nations-poor/
This second article describes how the USA, and specifically Trump, is on the side of African in condemning The World Bank for maintaining it’s green position on energy and subjecting millions of Africans to poverty.
http://www.thezimbabwean.co/2017/10/africa-us-question-world-bank-policy-poor/
It seems the pressure is beginning to mount on these pseudo humanitarian organisations to shape up or ship out.
On last nights “Autumn Watch”, it was suggested that the recent influx of Bee Eaters may be attributable to “climate change”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09c5k2n/autumnwatch-2017-episode-1
What I would like to know is, how do the birds know the climate in the UK has changed before they arrive here?
Paul,
they are running some numbers over at WUWT that might benefit from your input.
In a preview of the new BBC series “Blue Planet II”, there were indications that it will show the usual bias in favour of “climate change”.
In one scene David Shukman asks, “There was a very moving scene in episode one, of a Walrus mother trying to get her calf onto a piece of ice and there wasn’t much left because it’s all melting. What’s your sense about the scale and rate of change in for example the arctic?”
Attenborough replies, “I think that any sceptics that there were ten years ago or twenty years ago about global warming and so on, about climate change, and there were lots, must surely be diminishing almost to vanishing point, when you see the evidence that we have collected, I mean what the scientists around the world have collected of what’s happening to our seas and the fact that we are responsible for that.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-41699615/blue-planet-ii-why-sir-david-will-never-tire-of-his-work
(about 3 min in)
So no matter what we may think here, proponents such as Attenborough think that scepticism is as good as dead.
Confirmation bias of course. Working with, or for the BBC, Attenborough will not encounter climate sceptics because they’re not allowed into the BBC and when Nigel Lawson was, the BBC issued an apology for their behaviour, i.e. they didn’t pursue him on his claims.
Unfortunately Lawson is a terrible speaker and despite his position in the GWPF seems fairly ignorant of the subject.
PS, sorry, I meant to include this as evidence of the BBC’s bias.
https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/booker-bbc.pdf?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ac415195f5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_10_25&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-ac415195f5-36447077
Yes Oct 29th a few people tweeted ‘I hope sceptics are watching this Walrus scene”
Jim Steele was there with a debunking tweet
So many people brainwashed by BBC propaganda and manipulated by the sentimental music.
Paul,
you may have seen this, but if not it’s very well worth a read.
The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal
Christopher Booker
Foreword by Sir Antony Jay
https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/booker-bbc.pdf?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ac415195f5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_10_25&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-ac415195f5-36447077
Paul
Presentation from Paul Howarth, CEO of the National Nuclear Laboratory given in May 2017 basically saying that he’s going to be ask to provide 100Gw of power by 2050.
He doesn’t seem at all convinced by renewables.
Paul,
perhaps a mention if you haven’t’ already. A book launch on the 1st of November:
“Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex”.
‘Climate change was political long before Al Gore first started talking about it. In the 1970s, the Swedish Social Democrats used global warming to get political support for building a string of nuclear power stations. It was the second phase of their war on coal, which began with the acid rain scare and the first big UN environment conference in Stockholm in 1969.
Acid rain swept all before it. America held out for as long as Ronald Reagan was in the White House, but capitulated under his successor. Like global warming, acid rain had the vocal support of the scientific establishment, but the consensus science collapsed just as Congress was passing acid rain cap-and-trade legislation. Rather than tell legislators and the nation the truth, the EPA attacked a lead scientist and suppressed the federal report showing that the scientific case for action on curbing power station emissions was baseless.
Ostensibly neutral in the Cold War, Sweden had a secret military alliance with Washington. A hero of the international Left, Sweden’s Olof Palme used environmentalism to maintain a precarious balance between East and West. Thus Stockholm was the conduit for the KGB-inspired nuclear winter scare. The bait was taken by Carl Sagan and leading scientists, who tried to undermine Ronald Reagan’s nuclear strategy and acted as propaganda tools to end the Cold War on Moscow’s terms.
Nuclear energy was to have been the solution to global warming. It didn’t turn out that way, most of all thanks to Germany. Instead America and the world are following Germany’s lead in embracing wind and solar. German obsession with renewable energy originates deep within its culture. Few know today that the Nazis were the first political party to champion wind power, Hitler calling wind the energy of the future.
Post-1945 West Germany appeared normal, but anti-nuclear protests in the 1970s led to the fusion of extreme Left and Right and the birth of the Greens in 1980. Their rise changed Germany, then Europe and now the world. Radical environmentalism became mainstream. It demands more than the rejection of the abundant hydrocarbon energy that fuels American greatness. It requires the suppression of dissent.’
Available on Amazon UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Green-Tyranny-Exposing-Totalitarian-Industrial-ebook/dp/B06Y3LR2JV
So far five stars from the single reviewer. No doubt the usual one stars will appear soon from alarmists who are too afraid to read it.
Book launch party Nov 1 HoL
https://www.thegwpf.org/green-tyranny/
review
https://t.co/7R5rZo8ttZ
Richard Black “Mate, if I’d just written a book with as bonkers a thesis as yours, I’d stay clear of tutting at anyone else”
stewgreen
I followed your link to the Wall Street Journal.
Glad to see it’s promoted in the MSM.
And yes, comments from the alarmists who haven’t read it yet, not that I have either. But then I’m neither condemning nor praising it, merely promoting it.
Paul,
A loony tunes effort to demonstrate the infallibility of renewables.
“Increasing the use of renewable sources of energy is essential to reducing CO₂ emissions. By putting these clean energies to the test in Antarctica, the Earth’s harshest wilderness, Barney and I want to prove that they can be developed for use anywhere, and therefore play a crucial part in helping the planet transition to a lower-carbon future.”
Ah! The clue is in the question……..It’s Fred and Barney! Best be careful they don’t get frostbite on their tootsies.
https://newatlas.com/father-son-south-pole-renewables/51955/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=2b89caf11f-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-2b89caf11f-92281965
LOL!
I wonder what their clothes, skis, equipment etc are made from? Or how they got there in the first place!
Paul,
The BBC hammering the latest alarmist exclamation of we’re all doomed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41778089
It’s been on the news every hour or so on Radio 2.
Also on the News Channel, with the usual images of atmospheric pollution and other unrelated footage.
Another air quality alarm story in the Times today:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/millions-at-risk-from-polluted-air-too-dangerous-to-breathe-jdk0lc3jg
“Millions of people in British cities are inhaling air considered by the World Health Organisation to be too dangerous to breathe, a report has shown.
Out of 51 UK cities and towns listed in an air-quality database, 44 fail the WHO’s test for fine sooty particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter that have been linked to heart disease and premature death.
Exposure to the particles, known as PM2.5s, should not exceed ten micrograms per cubic metre of air, according to the health organisation.”
I’m sure I read somewhere that the whole of Scotland fails the WHO standards, whilst many parts of England one would expect to fail, pass.
Stories been around for a long time
June there was this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35304167
Stew
Not that report. That’s about cities. The one I saw identified the whole of Scotland, including the highlands, as above WTO limits. Utterly stupid.
Paul
I’m sure you saw it at the time but I can’t recall any comment on it anywhere.
Two links which explain Nichols Stern’s involvement in what some have called fraud.
The first describes the details of papers his organisation, the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) claimed £9M (and more) for.
8% were published before his organisation existed, 151 specify the date of submission to the journal in which it was published. 41 (27%) has a submission date in of before 2008.
157 (35%) of claimed papers have nothing to do with climate change, and another 40 (9%) are on the science of climate change rather than its economics or policy.
And it goes on.
http://sticknern.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/credit-where-its-not-due.html
It was reported in the Mail Online by David Rose in 2016 but was passed off as a few minor mistakes, but judging by Stick Nern’s numbers, no one could possibly be as incompetent as this without it being deliberate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863462/Exposed-university-helped-secure-9million-money-passing-rivals-research-bankroll-climate-change-agenda.html
@Hotscot check this
Stew,
thanks mate, missed it somehow.
Paul
just encountered the most blatant and clumsy example of BBC spin I have yet heard.
BBC Radio 2 News at 14:00 hrs today (Moday) stated (and I paraphrase): According to the Met office, 2017 will go down as one of the warmest years on record, despite being slightly cooler than 2016, but only because of the absence of El Ninio.
Like El Ninio years are now the norm are they?
Paul,
and here’s the hard copy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41859288
Paul
What a ‘Charlie’
Our King in waiting uses the hackneyed old line “I don’t know who’s spending my money, nor where they’re spending it”
But makes a fortune on climate change ‘rigged’ bets nonetheless.
He didn’t actually say that so the quotation marks were incorrectly used.
Drat!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901175
Baroness Scotland is currently on the BBC News Channel, blaming (among other things), volcanic eruptions on the “ring of fire”, on “climate change”.
Of course, she was not challenged.
Wow ….there’s this also
Long article , no mention of Volc or fire
Thanks, that seems to be similar to the content of the interview, apart from the absence of mention of the “ring of fire”.
I have now had a chance to listen to the entire BBC interview and I noticed that she seemed to be mixing the terms “climate change” and “climate” as though she didn’t distinguish between the two.
Unfortunately the actual BBC interview doesn’t seem to be on line anywhere now.
The 4pm prog was this
It made no impact on Twitter
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3ct28jj
No the UK version is different
a bot picked up she was on at 3:27pm talking about “REBUILDING CARIBBEAN ISLANDS. . Baroness Scotland has visited areas worst hit by hurricanes” The prog was Afternoon Live with Simon McCoy.
In the local newspaper she said
“We already have an expert on the ground in Antigua and Barbuda and we are working with Dominica to get someone in as soon as possible to help create strong climate change projects which will attract funding,” she remarked. “The Commonwealth is helping to strengthen legal frameworks to meet mitigation and adaption goals and ensure smooth relief efforts after hurricanes of this magnitude. Our recently launched Office of Civil and Criminal Justice Reform is providing legislative reform guides and drafting tools. We will also make available a legal climate change toolkit which will be launched this week at the United Nations annual climate change conference, COP23.
Paul,
I received this e-mail this morning from LSI energy highlighting than the commodity cost of electricity is now under 38% of the average bill.
“So prolific has the increase in TPCs been, that these third-party costs now account for approximately 60% of the electricity bills that land on our doorsteps”
hopefully you can see this here:
http://lsienergynews.com/1B3D-59WGC-03OIW3HL9E/cr.aspx
Paul
The latest round of propaganda from Bonn.
Stop breathing, or we’re all……..well………Dead!
On the BBC Radio 2 News at 10:30 this morning I heard Prof Corinne Le Quéré from the University of East Anglia actually say “We must stop ALL carbon emissions immediately” (Paraphrased). I presume she meant CO2 as I have yet to see diamonds in the atmosphere.
But in the 10:30 News, the statement was omitted.
But this, from Christopher Monckton, illustrates how practical her claim is:
Humankind produces ~30Bn tons of CO2 per year, equivalent to ~2ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 per year, which equates to ~15Bn tons of CO2 per ~1ppm.
The UN states that unless we do something about increasing atmospheric CO2, it will be at ~468ppm by ~2100.
Multiply 15Bn tons by 468ppm = ~7Tn tons of atmospheric CO2 humans will have added to the atmosphere by ~2100.
The UN maintains those 7Tn tons are expected to cause 7°F of warming by ~2100.
So, to mitigate for 1°F of warming, humankind must eliminate 1Tn tons of CO2 production.
Dividing 1Tn tons of CO2 by our annual output of 30Bn tons, it will take ~33 years to mitigate for 1°F of temperature rise and ~231 years to eliminate all 7°F.
But that means no energy use whatsoever; no coal, gas, bio mass or even windfarm produced energy (it takes CO2 emissions to produce wind turbines). No hospitals, schools, housebuilding, factories or transport. Absolutely no CO2 production whatsoever.
Under what circumstances does reducing CO2 emissions to combat climate change make sense?
The BBC report refers but, of course, omits Prof Corinne Le Quéré’s hysterical (in more ways than one) statement, was presumably chosen for radio broadcast but not for print, so there’s no permanent record of her profound stupidity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41941265
“Multiply 15Bn tons by 468ppm = ~7Tn tons of atmospheric CO2 humans will have added to the atmosphere by ~2100.”
Surely that should be 15bn x 188 ppm ~2.8 Tn tons, i.e. the approximate increase in concentration, unless we want to eliminate all CO2 from the atmosphere?
(although I may be wrong!)
Apart from that, of course, it would be impossible to “stop ALL carbon emissions immediately” without destroying the global economy.
Consultation out today from our European Union masters on guess what?
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-fake-news-and-online-disinformation_en
Well for starters if you did a factual examination on the below, you would just cringe, weather just normal and not stopping anybody getting on with their lives. Indeed if one brought Dr Doolittle out of retirement to speak to the animals, given that they don’t read read newspapers or watch / listen to the media output, and asked them for the their views on how they were struggling to cope, as the climate is changing so fast, and they have had to undergo relocations (how far and to where?), the animals would only conclude that humans are certainly no longer the ‘master race’:
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/consequences_en
“Climate change is happening so fast that many plants and animal species are struggling to cope. Many terrestrial, freshwater and marine species have already moved to new locations.”
Cringe is an underestimation for this one on ‘Clean Energy For All Europeans’:
Click to access cleanenergy_com_en.pdf
“Behind it stands a prosperous manufacturing industry delivering the necessary equipment and services, not only in Europe, but worldwide. The development of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency products and services has led to the creation of new businesses throughout Europe providing new sources of jobs and growth for Europeans”.
Today’s Der Spiegel was reporting on how Siemens is to globally slash 6,900 jobs, with 3,300 jobs and two manufacturing plants closing in Germany, as there isn’t enough investment in the power plant generation sector, such as for gas turbines and associated electrical equipment. No surprise there, the electricity market is now such a corrupt ponzi scheme, that no sane investor would put money into such long term investments.
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/siemens-technologiekonzern-will-weltweit-6900-jobs-streichen-a-1178352.html
More information on how this was coming and how these jobs losses were mirrored by equal job losses, due to the recent collapse in Siemens wind turbine manufacturing business can be seen below:
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2017/11/6-000-jobs-to-go-at-siemens-gamesa-as-power-division-faces-similar-cuts.html
Surprise, surprise, Europe’s solar energy industry is also a complete basket case:
https://www.thegwpf.com/europes-solar-industry-collapses-due-to-subsidy-cuts-chinese-competition/
I can only hope that sufficient European plebs write in to point out what people in glasshouses should not do, etc., etc.
Hi Paul, I am a committed follower of your blog and commend you for your efforts. When I look at the number of organisations and people riding the “Climate Gravy-train” I wonder what the reaction will be when the fallacy of “global warming is caused solely by CO2” is disproven and accepted as being incorrect? How will governments, universities, UN, businesses back pedal? As real science progress it is becoming clearer by the day that the IPCC models are flawed and do not consider the real climate drivers. The financial commitments are so huge that I struggle to see how the world can change direction. Could it result in triggering a global economic collapse?
Paul
No hysterics,no crazy claims, just some interesting NASA information and photographs of the Larsen C iceberg.
What occurred to me was that as it drifts away from the Larsen ice shelf, the intervening water will begin to freeze and might actually begin to increase total ice mass before the berg begins to break up and melt as it reaches warmer water.
Or is that just silly?
https://newatlas.com/iceberg-larsen-antarctica-photographs-nasa/52233/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=f7373a73d6-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-f7373a73d6-92281965
Paul,
Michael Fish on Radio 2 “What makes us human” section on the Jeremy Vine show. Short sharp and to the point. Global warming is all man’s fault, sea levels are rising, food production will decline and cause mass migration, heat waves will increase and hurricanes are out of control. Nor does he want to hand the planet over to his grandchildren in a completely ruined state, naturally, the old fool had to get that line in..
And of course, Trump’s a denier.
Nor were any of his assertions challenged by Jeremy Vine!
But he couldn’t forecast a storm a few hours out.
Paul
you’re gonna love this!
“Deep fat fryers may help form cooling clouds”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42081892?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=4121a895e1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_11_23&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-4121a895e1-36447077
Climate change alarmists ‘battered’ by new research?
Is that what they mean by ‘cooking up a storm’ ?
sounds fishy to me, I’ll take it with a pinch of salt (:-))
Hi, I’m here 3 or 4 times a week so I have bookmarked you. But. On the browser bookmark bar your icon is the same wordpress icon as everyone else’s. If you want to stand out, click on my site/settings and change your site icon. It would save space on my bookmark bar too. Thanks. shadeburst.wordpress.com
Think I’ve sorted it!
You’re the man.
Paul
Yet another fantasy scheme to do something with CO2. Other than leave it for plants.
As far as I can gather, this lot want to run exhaust gases from gas fired power stations, through a super dooper membrane, use more gas to heat up the membrane (or the exhaust gases, not sure which, if not both) which separates oxygen from CO2, leaving carbon monoxide “that can then be turned into a variety of useful fuels.”
Which can then, presumably, be burned and release more CO2? Meanwhile wasting more valuable fossil fuel to complete the conversion.
Or is it just me being over cynical and finding faults where none lie?
I love engineers, but despite their claims to want to simplify everything, they invariably end up with layers of technology to deal with the deficiencies of the preceding technologies.
I also wonder what the cost of all this would be simply to deal with what must surely be a fairly insignificant amount of CO2.
https://newatlas.com/carbon-dioxide-fuel-conversion-mit/52367/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=9d61d7daca-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-9d61d7daca-92281965
Paul:
Have you seen the latest from the conversation.com: “ Why remote antarctica is so important in a warming world”? By Chris Fogwill Keele University, Chris Turney UNSW and Zoe Robinson Keele again. They believe the earth has warmed already by 1.5 deg.C. etc.
Chock full of doom and a depressing set of comments.
My regards
You might be interested in this
https://theconversation.com/yes-sas-battery-is-a-massive-battery-but-it-can-do-much-more-besides-88480?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20December%205%202017%20-%2089417533&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20December%205%202017%20-%2089417533+CID_915c746310e56e8ba28bec06512e89ff&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Yes%20SAs%20battery%20is%20a%20massive%20battery%20but%20it%20can%20do%20much%20more%20besides
Paul, This is on the theme of recent years’ occasional record temperatures and whether they are comparable with older records.
I remember the debate on your web-site about whether the July highest temperature record at Heathrow a couple of years back was as a result of a blast of warm air from aircraft. Presumably you’ve picked up the issue of the changes in the way that temperature is now measured? At Joannenova.com.au in October 2017 there were a number of posts that linked to work by Jennifer Marohasy (jennifermarohasy.com) that looked at the impact of switch from mercury thermometers to electronic thermometers in Australia from the late 1990s – electronic sensors responding more quickly. That work showed the BoM in Australia has been using the highest and lowest one-second measurements in one minute to judge minimum and maximum temperatures. This has the effect of increasing the extremes compared to the old days and is against World Met Organisation guidance.
I wonder whether something similar is happening in the UK, although I read that we are using a different sampling time compared to Australia? Related to this have you picked up that the Met Office has now, suddenly, this autumn, removed mercury thermometers from all remaining sites from which it draws data (even those run by volunteers) and replaced them with electronic sensors. This appears to be a panicked reaction to EU regs on mercury. The upshot is that there has been no time to run the old and new thermometers side by side by comparison and this introduces a potential rupture in the consistency of the UK temperature record at all Met Office sites.
Is it worth looking into this. I am not an expert and just picked this up from various blogs and my involvement in an amateur weather observers site.
A simple solution would be to use an electronic sensor measuring a small Thermal mass to stabilize any rapid peaks & troughs.
Latest tosh: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/role-agriculture-land-use-natural-environment-tackling-climate-change/
It seems like only yesterday (in fact it was Dec 2015) that I was congratulating you on reaching 2.5 million hits on your site. Now you’re closing in on 6,000,000 ,doesn’t time fly! BZ
Paul
From the Taxpayers alliance, a concise description of the Climate Change Levy.
I’m sure you’ll have some additions.
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/climate_change_levy_briefing?mc_cid=170da30ae6&mc_eid=a1739321a7
Afternoon Paul,
Any thoughts on this article?
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/three-things-wouldnt-have-happened-climate-change
Keep up the good work.
PTG
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-renewable-energy-third-electricity-generated-wind-solar-panel-any-other-forms-mentioned-coal-a8122921.html
Tip : CarbonPants & ECIU have got this in the Times
“Migrant numbers set to treble as climate warms”
Who says, are they activist students?
“Hotter temperatures will accelerate migration of asylum-seekers to Europe, says study by Wolfram Schlenker and PhD candidate Anouch Missirian”
William Briggs has the debunk
Scientific American:
We CAN now blame individual weather events on Climate Change because our Computer Simulations are so much more advanced now.
Clearly backing up Computer Simulation predictions with Computer Simulation evidence doesn’t strike them as circular logic of the worst kind
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-can-now-blame-individual-natural-disasters-on-climate-change/
Looks like some workers in the climate sciences are starting to get disillusioned and leaving for other industries. Not too long before the lid blows off more generally.
Here is some commentary from an influential tech website hackernews relating to the Scientific American link I posted before:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16053385
user: huffpopo
“I used to do research on climate change, specifically on combining land, sea, and air models together and getting them to run on a massive cluster. It was very important to the other researches that the models produce the ‘right’ predictions which at the time was runaway global warming. When the models didn’t show this it was presumed that the models were wrong so hyper-parameters were tuned to try to torture the models to produce the ‘right’ result. When even that didn’t work they went so far as future pollute the data. Disillusioned with academia I left to work in industry.
My question is this; How qualified and experienced do I need to be in order to be able to legitimately and completely distrust the climate change ‘experts’? Because I feel like I’ve earned that right.”
user: stirbot in reply
“Sounds like we have a similar background. How long ago was this? How many models did you work with?
I had access to a few models and it was trivial to cause runaway warming. It was naturally something everyone tried when they were handed the keys to the servers. I recall causing the oceans boil within a few centuries.”
A conspiracy theory ..with some plausibility , but not really hard evidence.
The theory is that such conspiracies cannot sustain, cos sometime someone will have the opportunity to raise their voice
BUT ….for most that would be risking their pension
Poor, disillusioned fool.
drat, I meant to say “misguided”!
Paul
Just how delusional are the British public?
“Asked how much of the UK’s land area is densely built on [by iPsos Mori], the average estimate was 47%. The far more accurate figure – based on satellite images – as highlighted in my blog last November, is 0.1%.” Mark Easton – BBC Home editor.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42554635
No wonder there are so many idiots walking round believing in CAGW.
Bottomline Mark Easton is devious or as stupid as the public he mocks
..cos he is about 100 fold out
He talks about “concreted areas” as if “continuous urban fabric” is the only concreted category
..In fact CUF is exclusively city centre areas..areas like industry, ports , airports mines are put in other categories ..Add up all those categories and it’s about 10%,
Actual nature and farming is about 90%
Our debunk starts here ..or see my Twitter
https://biasedbbc.org/blog/2018/01/03/midweek-open-thread-41/#comment-890369
The map sums it up
Stewgreen,
I can’t disagree with anything you say, it’s quite normal in my (our) experience for the BBC to be factually incorrect.
But the point I was trying to make (badly) is that irrespective of sample size, location, BBC bias, journalist’s personal politics etc. the survey itself is indicative of the public’s general ignorance of anything outwith their personal bubble, which spills over one the climate change debate, as well as every other debate for that matter.
And thanks for the link, spent most of the morning reading it, sadly, no surprises. My 36 year old SNP voting son reacted with surprise the other day when I told him the BBC is a far left organisation. He is deluded enough to believe it right wing! He was brought up by his mother, my ex.
His reeducation is ongoing.
Dear Paul,
I’m sure you follow the Met Office Central England Temperature records. I normally have a quick look about this time of the year.
Whilst there are some concerns that the recent data may have been elevated by nearby building and land use at the measuring stations https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/29/what-do-three-cet-reference-weather-stations-used-by-the-met-office-have-in-common/ the record, although an average of three stations, is still raw data and not something that has been massaged with the Met Office’s global warming models.
Plotting the annual averages for maximum and minimum, and the mean of these from 1997 to 2017 the curves track fairly closely; no sign that either the max. or min. are changing independently. (Unfortunately, I’m not able to include my plot). Using a simple linear regression the data show that, contrary to popular myth, temperatures in England are actually falling at a rate of -0.016 deg C p.a., or 1.6 deg C per century. 1997 is chosen as a starting point because this is where increases observed during the previous two or three decades appeared to stop. Whether this is a pause, of course, depends on what happens next; something that is difficult to predict. I wouldn’t call this fall significant but I think it’s fair to say that, apart from some annual variability (standard deviation is 0.49 deg C), the temperature trend for England over the past 21years is reasonably flat.
All the best
The simplest trick to include a graphic here is to post it on a tweet
..and then right lick over the tweet’s time box to pick up the URL and next post the URL of the tweet here
Thanks Stew, I’m afraid this is beyond my IT skills.
I saw on twitter today that Phillip Eden has died.
Paul
Melanie Phillips on global warming.
Short and to the point
http://www.melaniephillips.com/colder-warmer-course/
Paul, from your High Bradfield post, it seems you may not be a million miles from me here in Beighton, SE Sheffield?
Just outside Beighton, over the ‘border’ with Swallownest, Rotherham MB, lies Beighton 933 substation – a distribution type? Recently I was surprised to see 4 newly installed gas generators adjoining. By chance there were some workers there from Northern Powergrid when I walked by 3 days ago. They told me that these are 1 or 2 1000 kW units each; the installation cost £6million. They also said ” we are doing lots in the area”.
Reassuring to know that my lights will stay on when the wind is not blowing or the sun shining, but at what cost for the contract?
This facility is probably located here because of the large HP gas pipeline that crosses Shirebrook Valley Nature Reserve nearby. This leaked some 7 or 8 years ago; the 30′ deep excavation ruined the hydrology resulting in pollution of Beighton Marsh. The extensive work to provide habitat and dipping ponds is now useless.
Ironically the gas engine for the old landfill site in Shirebrook Valley was removed a few months ago. The flare on the leachate treatment plant is often alight.
In Beighton, or nearby, we also have several energy related plants; a new waste wood to electricity Rankine cycle plant with bag filters, biogas at Woodhouse Mill sewerage works and Penny Hill Wind Farm, seen from the M1/M18 junction.
Just 3 – 400 metres from the new gas generators, on a small industrial estate next to and almost under the elevated A57, is the Low Carbon Combustion Research Centre, Leeds and Sheffield Universities. Next door is a firm making panel products who burn their waste in a primitive looking incinerator with a short stack and no apparent filters, below the level of the A57 and the roofline of the factory unit itself. The airflow is very turbulent and often swirls around the industrial estate but Rotherham Environmental Health seem to be incapable of understanding this simple breach of the building regs or the inappropriate location below the elevated road.
This incinerator came to my attention when I finally managed to track the odour of cyanide upwind to it’s source; for a year I had been puzzled by the hint of bitter almonds in the air early on still mornings.
A lot of interesting issues for a small area!
I’m always impressed by the wind turbine at the Sheffield Advanced Manufacturing Park.
I’ve driven past it many times in the last few years, and I’ve never seen it working!
\\BAM recently installed the German-manufactured wind turbine outside the research centre in Rotherham. Standing 99 metres tall, it has generated 170 Mwh since it first started production on 6 December, equivalent to the annual electricity use of 50 households. The turbine will generate electricity to power the facility, and feed any excess to the National Grid. BAM project manager Nick Howdle said: “The turbine is the first of its kind in this country. “Within six years it will have paid for itself and any electricity sold to the grid after that time will be pure profit. //
see also
http://namrc.co.uk/centre/wind-turbine-installed/
How often does it run really ?
Ah found using @NuclearAMRC “wind turbine” as search terms
During construction they often tweeted
since then less enthusiastic
Maybe FOI for cots vs actual energy generated ?
So how many turbines is this supposed nuclear agency funding ?
Cos effectively it’s an arm of the government
“Development of the Nuclear AMRC has been part-funded by the UK government and the European Regional Development Fund.
We receive ongoing funding from Innovate UK through the High Value Manufacturing Catapult. “
Have you been down this rabbit hole Paul ?
http://www.prosefights.org/irp2014/windscammers.htm#clippersheffield
It’s Sheffield, Vermont!
Ah that page had already mixed up Sheffield Vermont with Sheffield UK
that’s why it came up on my search
R4Today just did their programme today from this location
that is a bit of a coincidence
Martin use this map, right click over the incinerator site and click “what is this”
The title and link will appear on the left hand side of your screen
There is a Veolia depot next door, but maybe that is just paper and card.
Colombian Youth File the First Climate Change Lawsuit in Latin America.
https://www.dejusticia.org/en/colombian-youth-file-first-climate-change-lawsuit-latin-america/
This featured on the BBC “Outside Source” last night.
It seems to me that they are conflating “climate change” with deforestation, and the “right to a healthy environment”.
In a world where people are being “ethnically cleansed” and bombed out of existence, “climate change” should be the least of their worries.
Paul, the Sunday Telegraph! Pity they do not afford you more space. That is the sort of prominence you deserve. Nice to see the nerds taking their anoraks off. Well done.
My grandchildren are doing ‘climate change’ in junior school, and being fed the usual one-sided claptrap. Does anyone know of a concise, bullet-point, simple summary sheet that I can give them that presents the true facts to counter this dreadful indoctrinating bias?
Ken, try this-
http://www.use-due-diligence-on-climate.org/home/climate-change/summary-of-quick-facts/
Unfortunately, no one will ever pass exams reading that. Education is about assimilating “facts”, not thinking for yourself.
Up to 270 jobs to go in Loughborough from Brush as a consequence of Global Warming (Climate Change) policies.
“Traditional power markets have seen a significant decline in recent years, driven by the overall growth in renewables. This has led to a fall in demand for the company’s generators and a substantial overcapacity in global generator manufacturing.”
Nicky Morgan MP supports and actively promotes the policies that are making these people redundant. She didn’t stop the reporter trying to pin the fault on Brexit either.
https://www.loughboroughecho.net/news/local-news/loughborough-mp-speaks-out-brush-14234205
Beware the beast from the East. https://www.netweather.tv/weather-forecasts/news/8730-sudden-stratospheric-warming-this-weekend-but-what-is-it-how-will-it-affect-our-weather
Apologies if this has been posted before: A video by Arjen Lubach exposing EU energy policy lunacy. YouTube with english subtitles – search for “Groene stroom – Zondag met Lubach (S08)”. Well I enjoyed it
Times : EDF’s cheap new reactors ‘cast doubt over Hinkley Point costs
EDF has claimed that a new nuclear reactor it is developing will be a better and cheaper version of the two it is building in Britain.
Mind you the dates are all over place
“The state-owned French energy group said that its “optimised” version of the European Pressurised Reactor being installed at Hinkley Point in Somerset would be unveiled in 2020 and was destined intially for the French market.
A spokeswoman said that the optimised reactor would be between 25 per cent and 30 per cent cheaper than the existing version. It is scheduled to be available for use from 2030.
The newspaper Le Monde reported that the new reactor could cost as little as €6 billion, or £5.3 billion. The cost of the two reactors due to come on stream at Hinkley…”
Another reason not to take any notice of celebrities’ climate change ideas – they are alarmingly susceptible to flat earth theories: http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/26/celebrities-coming-flat-earth-believers-7343377/
Its amazing what passes for a “celebrity” these days.
Someone at the BBC is going to be in trouble: “fossil fuels which some scientists believe..”
Some Scientists? Surely 97%?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/disruptors_smart_power
RS
Love the picture of ‘glowing cooling towers’ near the end.
CO2 is powerful stuff, as it can sett concrete on fire
I’ve seen it in the BBC so must be true !!!!
On a BH discussion thread I monitor the Yorkshire Post’s war on fracking.
Tuesday – “Research could call fracking’s environmental claims into doubt
· The ENVIRONMENTAL case for fracking may need to be revaulated, York scientists have said, after research revealed global levels of harmful hydrocarbons in the atmosphere have been underestimated by 50%”
.. Its the normal BS contradictions : One minute the Greenblob shout the science is settled, next minute they say they underestimated something by 50%
Their argument is about ethane/methane leaks mixing with NOx from cars to make ozone.
They fail to set the context that ozone at low altitude is a health hazard, whilst at a high level its a good thing.
#1 there are many natural sources of methane leaks
#2 you are not fracking at busy traffic junctions, so the methane is well dispersed upwards before it meets NOx.
#3 The article claims ozone in countryside harms crops …first I’ve heard of this.
Seems the article is again PR not science.
This tweet from Emily Gosden. Is she having a dose of reality?
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Paul,
the latest carbon trust newsletter may be of interest.
http://e.carbontrust.com/interface/external_view_email.php?B9271037764816914941431336373510&varId=
Hi Paul,
In your https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/uk-wind-capacity-is-increasing-but-at-what-cost/ post I left a comment to say that I had emailed your post to my MP, the Attorney General and asked him to pass it on to Claire Perry. I have now had a letter from him to say he has passed on my comments and the link to the post and he has asked Perry to respond so that he can pass it on to me. I will let you know as soon as I get it
Paul
I suspected that the E’ly incursion, at its worst on the 28th was exceptional. Consulting the DoE guidance on the N Sea confirmed that as it lists the coldest possible that can be expected around Ekofisk area as ~MS6.5 with coldest ever to be expected off the coast of Scotland as ~MS4.5C-MC5.0. These were broadly around the temperatures over the sea that day. I then looked over temperatures in the Ekofisk area (data rich) and that confirmed it in spades – see below. I suspect that if it was colder than ’47 then you would have to look to the beginning of the century for its equal. So it is very crudely greater than 1: 50 years and probably at the 1:75 year or possibly the 1:100 year level.
The Wet Orifice’s propaganda to try to defuse this event – which stared before it actually set in has been despicable – but you know that already.
best regards
John Blackwood.
PS Of course more detailed and longer records would put the gloss on this but as it stands it is still fairly convincing.
All ship obs since 1970 in a box 55N-57N 001E-004E for air temp <= -5C with the following results:
1979 1 1 18.00 55.20 3.70 -999999999 -6.0
1979 2 14 12.00 56.40 2.10 PIWB -5.0
1979 2 14 18.00 55.40 2.00 SHIP -5.3
1979 2 15 6.00 56.40 2.10 RIGG -5.0
1985 2 9 10.00 56.60 4.00 DEQG -5.0
1985 2 10 6.00 55.20 4.00 OYFI -5.0
1987 1 10 6.00 56.50 2.90 114LFTR -5.6
1987 1 10 6.00 56.50 3.20 PLAT -5.2
1987 1 10 9.00 56.50 2.90 114LFTR -5.6
1987 1 10 9.00 56.50 3.20 PLAT -5.3
1987 1 10 9.00 57.00 3.50 TFUA -5.4
1987 1 10 15.00 56.40 2.10 PLAT -5.0
1987 1 10 18.00 56.40 2.00 PLAT -5.7
1987 1 10 18.00 56.50 2.90 114LFTR -5.8
1987 1 10 18.00 56.50 3.20 PLAT -5.6
1987 1 10 21.00 56.40 2.00 PLAT -5.2
1987 1 10 21.00 55.30 2.30 62026 -5.2
1987 1 10 21.00 56.50 2.90 114LFTR -5.9
1987 1 10 21.00 56.50 3.20 PLAT -5.6
1987 1 11 0.00 55.30 2.30 62026 -5.7
1987 1 11 6.00 55.30 2.30 62026 -5.0
1987 1 11 6.00 56.50 3.20 PLAT -5.8
1987 1 11 9.00 56.40 2.00 PLAT -5.8
1987 1 11 9.00 55.30 2.30 62026 -5.7
1987 1 11 12.00 55.30 2.30 62026 -5.0
1987 1 11 12.00 56.10 2.30 GZOQ -5.5
1987 1 11 18.00 56.40 2.00 PLAT -5.3
1987 1 11 18.00 56.50 3.20 PLAT -5.3
1987 1 11 21.00 56.50 2.90 114LFTR -5.3
1987 1 12 0.00 56.50 2.10 GRHJ -5.0
1987 1 12 0.00 55.30 2.30 62026 -5.1
1987 1 12 0.00 56.50 2.90 114LFTR -5.7
1987 1 12 3.00 56.40 2.00 PLAT -5.3
1987 1 12 3.00 56.50 3.20 PLAT -5.9
1987 1 12 9.00 56.50 3.20 PLAT -5.3
1987 1 12 12.00 56.50 3.20 PLAT -5.1
1987 1 12 18.00 56.40 2.00 PLAT -5.8
1987 1 12 21.00 56.50 2.90 114LFTR -5.5
1987 1 13 0.00 56.50 2.90 114LFTR -5.4
1987 1 13 3.00 56.50 2.90 114LFTR -5.7
1987 1 13 3.00 56.50 3.20 PLAT -5.2
1987 1 13 6.00 56.40 2.00 PLAT -5.1
1987 1 13 6.00 56.40 2.10 PLAT -5.0
1987 1 13 6.00 56.50 2.90 114LFTR -5.5
1987 1 13 9.00 56.50 2.90 114LFTR -5.1
1987 1 13 12.00 56.40 2.00 PLAT -5.0
Ekofisk reported -6.3 at 0300 on the 28th.
Britain’s CO2 emissions the lowest since 1890 but Harrabin still not happy about SUVs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43308567
Are these the same SUVs that helped out the NHS this winter?
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/volunteer-drivers-helping-nhs-staff-get-work-snow-4x4s/
“Climate change ‘impacts women more than men”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43294221
The fundamental error in this, of course, is assuming that things such as Flooding in Pakistan, the shrinking of Lake Chad, and Hurricane Katrina, are all caused by “climate change”.
I hope you find the following recent exchange as depressing as I do:
Presentation by Profs Henrik & Jacob Svensmark
Dear Mrs Perry
I write to ask if you had the time and inclination to attend the above presentation, it will be held:
When: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 from 6:15 PM – 8:00 PM
Where: Committee Room 4a, House of Lords
The subject matter is central to your parliamentary role although it will undoubtedly not be of interest to you.
I ask you to take note of three things only in deciding whether to attend:
The link between CO2 and global warming is supported only by theory and computer models.
An alternative causation is the subject of the presentation and the fact that it is now supported by experimental proof.
This government is spending many billions of pounds on decarbonisation of our economy and power generation in particular.
I hope you will attend to form perhaps a new opinion on this issue.
Colin Brooks
Sent March 6th
Dear Colin,
Thank you for your email below inviting Claire to attend a presentation by Professors Henry and Jacob Svensmark. Unfortunately, she will not be able to accept the invitation as she is in a Committee session which will clash with the start time of the presentation.
Yours sincerely, Catriona Wake
Correspondence Facilitator to the Rt Hon Claire Perry MP
Minister of State
Dear Catriona
Forgive me for persisting but may I ask if any other representative from BEIS dept will be attending? Considering just how this presentation claims to undermine pretty much the whole strategy of the department and give proof then I can not imagine that the government is totally uninterested?
thank you for your reply by the way 🙂
Colin Brooks
Sent March 6th
Dear Colin,
Unfortunately, given the short timeframe for finding someone, we won’t be able to offer a representative to attend in Claire’s place.
Dear Catriona
Given that two extremely well qualified scientists want to offer evidence (not just theory/opinion) that our government is wasting hundreds of billions of pounds of taxpayers money on needless policies for the decarbonisation of our economy; nobody has time to listen? As I understand it, the government is required always to act for the benefit of this country, its people and its economy and so I suggest that the BEIS is not following that requirement.
Dear Catriona
Could you tell me the subject to be discussed at the meeting to be attended by Mrs Perry on March 13th?
Dear Colin
The Minister will be in the Bill Committee for the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill and in BEIS Oral Parliamentary Questions on the 13th. As you can appreciate, the Minister receives a large number of invites and regrettably is unable to attend each event.
Kind regards
Hello Catriona
Could you possibly ask Mrs Perry why she is prioritising a meeting that relates to spending in the tens of millions over a presentation that could lead to the saving of hundreds of billions?
Thanks in anticipation
NO FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE
Colin AKA Dung
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies
Paul did you cover this, I might have missed it? Climate change caused by conceptual penis, beats co2 anyday.
Hi Paul! You may recall that I left a comment to say I was reporting OVO to the ASA because of a misleading advert in the DT claiming their customers could go 100% renewable.
Well, The ASA has rejected my claim with this reasoning:
“Your complaint
I understand that you consider the claim for “Renewable is Unstoppable, Switch to 100% renewable electricity” to be misleading, because electricity is supplied through the national grid which uses a variety of fuels to generate electricity and consumers will not be able to confirm they have been given renewable certificates for their energy. We have looked into your complaint carefully and considered all the issues raised. On this occasion, our decision is that we will not be taking further action at this time.
Our rules
Advertising is considered to be misleading if it causes, or is likely to cause a consumer to make a decision they would not have otherwise taken.
Our decision
The ASA has established a position that this claim is acceptable provided it is not used in a manner that implies direct supply to the consumer. You can read more about our position on such claims here. The ad makes no claims that renewable electricity is supplied direct to a consumer’s house. We consider that consumers are likely to understand that electricity tends to come into their homes through connection with the national grid and that the advertiser supplies electricity to consumers through the same national grid but matches all of the electricity used by their customers over a year with the same amount of electricity from renewable sources. We also note the footnote to the page which states that OVO will match electricity consumption with renewable certificates and understand that a renewable energy supplier must legally provide enough energy to the grid to satisfy the demand from their customers. We therefore consider that consumers are unlikely to interpret the ad as suggesting direct supply and, the claims surrounding renewable energy are likely to be justifiable and unlikely to materially mislead. For these reasons, we will not be taking any further action on this occasion.”
Paul–
This afternoon Rush Limbaugh spoke about a San Francisco judge in a case brought before him against 5 oil companies. The judge knew his stuff. Rush referenced the 2 following articles:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-alarmists-may-inherit-the-wind-1522605526
Here is some of Rush’s transcript which is available at rushlimbaugh.com :
There’s a lawsuit being filed against the fossil fuel companies like Exxon and Texaco and — there’s five of ’em. And the suit has been brought by environmentalist wackos.
They claim that all of these fossil fuel companies know that they are destroying the planet and are hiding the evidence. They claim in their lawsuit that they know that their business is creating the circumstances that cause climate change. So they filed this massive lawsuit. The judge in this case decided to have a little seminar before the trial actually began. And the climate change environmentalist wackos thought, “Oh, my God, this is a godsend. We’re gonna get to go in and we’re gonna rip these people a new one even before the trial begins.”
But what happened was the judge is an educated and informed person when it comes to climate change, even though the judge is in California. And the upshot of it is that the environmentalist wackos were made fools of. They demonstrated they are lying.
For example, one of these they said they had was a smoking gun memo, a smoking gun memo at Exxon and some of these other fossil fuel companies where they admit to themselves, internal memo, that they are destroying the planet, that they are engaging in activities causing massive amounts of C2O, causing greenhouse gases and the planet only has so much time.
So the judge said, “Well, let me see. You say they’ve got it. Where is it? What does it say?” And the fossil fuel companies eagerly produced it. You know what it was? It was a slideshow from a U.N. presentation on the international committee of planetary whatever, the IPCC, whatever that stands for. It was simply a slideshow that the U.N. put together, that the environmentalist wackos have been lying about claiming it’s a smoking gun memo from the fossil fuel companies.
The judge just made mincemeat of these people, demonstrated they’re lying, demonstrated they don’t know what they’re talking about and that there is no substance to their allegations at all. This is before the trial even began. And the trial has not yet begun. This was a preliminary stage.
For more see the rest of Rush’s comments:
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/04/02/climate-change-wackos-exposed-california-court/
Paul
this might be of some interest. It seems the Unions are beginning to rumble the scam of pickpocketing the public to fund electric vehicles.
http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/electric-car-bill
Hi Paul
Please take a look at this. It ‘s an assessment of climate sensitivity research.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3162520
I’ve been trying to work on objections to various companies that claim to be able to provide 100% ‘renewable’ electricity. I’ve revised my complaint but anyone who tries to negotiate the ASAs first line of defence should be aware of this kind of response:
Dear Mr Nunn
Thank you for contacting the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) with your complaint.
The issues you complained about are not covered by the Advertising Rules. Please see below for further information.
Our Remit
The ASA is not entitled to consider general observations about advertising material, or complaints about all ads within a certain sector. Our Codes can only be applied to the specific content of individual ads on a case-by-case basis. For these reasons, we will not be taking your complaint further.
What Happens Next?
If you would like us to pursue a complaint about a specific ad that you find problematic, we will need you to re-submit your complaint and provide us with the following information:
The name of the advertiser
The time, date and medium in which the ad appeared
The name of the product or service that is being advertised
A brief description of the ad
Thank you nonetheless for taking the time to contact us with your concerns. If you would like more information about the ASA and the work that we do, please feel free to visit our website, http://www.asa.org.uk.
Kind regards
Tom Merryweather
Operations Assistant
Direct line 020 7492 2195
Advertising Standards Authority
Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn
London WC1V 6QT
Telephone 020 7492 2222
http://www.asa.org.uk
Read our 2016 Annual Report
Legal, decent, honest and truthful
here is a specific example. https://www.moneysupermarket.com/gas-and-electricity/suppliers/bulb/
Bulb are one of the companies I’m after and the specifically targeted complaints that I’ve now submitted, Penny. Why I can’t cover all of them in one go says it all about government organisations.
The more that join in the better.
Yep the idiots want a specific complaint against each company although the the problem is identical in each. My complaint is engineering based so I hope that heads off the nonsense accountancy defence.
More EV Fantasy from OVO
This might sound like a good idea, but what are the 40%+ of UK households that don’t have private parking available to do? Including me!
I have no problem with EV’s other than range, fire risk (although to be fair plenty of IC engined cars go up in smoke) expense, battery life, replacement cost, fossil fuel use for charging, battery material sources and availability, charging times……………..
But it seems selling electricity back to the grid when not in use (and I have no concept of how that works when you set off in your EV after a hard day at the office and find it has no charge) will make up for all the shortcomings of EV’s.
https://www.ovoenergy.com/ovo-newsroom/press-releases/2018/april/ovo-launches-the-world’s-first-widely-available-domestic-vehicle-to-grid-charger.html
You suggested I write to my Labour MP about how they will tackle Climate Change and Pay For It. I have now received a reply. How do I send you a copy of it?
I’ll email you, thanks Derek
Paul, I just looked at a graph from NASA – https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color_Small.jpg – and although the graph lacks detail, it seems to completely omit the sun spot minimum around 2006-2008 when there were hardly any sun spots for over a year. How on earth can this data miss out such a huge drop in sun spot numbers? Or is this just more blatent lying from the scientific overlords?
Paul
Dissent over the Paris accord?
Developed countries demanding everyone pay their way?
Demands for fossil fuel “obstructionists” to be ejected?
It seems the wagons of of the AGW religion are being circled whilst contracting in on themselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43949423
Hi Paul,
Nick Hunn has just posted an interesting article on Smart Meters:
http://www.nickhunn.com/british-smart-meters-cost-28-million-each/
Steve
I did receive this today from the ASA, they agree with me but..
“Dear Mr Nunn,
Thank you for your email. We completely agree that, from an engineering perspective, the customer will obtain electricity that comes from a variety of non-renewable and renewable sources, but we consider that most customers would be aware of that, and understand Bulb Energy’s claims to relate to the energy the company inputs into the grid, which we have no evidence to suggest isn’t 100% renewable. As such, we consider we lack sufficient grounds to take further action at this time.”
Just needs a few to complain.
Paul
GWPF (doubtless you are aware of it) reporting 200 Million deaths by 2050 possible thanks to developing countries being forced to burn solid biomass as cooking and heating fuel.
But 250,000 likely to die between 2030 and 2050 thanks to climate change.
https://www.thegwpf.org/green-policies-threaten-poor-nations/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=cb9ded6380-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_05_04&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-cb9ded6380-36447077
Paul
It now seems it’s no longer CO2 that’s a threat, it’s freshwater bullrushes dying, and contributing methane to the atmosphere. The growth of these bullrushes is stimulated by rising temperatures, nothing whatsoever to do with the planet greening by 14% in the last 30 years or so thanks to slightly elevated CO2 levels.
It’s the BBC so it must be true.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43990403
I have just joined this blog, as I do believe we are being largely and hugely conned by the warmists. Your blog has been recommended through following the Christopher Booker columns.
I would like an answer to this question, however. A cousin of mine has recently joined us from Durban, with stories of the terrible drought which has been affecting Cape Town since last Autumn. As with nearly everything else, this is put down to global warming.
Can you provide me with any information on these assertions, such as previous droughts; other causes; estimates of how long the present drought might last etc.?
I hope you might be able to help with this. Thanks,
This post in Feb may be helpful:
More unchallenged stuff from th BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44005013#_=_
Paul more on BH Unthreaded May 14, 2018 at 12:13 AM
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hydrogen-fuel-cell-trains-herald-new-steam-age-mdf78f2dk
Note the wastage : Instead of diesel to power you get : methane split to get hydrogen fuel, then convert it back to electricity which charges lithium batteries which power the wheels.
A New series of BBC Climate Change propaganda talks begins on bbc radio 4 on Monday, May 21st., entitled “Climate Chang and Me”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b3c3sh
“Five scientists, working in different parts of the world, bear witness to some of the dramatic changes to our planet that have occurred in their lifetimes, as the global climate warms.”
In the trailer I heard, Professor Mary Edwards described how she had experience “hot” temperatures in the Arctic.
Oh Dear – Crapola du Jour
http://brightblue.org.uk/sam-hall-public-attitudes-to-uk-climate-leadership/
Paul
Brexit could wreck green agenda, says UN
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/19/un-warns-britain-over-green-brexit
Good old country common sense!! Refreshing!
THANKS !!!
Wonder if anyone has done a comparison of stats for man-made carbon and other emissions with those for recent volcanic eruptions. I am a total non-expert. Just would like to know.
Paul
“Air pollution plans to tackle wood burners”.
By our old friend Roger Harrabin BBC environment analyst.
We could presume from this that DRAX will be shut down…………..two chances!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44203396
Paul,
R4 this morning, about 08:45
Puffins suffering climate change due to wetter Summers and more frequent storms.
No questioning about the veracity of these claims, it was just a simple BBC propaganda story,
RS
* 07:45 of course, just before Thoughtless for the Day
RS
More from Bright Blue. Disturbing that crapola is not the exclusive province of Leftards
http://brightblue.org.uk/uk-adopt-leading-net-zero-emissions-target/
ah tweets some under their name
\\ Majorities of UK adults, under 40s, and Conservative voters believe the UK should be a global leader in tackling climate change //
a graph in the report
(Which part of Islington did they do the survey in ?)
\\ Over 70% of under 40s agree that weather around the world is becoming more extreme because of man-made climate change //
\\ A majority (51%) of UK adults have become more worried about climate change since 2008 //
\\88% of under 40s believe the UK should cut its emissions faster or equal to the rate of other countries//
The opinion poll conducted for them, which they have then adopted as some kind of proof, is about as much use as a poll of a church congregation as to whether they believed the content of the sermon.
So Sheffield University Western Bank Campus. you have a Centre for Energy, Environment and Sustainability CEES and a district heating supply.
How’s it going ?
“The University wants to build an ‘energy centre’* at Western Bank campus to provide an ‘uninterrupted power supply’ to complex research experiments.”
“The campus has been plagued by power shortages which have impacted on heating systems to key research areas, ”
” the energy centre is required due to **failures in the district heating supply** to the site, which had resulted in the loss of heating to the Western Bank campus and, critically, to the research areas of the site.”
Residents objected on noise grounds (40dB in their bedrooms)
But The application was approved unanimously at the meeting at Sheffield Town Hall on Tuesday, May 22.
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/green-light-for-sheffield-university-energy-centre-1-9176775
* Energy Centre ? You mean mini-Power Station (some news reports use that word)
Paul so Times had claims of a “Post Subsidy” solar farm
That breaks the “too good to be true” rule, there will be trickery in the words.
Now I spot a blogpost, you’d better take a look and see what the scam is
Gigawatts of subsidy-free solar farms being planned for UK market rebound
https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/blogs/gigawatts_of_subsidy_free_solar_farms_being_planned_for_uk_market_rebo
Thanks Stew. I can’t find anything obvious, although about two thirds of the new capacity was already in planning when subsidies ended, so may have got too far down the road.
Also some are being fitted with storage, which would qualify them for Capacity Market auctions
Come on, no one can do solar IN SCOTLAND without a subsidy
otherwise everyone would be doing solar in more sunny places.
I think the scam is to hype up the scheme and sell it on to a gullible investor, who will then finds it doesn’t deliver the promised numbers.
Don’t forget Scotland actually gets more daylight hours in summer, and the NE can actually be quite dry
AFAIK latitude is the key thing , there is a map of solar irradiation
The W/m2 diminishes too much as you go north
A gov report sets the viability line somewhere north of Leeds
stewgreen…. anyone living in Leeds would put the viability line south of the city… babies first words in Leeds are ‘clouds’ and ‘rain’ !
I recently self-published my book ‘Climate of Doubt – Why Scientists Disagree About Climate Change’.
http://www.lulu.com/shop/iain-aitken/climate-of-doubt-why-scientists-disagree-about-climate-change/paperback/product-23639683.html
I’ve ‘test driven’ edited extracts from the book as guest blogs on the WUWT site run by Anthony Watts – however I’m very aware that the book badly needs ‘peer review’ to check that it is coherent and does not contain errors of fact. Is there anyone out there who might be prepared to undertake that task, please?
Iain Aitken
Paul
\\ Every charger installed by Electric Blue is powered by energy from 100% renewable sources.
Electric Blue CEO Alex Calnan says “We are pleased to be able to support Essex County Council in improving their EV charger at the Park and Ride facilities and look forward to playing a significant role in helping their residents improve air quality by converting to zero emission electric vehicles”//
It’s the same old story ..of course the energy is NOT from 100% renewable
Oh dear!
Unfortunate carbon emissions going on here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/30/wind-turbine-catches-fire-thunderstorm-cambridgeshire/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_AqvRyNJJFZwz
Paul,
Do you have any info on the overall cost of the offshore wind farm installed against Trumps wishes in Aberdeen bay?
Whats its name?
Trumps name came up a lot in the past say 2012 etc. on the Scotland Against Spin facebook page
“As Stevenson told the audience, there are plans to erect a huge turbine that will be visible from the championship course at Turnberry echoing the proposals to erect a windfarm near the Old Course in St Andrews, while Donald Trump has halted his £750 million golf development at Menie in Aberdeenshire because of a proposal to allow 11 industrial turbines, each64 storeys high, to be constructed in the sea just a mile and a half from his proposed luxury hotel.
Just because Donald Trump is rich, outspoken and willing to challenge the First Minister does not make him wrong. It was not that long ago Alex Salmond was courting his investment in Scotland; there was nothing wrong with his views or his money then.”
And this
“Spectator Debate:-Scotland’s Energy Policy is just Hot Air”
there was a massive transfer from “don’t know” to yes
Trump took part by video
http://no-tiree-array.org.uk/spectator-debate-scotlands-energy-policy-is-just-hot-air/
The Mammal Society has produced a report on the risk of extinction of British Mammals, in which it seems to put “climate change” at the front of the list of risks to mammals, ahead of loss of habitat, pesticides and road deaths.
http://www.mammal.org.uk/2018/06/british-mammals-fight-for-survival/
But I see no examples of “climate change” on that page.
It is interesting that in what I think is the actual report, “climate change” is low down the list of factors, and in one case is given as a possible beneficial effect (milder winters).
Yet on the web page, and of course the BBC, it is given as the first factor with negative effect.
Click to access MAMMALS-Technical-Summary-FINALNE-Verision-FM2.pdf
Paul
On BBC News earlier today.
We’re all doomed, again!……….New study of the Antarctic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44470208
The UK reductions in CO2 appear to have gone too far 🙂
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44545010
Paul ==> An update on NW Passage transits:
TRANSITS OF THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE TO END OF THE 2017 NAVIGATION SEASON
ATLANTIC OCEAN ↔ ARCTIC OCEAN ↔ PACIFIC OCEAN
R. K. Headland and colleagues revised 16 April 2018
Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge, United Kingdom, CB2 1ER.
here: https://www.spri.cam.ac.uk/resources/infosheets/northwestpassage.pdf
Including one my an acquaintance of mine, sailing single-handed in a circumnavigation of the Americas: Matt Rutherford in 2011-12
Paul
announced today on the Beeb. EON putting up electricity prices for the second time this year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44724046
Hello Paul
My recent article ‘Geothermal heat and Arctic sea ice variability’ featured in the Spring 2018 issue of Imperial Engineer page 26 may be of interest.
Regards
Wyss Yim
Have you a link?
Hello Paul,
A subject that interests me is the effect of road surfaces on the fuel consumption of vehicles. You may know of some research. I have failed to find any for tarmac roads.
When I ride a bike (which I do a lot) I find that when I go from nice smooth tarmac to a degraded tar and bitumen skim, my speed comes down by about 25%. This shows that travelling over rough, degraded tar and bitumen is far less fuel efficient (for a bicycle) than a new surface.
So what are the figures for cars, and how much air-pollution is directly attributable to our poor roads? I can find no research, only a study by the Indian Nation police, showing a 10% difference in performance for the big heavy cruisers they use between freshly graded dirt road and a deteriorated dirt road (they drive a lot on dirt roads).
Interesting question Emrys. Tyre tread is carefully designed to minimise friction at high speed or in a straight line. I also find it energy sapping to ride a cycle over a gritted road vs a smooth tarmac road. Thinking logically, if they design more fuel efficient and lighter vehicles, smoother roads and harder wearing tyres, then we are going to be spending far less on that dwindling commodity FUEL. As the average mpg figure goes up, watch the fuel duty or average price go up to counteract it. Lots of misleading scare story’s though. Air-con uses 10% more fuel. Well its not made any difference with our cars at all, even a tiny feeble Toyota Aygo. Also, they say you use 10%+ more fuel driving at speed with your windows down. Again, people have done their own tests and not seen any measurable difference. But I do agree Emrys that the much higher friction of a rough road surface must increase fuel consumption. Friction with the air – turbulence/drag – causes a huge difference, the only other large factor is the road surface.
Hello Russell,
It is not only a question of surface. Our roads are so bad now that even driving down main roads in town the car bounce and lollop its way down the road. That must represent a substantial loss of kinetic energy and therefore cost fuel.
And hidden tyre damage! Honda test drivers were asked many years ago how we can achieve the best mpg figures. They said, “keep the speed constant”. Every time you slow down, you have to use extra fuel getting back up to speed. So on the one hand we are told that crude oil has limited reserves and we should be using it more wisely, but what do we see from the governing authorities? Pelican Crossings and speed-humps and mini-roundabouts and traffic lights, all forcing us to slow down, then speed back up again reducing the number of miles per gallon. So, the usual double-talk from the powers that be…
Paul
The British Infrastucture Group have investigated Smart Meters and declared them pretty much pointless…. The report is embargoed at present but I have an executive summary that’s escaped….
Article at Conservative Woman will likely interest and indeed amuse.
Dumb And Gummer: Selwyn’s climate-change claptrap
By
Harry Wilkinson – July 17, 2018
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/dumb-and-gummer-selwyns-climate-change-claptrap/
Mick.
Now on the GWPF site.
From today’s Telegraph.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/07/18/do-have-green-guilt-quarter-people-exaggerate-environmentally/
Paul
This from Chamjamal (Jamal Munshi) over at WUWT.
The united nations: an unconstrained bureaucracy.
Very digestible for non technical types like me.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794991
And the full PDF is free to download.
The BBC News Channel certainly has been going OTT on “smart meters” today, adopting a surprisingly sceptical tone.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44903471
Smart Energy GB has been making an attempt to defend them, advising everyone to get one immediately, as they were going
to “save us all billions”.
YP :Number of deaths due to pollution ‘too high’
THE NUMBER of deaths related to air pollution in England remains at an “unacceptably high level”, the Environment Agency has warned
. … dirty air still poses significant threats with 5.3% of total mortality attributable to tiny particles known as “particulate matter”
#1 The EA has as much credibility as a cub scout group
Seems to be based on https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-on-state-of-air-quality-in-england-highlights-urgent-action-needed-on-ammonia-emissions
New EA state-of-the-environment reports are out
There is a bullet point “Air pollution related deaths remain at an unacceptably high level, with 5.3% of total mortality attributable to particulate pollution alone in 2016. ”
hmm, I don’t accept that 5.3% of deaths wouldn’t happen if people lived in the cleanest air areas.
The same rule applies if you don’t use QALDs then it’s a bogus stat
5.3% ? I tracked back reference 18 to
here
stewgreen
Perhaps food for thought.
It seems anti frackers are adopting the tactics of terrorists.
“Boy, 14, referred to anti-extremism scheme over fracking activism”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/30/boy-14-referred-to-anti-extremism-scheme-over-fracking-activism
I aware you have a broad reach of blogs etc. Perhaps worth your scrutiny. I have posted it for Paul but he’s on holiday.
\\ Baroness Jenny Jones, a Green peer, said that she was troubled by environmental activism classed as extremism.//
Doh Green activists often break the law and get jailed or more often get let off anyway, even for contempt of court.
that is extreme , when everyone else trie to obey the laws
Kevin Blowe, coordinator of the Network for Police Monitoring pressure group, said
#1 It’s not ‘hateful extremism’
.. True, but green/libs are often hatey , but not in illegal racist/sexist way
#2 Idea that political activism is somehow akin to sexual exploitation or ‘grooming’ is simply offensive.
.. No I have worked at Green/Anarchist festival as it is AKIN to grooming the way young/vulnerable/autistic are brainwashed
..and BTW it is a way that cultlike leaders can exploit them sexually
The Telegraph copied the article
However the Guardian have come in with an update story
\\ the boy in question was never involved in the anti-fracking movement.
He had been targeted by an entirely different group of activists, the force said. The detail was then changed without their knowledge, ostensibly to protect his real identity. (according to Greater Manchester police) //
So they are saying “a form of environmental extremism” Anti-fracking was used as a placeholder for the real cause which could be anything eg Animal rights/ Anti-GM etc.
Paul,
I know your on holiday but I’ll leave this for your return
It seems anti frackers are adopting the tactics of terrorists.
“Boy, 14, referred to anti-extremism scheme over fracking activism”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/30/boy-14-referred-to-anti-extremism-scheme-over-fracking-activism
I received an e-mail today from a company stating how the opening of a wind farm would help reduce costs, Not believing this I went to find the cost of the electricity from this new wind farm. the wind farm is at Withernwick and claims to be the first subsidy free wind farm with 4 x 2.05mw turbines.
I am sure there is a catch somewhere but I cannot find it at present.
http://www.pes.eu.com/wind/natural-power-delivers-on-uks-first-subsidy-free-wind-farm/
Or is it just the phraseology is different and Contracts F
or Difference are not “Subsidies”.
Without checking this case, what has come up before is a kind of cross subsidy thing.
A wind farm builds phase 1, with a massive feed-in tariff etc. Then they build a small phase 2 which piggy backs on the already built infrastructure of phase 1, like substations and pylon connections.
They then sell phase 2 electricity into the grid at market rates, but with the priority access intermittent wind power has. So Yes they can say phase 2 is “subsidy free”
BUT
#1 without that priority access rule, the network would not be buying that intermittent electricity at full market rate.
#2 Phase 2 would not be built on its own without phase1, cos even with priority market access it would not be sustainable if it wasn’t pigging backing on Phase1’s infrastructure/substations etc.
If unsubsidised wind power was actually sustainable then big energy users like Tescos/ factories would be building their own on site … but it’s not , so they buy from the grid instead.
Thank you, that makes perfect sense.
So they get paid at £58.00 per MW\h or whatever is the current rate rather than the £120.00+ of the original installation but the Grid is obliged to take everything they can produce?
No doubt they get constraint payments as well for when they are forced to shut down?
and on other matters
========================
As soon as you switch on the radio, you get twisted worldviews spat in your face.
6:15am BBC radio Lincolnshire (direct to audio)
“You live close to a busy road with lots of traffic, is this a worry to you ?….”
Emily Yuni “….. they looked at 4,000 people in the UK and found a clear LINK between an exposure to higher pollution levels and higher right/left ventricles
(Bias #1 “Link” ? ..she means “correlation”)
Emily :”THE PROBLEM is the study cannot prove a CAUSAL link between air pollution
.. nor whether these people will definitely go on to get hear disease, cos they didn’t include all the other factors …”
(Bias number #2 : why use the words “THE PROBLEM is “?
that makes it sound like you are desperate to pin ventricle abnormalities on Air Pollution )
Presenter “People will be worried… ”
Emily “Yeh this is the problem the British Heart Foundation which co-funded the study has said this is a wake up call and the government has to ACT QUICKLY,…. cos people cannot be expected to move house to find better air quality
(#Bias #3 There should be a logical fallacy like Appeal to Haste)
Emily : “.. all the people they used in the study were not exposed to levels ABOVE UK guidelines”
(Bias #4 How can she know that ? They might do activities taking them well over guidelines: eg a combine harvester driver, glassblower, heavy dope smoke etc.)
“This suggested that THE SUPPOSED SAFE LIMITS are NOT necessarily that safe”
(Bias #5 As to the levels where they live : you are talking about air pollution levels TODAY
..doh your ventricle doesn’t get enlarged cos of what happened TODAY, it will have happened over the last 10, 20, 30, 40 years so in an era of super falling air pollution, it’s past air levels which are more important not today’s )
Emily :”The reaction from DEFRA ..the gov has put in place a £3.5bn plan to reduce harmful emissions ..Britain will be the first”
(Government fallacy there : The fallacy of rushing to be first pioneer, means many mistakes and costs)
Emily “If you are interested in having a say the govs consultation closes on the 14th of August
..so there is still time to tell the gov what your think”
Her end take gives the motivation ? Activists want a hard gov approach, so they are getting a scare story before the deadline, and pushing you to put pressure on the gov
The government consultation with Aug 14 deadline
===========
“The research comes from the British Heart Foundation”
BBC Headline “Even low air pollution may damage heart”
It has open comments, until they turn they turn them off
There is a BBC London Facebook post as well.
Oh nose!! Another ‘Tipping point’ –
The Atlantic Ocean Conveyor Belt…. it’s comming off it’s rollers
More dribble from News Sigh-entist –
“more extremes of both heat and cold on both sides of the Atlantic” ( no doubt all at the same time)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931890-100-how-atlantic-upheaval-will-make-future-weather-even-more-chaotic/?utm_medium=EMP&utm_source=NSNS&utm_campaign=2018-0802-AugWK1-GLOBAL-Oceans-Q3&utm_content=button
Climate Change; Carbon Capture & the Scientific Method
The Scientific American August edition had a short article on why the world needs Carbon Capture and sequestration to meet the Paris Agreement of 2015. If the Climate Science and Scientific Method are clearly understood, then capturing Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is expensive and completely unnecessary.
The Paris Agreement sets out a political goal to keep the increase in global temperatures – from rising CO2 – to no more than 2°C by 2050. Carbon Capture is predicated on the hypothesis that burning fossil fuels produces only bad pollution and ignores the benefits to Nature and Mankind.
Photosynthesis is a well-defined and accepted physical-chemical process where a plant absorbs water, CO2, and sunlight to release oxygen and sugar – fiber food for the plant. CO2 is vital to plants and all form of life. CO2 is a natural fertilizer. Commercial scale greenhouses try to provide ideal growing conditions and typically raise the CO2 level to 1,500 ppm – about 4 times the current ambient level of 410 ppm.
Also, the 11-year research effort by Dan Feldman of Berkley Labs showed that the increase in warming from the extra CO2 contributed a tiny 0.2 watts/sq. m. over the decade-long study. A similar 35-year study by a worldwide team has shown that the global “Leaf Area Index” has grown by 14% (equivalent area of another continental USA). The team attributes 70% of the LAI increase to rising CO2 levels.
These reasons show that rising CO2 levels are beneficial to all life on Earth and trying to capture and sequester this aspect of burning fossil fuels is unnecessary. Yes, there are toxic pollutants emitted by smokestacks and transport tailpipes (soot, CO, etc.) and these should be the focus of pollution reduction. CO2 is not a pollutant.
High-quality science is subjected to peer review, which has occasionally been corrupted as evidenced by the ClimateGate emails, but Science is also subject to a higher standard called the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is easy for most people to understand in that a new idea or concept must be formulated into a hypothesis, which is verifiable and falsifiable. Both Einstein and Popper understood that it takes only one counterexample to disapprove a hypothesis. This technique means that you cannot prove a hypothesis is correct, only that is it wrong when the first counterexample is verified.
This places Science in a different category to others forms of inquiry where a suggestion cannot be verified or falsified. With this in mind, I invite you to falsify the following “Evidence for Global Cooling”.
I have produced a 30-slide presentation, which is available online, with extensive references and support material, and which addresses why the Paris Agreement goal will be met, at https://goo.gl/3qwtaS
Examples:
1. The Sun Spot hypothesis which says we have entered a Grand Solar Minimum with many spotless days and a reduction in the Total Solar Irradiance. Solar Cycle Length analysis comes to a similar conclusion. This is an example of a natural cycle that was outside the mandate of the IPCC, which was restricted to look at only the manmade aspects of Climate Change (AGW).
2. Don Easterbrook has several charts that show the impact of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) on global temperatures. The PDO causes temperatures to vary between a warm phase for 25 to 30 years and then a cool phase. His charts show a warming period during the dustbowl of the 1930’s to 1945, then a cool period to 1975 followed by warming for 25 years to 2,000. The period after that is called the “pause” or “hiatus” in that there were 18 years with no increase in global temperatures. Easterbrook expects this relative cooling to continue until 2,030.
3. During this hiatus, the Carbon Dioxide levels continued to rise in a manner completely unrelated to the global temperature. This is a further counterexample to the AGW hypothesis that CO2 is the main driver of global temperatures, as advocated by IPCC.
4. The global temperature has been rising over the last 39 years, based on the UAH/RSS database, at a rate of 1.1°C/century. However, new research over the last few years is calling for a small reduction in this rate and possible cooling.
The 30-slide presentation contains other evidence for cooling, and you are invited to read and consider the points above in the light of the Scientific Method.
Gerald Ratzer
Professor Emeritus
McGill University
4th August 2018
Paul, on your return from your hols, will you be carrying out a review of the latest MO/RMETS “State of the Climate” report?
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/state-of-the-climate-2017
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.5798
Yes!
Paul,
If you fancy another “scream at the telly” moment, check out today’s BBC TV interview with one Robert Cheesewright – some sort of director with Smart Energy. Despite myriads of complaints from consumers and all the costs, and unencumbered by any serious questions from the BBC, he waxes lyrical about how fantastic smart meters are, how everyone loves them, recommends them too friends, slashes their bills, are essential for the future of this country etc etc.
Needless to say, the Beeb wheel out Claire Perry so she can add her own eulogy, state how essential it is to redouble the roll-out effort and similar.
Comments unnecessary.
Regards
Ian
Jakarta, the fastest-sinking city in the world
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44636934
Given the circumstances, why does the article include this paragraph?
“Coastal cities across the world are affected because of rising sea levels caused by climate change. Increased sea levels occur because of thermal expansion – the water expanding because of extra heat – and the melting of polar ice. The speed at which Jakarta is sinking is alarming experts. “
Christopher Booker writes on BBC impartiality:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/11/do-distorted-views-global-warming-middle-east-go-unchallenged/
On a Related subject:-
Listeners to BBC Radio 4 may have heard that the TODAY programme is planning to run a series looking at “Sacred Cows” in our culture !
I e-mailed the programme to sugges that they take at look at “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”, which in my opinion is one such Sacred Cow !
Anyone expressing a view other than the IPCC mantra that CO2 is causing catastrophic warming of the planet is regarded as a heretic. The popular High priests of Science such as David Attenborough and Brian Cox subscribe to “concensus” without pausing for a moment to consider the evidence which challenges the IPCC nonsense. In my e-mail to the Today programme, I suggested interviewing and or all of the following:- Prof John Christy, Prof Ian Clark, Prof Ross McKitterick or even Piers Corbyn to present a well reasoned and researched opposite point of view.
I am not hopeful that they will accept the challenge however if others were to press the issue we might have more success.
Many thanks for your website.
John Scarffe
Here we go again:
It’s time to switch on to the smart meter revolution
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/08/12/time-switch-smart-meter-revolution/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_ArGjp4bMr6yX
All the old pie-in-the-sky figures and eulogies wheeled out again. Just looks desperate.
How long before someone blames this on “climate change”?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-45182675
“Warm weather brings freshwater jellyfish to Cheshire canal ”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/14/freshwater-jellyfish-spotted-shropshire-canal
Its true the article doesn’t actually blame “climate change”, but surely even blaming it on the warm weather is misleading:
“It’s thought that the hot and sunny weather could have encouraged the jellyfish to these parts and created perfect conditions for them, but we don’t know whether they will make their permanent home here so we’re finding out as much as we can.”
How would jellyfish know it was warm in the UK?
There is a simpler explanation:
“Freshwater jellyfish have spread to every continent from their natural home in the Yangtze basin in China. They are believed to have arrived in Britain in the 19th century when explorers brought back exotic flora and fauna from their travels around the world.”
from the Guardian Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/15/sanjeev-gupta-1-billion-dollars-south-australia-renewable-energy-plan-will-mean-cheaper-power
Where is the evidence that the cost of renewables is falling to sensible levels? As far as I can see it is only by artificially raising the price of fossil fuels and then adding massive subsidies to renewables that they become even vaguely comparable
Paul,
With regard to sandeel quotas in the North Sea, I thought you might be interested in a letter on page 77 of the autumn 2018 edition of “Trout & Salmon”. It appears that the EU has raised the Danish quota by a mere 82,000 tonnes to a mere 458,000 tonnes.
Words, almost, fail me but it is clearly no surprise that so much of the North Sea’s ecosystem – of which sandeels are an absolutely key component – are suffering.
I took a photo of the letter but, sadly, seem unable to copy it into this note or attach it. If you wish to see it, please send me an email address.
Regards
Ian
Brexit will cause a school yard spiteful bully response from the other European nations, but then, look back through history….what’s new?
Ian there was a Times article July 22 2018 with the same numbers
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/puffins-starve-as-danes-grab-uk-sand-eels-srwrfgdrs
Why do the Danes get allocated 94% of UK sand eels ?
“fish quotas are allocated according to catch records from the 1970s.”
Why was the weight quota was dramatically raised ?
fisheries consultant said “They know Brexit is coming and they are determined to get as much as they can in case Britain ends the fishery.”
Some green techies have adapted popular kids game MineCraft to computer simulate their imaginings of Climate Change effects.
https://github.com/nsporillo/GlobalWarming
So a die-hard group of Climate Alarmists are using computer simulations to create a fake world with artificial penalties and dreamt up consequences…
and now they’ve made the Minecraft one too.
Hi Paul, just a thought for you. I always wondered why 2030 was the date chosen for many things to do with climate change. It dawned on me yesterday that there was a big thing about global cooling in the 70’s and one of the ‘fixes’ was to increase the use of fossil fuels.
I believe the sun cycle is around 60-70 years and that coincides well with the next cooling phase which would give them the opportunity to claim that the trillions of dollars spent was having an effect.
Just a thought.
Ardy
I can give Ardy a good reason for the date of 2030.
I believe this is to do with the PDO – the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – which is about 60 years.
Look at the chart from Don Easterbrook – produced a few years ago.
It shows warming for 30 years starting in 1970 and cooling starting in 2030.
See slide 15 at the link below. This is an ocean effect, not a solar effect.
For more on Global Cooling, I invite you to look at my slides and notes on this topic at – https://goo.gl/3qwtaS
Paul,
Watch out for a story “brewing” at the BBC. They’ve done an article in BBC news about how Glenlivet and other distilleries are managing the horrors of climate change (like a rare bit of sun for Scotland this year). Contains all the usual nonsense.
Regards
Ian
In “weather world” tonight on the BBC News Channel. the term “climate change”, was mentioned 3 times in the first 3 minutes, along with the usual footage of floods and heat waves,
I did notice however that a farmer who grows barley for whiskey, only used the term “climate”, despite being prompted by Nick Miller to talk about the future effects of “climate change”.
Definitely a case of “Climate Change Watch” with this programme.
I counted 14 uses of the term in 25 minutes, plus some dodgy attributions including the recycling of the Puffins story from earlier this year.
There are bots on Twitter that monitor TV output for keywords
eg @mottv
I can’t remember the name of the one I have seen picking up on “climate”
Ha when i do look on Twitter I spot RGS trying to interfere in TV progs
Paul,
Another “it’s MUCH WORSE than we thought” and “if you think CO2 increases are good for crops, think again” article from the appropriately named Lucy Green on the BBC website:
“Pests to eat more crops in warmer world”
Insect crop damage could result in the loss of two loaves out of every 12 by the century’s end.
Worth a look at it’s so ridiculous.
Ian
Renewablists get arsey down under
The Guardian amazingly has an Aussie Comment is Free section
oh and
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/30/renewables-forecast-to-halve-wholesale-energy-prices-over-four-years Aussie renewables are forecast to halve wholesale energy prices over four years
Hi paul. The bbc breakfast just had an item on the new windfarm off the cumbria coast .
They had 3 “experts” on and they told a disgusting pack of absolute horlicks!
Paul
Interesting report by MIT on the future of nuclear energy as the ‘solution’ to climate change. As bad as that might sound, they seem to be using the subject as a way of reversing nuclear into the energy discussion.
Exec. summary and full report available here: http://energy.mit.edu/research/future-nuclear-energy-carbon-constrained-world/
I am not a specialist in this area, nor anywhere near it, but I have long thought that we should put real effort into the MSR. I understand that the UK’s Nuclear power stations were built as much to generate weapons grade plutonium as to generate electricity.
MSR reactors are inherently stable, don’t leak radioactive steam into the atmosphere when they fail, and can burn the 1,000 years worth of weapons grade plutonium that we have sitting in storage.
Plans to “green the Sahara” by covering it in wind and solar farms:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45435593
I can’t help thinking that this may have unintended “climate change” consequences.
For example, wouldn’t increasing rainfall in the Sahara, divert it from other areas unless overall rainfall were to increase?
Also it would raise temperatures but apparently that isn’t important.
Paul,
I thought you might be interested in this sad tale from Scotland:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/solar-panel-gang-scammed-1500-13172720
It’s entitled “Solar panel gang scammed 1,500 ‘mainly vulnerable and elderly’ customers out of £17 million”. The prosecuting barrister said: “Claims were made, systematically, which were not true and which the defendants knew were not true”.
Hmmm, how, I wonder, is that any different to what the likes of Claire Perry say, and countless other of our pro-AGW politicians have been saying for years, about the economic wonders of wind and solar power installations?
I think we should be told.
Regards
Ian
Global hunger increasing – due to “climate change” says Oxfam.:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45477930
“Commenting on the report, Robin Willoughby, from Oxfam, said: “It is shocking that after a prolonged decline, this is the third consecutive year of rising hunger.
“The inescapable fact is that climate change is now leaving people around the world without enough to eat.”
So apparently there wasn’t any climate change when hunger declined but there is when it has risen over the last 3 years!
Global warming in perspective.
Paul,
I have cause to visit Glasgow several times a year and it is the case, on occasion especially in the summer, that you get on a plane at Gatwick, get off again at Glasgow and are hit with a full 10C downward differential.
The annual average, I believe, is of the order of 1.5C, which is of a similar order of magnitude as you would expect from the 350 mile change of latitude, with no altitudinal difference.
Today, however, has seen new silliness.
At 08.00, it was 6C in Surrey and 11C in Glasgow.
By 15.30, it was 20C in Surrey but only 14C in Glasgow.
So, there has been a +5 to -6, totalling 11C swing in relative temperature in 7.5 hours.
Compare that to our supposed global warming of 1C in 150 years.
Hmmm. Shall we all panic?
“Hmmm. Shall we all panic?”
YES….when all else fails….PANIC !!!!!
This is three excerpts from and article in the Sacramento Bee that I think was first posted yesterday or the day before. I wanted to bring it to your attention in that Smart Meters will be used to apply the time of day pricing. If you read the entire article, you’ll note that they blame “older less efficient, higher polluting generators” but sunny California and the central valley in particular are subject to a “duck curve” power generation issue that becomes more severe as the renewable penetration (particularly solar) becomes more wide spread. Solar generation drops off as evening demand kicks in.
From the Sacramento Bee 18 September 2018
If you like to crank up your air conditioner or dishwasher in the evening, think twice. It’s about to cost you more on your electricity bill.
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District will launch a new rate system next month that charges residential users higher rates between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. — and lower rates at other times.
The current fixed rates are 13 cents per kilowatt hour in summer and 11 cents the rest of the year.
The new summer rates will be dramatically higher. There will be a “peak rate” of 28 cents per kilowatt hour between 5 and 8 p.m. and a “mid-peak” rate of 16 cents between noon and 5 p.m. as well as between 8 p.m. and midnight.
SMUD will charge its lowest summer rate, 12 cents per kilowatt hour, between midnight and noon. SMUD will also charge that rate all day on weekends and holidays.
SMUD officials say they are offering customers the ability to opt out of the time-of-day system and stick with a fixed-rate bill. Hernandez said, on the average, the fixed-rate bill is expected to be about 4 percent more costly than the new rates. He said the utility is mailing information to people showing them the possible different costs of the two systems.
The new rate structure will not apply to customers who don’t have a smart meter or those who live in a residential master metered community.
Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article218553315.html?fb_comment_id=1838239959629371_1838980142888686&comment_id=1838980142888686#storylink=cpy
Paul I recently saw this reference on one of your articles(https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/datasets)
and have been playing around with the data since. I plotted the Annual Sunshine hours for England and the Annual Maximum temperature for England and was surprised to see that most of the recent warming was due to an increase in sunshine hours. It shows the pause is due to a pause in the increase of sunshine hours. It also shows a jump in sunshine hours in 1988. I was for looking for the cause of that for ages. Thanks for the link. Kelvin
Paul
I know you’re off on holidays but on the off chance you drop in, this is significant.
H/T to Observa at WUWT and Jo Nova, the originator.
“The company he once led continues to pleasure the warmists by bowing and scraping before Gaia’s carbon-free altar, but ex-chief Jerry Ellis has had enough: the Paris accord is “a farce” and a sane government would exit the pact in a heartbeat”
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2018/09/ex-bhp-chief-scrap-paris-now/
Paul
Matt McGrath going batshit crazy promoting IPCC party in S. Korea.
Two articles in as many days:
“‘Reasons to be hopeful’ on 1.5C global temperature target” (which is anything but)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45720740
and:
“What does 1.5C mean in a warming world?” (with the usual catastrophic predictions and some nice cartoons).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45678338
The BBC were referring the the 1.5c target as being “by the end of the century” yesterday, without pointing out that was since pre-industrial times, and that according to data so far we have already reached a large part of that.
Sorry, not yesterday, but at the weekend.
Paul
Matt McGrath now reporting on the internal squabbling at the IPCC as to how to avoid their mythical 1.5˚C warming target.
Interesting use of language as well………..
“Caution urged over use of ‘carbon unicorns’ to limit warming”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45742191
Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to capture the CO2 as it’s produced. instead of trying to filter a trace gas out of the atmosphere? Not that it matters one jot anyway. Less CO2 means less food to feed the world. One step forward and three backwards.
LEGO opens vault to re-release 10268 Vestas Wind Turbine on Black Friday
……..now made with plant-based bricks
The set is a near-identical replica of its first rendition, including the rotating white wind turbine with aircraft warning lights, a red cottage with working porch light, green wooded hills in the back, and a Vestas service van.//
Yep to brainwash the kids that it is perfectly normal to have a cottage t the foot of a mega turbine
commenter \\ And, as in real life, it needs external power to make it work.
I can’t see the backup diesel generator.
Where’s the bag of concrete for the footings.
Comes with figures but no dead birds or bats.//
There are more comments
$199.99
I bought one, then got a politician friend to sign a contract to pay me £20/year for the next 20 years ..cos that’s $400
Then I quickly sold the whole thing on to a teachers’ pension fund for $300
..and forgot to mention decommissioning costs
Search Lego wind on Twitter
Paul
The BBC. About to start flogging a dying horse.
“we’re expanding climate change coverage”
“From 3 October The World Tonight on BBC Radio 4 and Newshour on BBC World Service will be covering climate change every week.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/653495fc-7cbb-474c-b51f-bb0ba19b3905
h/t George Monbiot 🙂
Hi Paul
Neither my father in law, who was a geography lecturer nor I, are convinced in the arguments around man made climate change and we both read some of Chris Booker’s articles and books
I also read your blog frequently. We are clearly in the minority and our arguments are drowned out.
So the thing that worries me is that if the science ‘evidence’ is not as strong as most think then why isn’t strong evidence brought forward to disprove it? If man made effects aren’t true then why don’t a load of serious scientists come out and say so? It just seems odd- and it’s making me doubt my beliefs?
Would appreciate your comments
Thanks
David
“….why don’t a load of serious scientists come out and say so?”
Their income, career, reputation and stable future all rely on them toeing the party line. One toe over the line and they will be destroyed….simple as that!
And where do they go to be heard by the masses? The big media outlets are all owned and censored by the people pushing the AGW agenda. The raw tripe spewing out of the BBC this week is proof of that.
As a retired professor and someone who is not dependent on getting grants for my science research, I have been free to look at the Climate Debate through the lens of the Scientific Method.
I have a set of 30 slides with “Evidence of Global Cooling”. If any of the evidence is suspect please let me know. Otherwise get ready for a cooler decade or two!
https://goo.gl/3qwtaS
Gerald Ratzer
I just got told that the typhoon that hit the philipines is the most powerful in history and to name 1 more powerful. I call bs!
“Electric and hybrid cars: Cuts to Plug-in Car Grant condemned”
This has been hidden away on the Business page of the BBC website and on the Business section of the news:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45831150
On this morning’s “Breakfast”, during a discussions of the daily newspapers, Paul Vallely, a “writer and consultant on religion, international development, and business ethics”, referred several times to a “1.5 percent” rise in global temperature”.
He also seemed to be under the impression that unless action was taken. the world would reach a “tipping point”, in exactly 11 years time.
It amazes me that while the BBC will not allow anyone to challenge “climate change”, on the grounds that they are not scientists, they do allow a journalist who’s mean expertise seem to be in the area of religion..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bmdqvc/breakfast-13102018
At about 09:20 in the programme.
Only available till 10:00 tomorrow.
Sorry, Paul Vallely’s website:
http://www.paulvallely.com/about.html
“they do allow a journalist who’s mean expertise seem to be in the area of religion..”
Entirely appropriate as CAGW is a religion.
I have seen a lot of tweeters say “1.5%”
..unfortunately twitter searches don’t recognise the % symbol
He should be asked what he understands by a “1.5 percent rise in global temperature”. Then ask is that degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit. Ask for a calculated example. Enjoy!
I made a complaint about this to the BBC.
Their excuse was that Paul Vallely was only reading what Mary Robinson was saying in the newspaper article. I think it was quite obvious that he was agreeing with everything she was saying and on the content of the IPCC report.
They do not allow people more qualified than Mr. Vallely to comment adversely on climate change.
Another “here we go again” BBC post Paul:
On today’s BBC news was an article discussing the significant population decline in “African” (for which read “South African”) penguins. Before the actual report we were set up – quelle surprise! – with a clear “it’s due to climate change” statement. However, only very shortly after the article itself rolled, a local wildlife official of some kind stated that the reason was “commercial overfishing”. Furthermore I didn’t hear her mention “climate change” once. Usual BBC misleading agenda-driven journalism I am afraid.
Any link?
Sorry Paul, no, it just appeared on the BBC’s news channel at about lunchtime on Monday.
The item was on “Afternoon Live” at 12:52, which doesn’t seem to be available on iplayer. The item and the same claim was repeated on “Outside Source” at 21:50 and that programme is on iplayer until 22:00 tonight.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bnl4gy/outside-source-15102018
As Ian says. the announcer said before the item, “conservationists (unnamed) say their habitat is being hit by rising tides, caused by climate change”, but no mention of that in the item. In the item the reason was “not enough fish in the sea”, and a ranger said the penguins had to swim further and they suspected “commercial trawling” and “over exploitation of the penguins food source.”
The mention of “climate change” was obviously an attempt by the BBC or the “conservationists”, to tie the item into the IPCC report,
Paul,
Here’ a BBC story with text copied and a link:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45873785
The first part of the article reads as immediately below. The second part goes into some misleading virtue-signalling from Drax, so that’s a story for another time.
Scottish Power to use 100% wind power after Drax sale
Scottish Power will become the first major UK energy company to generate all its electricity from wind power instead of coal and gas, after selling its final gas and hydro stations to Drax.
Power company Drax has paid £702m for the rest of Scottish Power’s conventional generation business.
Scottish Power plans to invest £5.2bn over four years to more than double its renewables capacity.
Chief executive Keith Anderson said it was a “pivotal shift” for the firm.
“We are leaving carbon generation behind for a renewable future powered by cheaper green energy. We have closed coal, sold gas and built enough wind to power 1.2 million homes,” he said.
Scottish Power to raise energy prices
Scottish Power loses 100,000 domestic customers
The obvious points to come out of this are:
1) How precisely is Scottish Power going to provide its multitude of domestic and industrial customers with electricity on the very regular occasions when the wind doesn’t blow?
2) Could you make up those last two headlines about Scottish Power in the context of the article above? The phrase “Will the last Scottish Power customer to leave please turn off the lights” comes very easily to mind (assuming the lights are still actually on).
Ian
YP Business section headline
“Energy Firm loses 100K customers”
last quarter
Yep, Scottish Power
It mentions earnings but not profits
Says it’s ultimately owned by Spanish firm Iberdola whose profits fell 13.5% to £1.85bn ..still a lot for 3 months.
Scottish Power goes to 100% wind power – after selling it’s gas and hydro to Drax.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45873785
There was a great interview with Simon McCoy on the BBC News Channel, when it had to be explained to him why Drax would benefit when there was no wind.
Yet more hysteria on the BBC tonight in episode 3 of Autumnwatch, which this year is staged in New England (so no “carbon emissions in making that programme then…).
We were shown upsetting photos of dead and dying moose infected with thousands of winter ticks.
That there has been a population explosion in the ticks and they are killing significant numbers of moose – especially calves – is not in doubt. What ensued, however, was a diatribe against how “climate change” was responsible, especially by Mr Packham and Ms Strachan but backed up by the earlier statements of one Prof Peter Pekins of the University of New Hampshire. Supposedly the concept was that climate change made autumns later, thus allowing tick populations to soar as winter temperatures help to kill adults off;
Points of interest however were:
– why no attempt was made to show data proving that autumns were actually later in recent years, or in fact what the longer term data showed;
– why no attempt was made to show how temperatures in the region have risen, to what extent and how relevant that was to the flora and fauna in areas where annual temperature swings (and I’m guessing here) exceed, possibly greatly exceed, 50C;
– how a Professor put forward as an expert on this subject described the ticks as “insects” (as he did late in his contribution);
– why Ms Strachan stated that the issue was partly due to moose populations being driven south, yes south, by “climate change”. This is especially odd as moose are very much animals of far northern latitudes and many papers (just google) report moose populations invading more northern/Arctic latitudes than before, of course, due to “climate change” changing vegetation and so forth in the mooses’ favour. It’s hard to fathom how a warming planet would force cold climate fauna like moose southwards.
The overall feeling is this sort of presentation simply isn’t good enough. It is presented as serious science but falls well short of standards necessary for such.
The magic words “climate change” are sufficient evidence in themselves for the BBC.
Having now watched the programme, I too would like an explanation of how “climate change” forces the moose population southwards.
Ha Ha
On tonight’s episode they were complaining about how cold it was and the fact that it had snowed!
“Weather from Hell: Caught on Camera”
An apparently new programme about the weather (actually about “climate change”, was on ITV on Tuesday.
I missed it because I thought it was a repeat, but it is on again on Sunday at 22:20.
I suspect one of those programmes with lots of video footage which proves that man made CC is real.
Correlation does not prove Causation!
“Video footage which proves that man-made CC is real”. NO!
What the video footage proves is that modern communications are much better than a few decades ago. With all the cell phones with video capability and the option to upload wild weather footage to the Internet, more people can see dramatic storm scenes than before.
This does not prove the latest storm is man-made. Michael was very severe for people of Mexico Beach that lost their homes, but on the documented record, it was the third strongest going back some 150 years.
To “prove” your hypothesis – the Scientific Method needs you to formulate your hypothesis so it can be verified and falsified. Hurricane Michael is just one counterexample that your hypothesis is not correct. You need to try harder to make your case for man-made Global Warming – even the IPCC has changed its claims since the 18-year pause in global warming between 1998 and 2016. The IPCC, like you, now wants to talk about extreme man-made weather which is not a verified hypothesis.
My comment was intended to be ironic but it appears that you may have taken it literally.
Paul
The latest BBC propaganda on the demand for banning new petrol and diesel cars to be brought forward to 2023 instead of 2040.
A nice little quote from the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders (SMMT). “…….calls to shift to entirely electric-powered cars by 2032 were “unrealistic”.”
“Zero emission vehicles make up just 0.6% of the market, meaning consumer appetite would have to grow by some 17,000% in just over a decade”
“Nicholas Lyes, head of roads policy at the RAC, said he understood the rationale for wanting to bring forward the end of conventionally-fuelled vehicles, but said to achieve that it “would have to be matched with bold and decisive action from the government”.”
In other words, lots of taxpayers money must be spent.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45899580
What the #BiasedBBC has sought to suppress –
The truth about global warming
Oct. 21, 2018 – 14:28 – Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, provides insight into the debate over climate change and the political games played to create policy.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/5851667173001/?#sp=show-clips
Paul in today’s Yorkshire Post half page
@SCR_Mayor Dan Jarvis MP, says the new Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre@TheAMR centres add to a set of globally significant assets in the wider city region.
…blah blah future
There is no plugging of green, but he makes the claim
..’more people work here today than when it was Orgreave mine, in its heyday’
“Rising seas will swamp homes, report says”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45983260
“An increase of at least 1m is almost certain at some point in the future, the government’s advisors predict.”
I like a really precise prediction!
Can anyone explain these two paragraphs, from the Summary for Policy Makers of the recent IPCC report, to me:
A.2. Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present
will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in
the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C (medium confidence) {1.2, 3.3, Figure 1.5, Figure SPM.1}
A2.1. Anthropogenic emissions (including greenhouse gases, aerosols and their precursors) up to the present are unlikely to cause further warming of more than 0.5°C over the next two to three decades (high confidence) or on a century time scale (medium confidence). {1.2.4, Figure 1.5}
They seem to be less alarmist than the hype surrounding the report.
Ah, I think the key phrase is “up to the present”.
“UK experiencing hotter days and ‘tropical nights’ – Met Office”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46064266
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/climate-extremes-report-supplement
Of course this comparison only covers the period 1961-2017.I wonder why the MO didn’t use data going back to the beginning of the 20th century?
Paul,
If any evidence were needed about the depth of the trough in which green worthies can feed (and even get paid for by the taxpayer), see this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/02/boss-taxpayer-funded-green-charity-sees-pay-soar-60pc-232000/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_Arg5K0Hl5kqD
230 grand to run a charity (and not even a large one)!
Ian
with my free Telegraph account I can still see the entire article … And comments
I started to post some of the comments etc.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2725218
Client Earth : Boss of taxpayer-funded green charity sees pay soar 50pc to £232,000
“The charity, which is based in East London, received nearly £1 million worth of funding from the Department for International Development last year.”
CE is not really a charity
It’s a high powered lobby group funded by deep American funds
Mr. Homewood,
I see that you have written about electric vehicles. You might be interested in a recent paper of mine which was published in Applied Energy (Vol 225 (2018) 965–974) – “Is it really the end of internal combustion engines and petroleum in transport?”. I can send you a copy if you send your email address to kalghatgig@gmail.com.
Gautam Kalghatgi FREng FSA FIMechE FCI
Currently, Visiting Professor at Oxford University (Engineering Science) and Imperial College London ( Mech Engg).
Abstract of the paper: (97 References)
Transport is almost entirely powered by internal combustion engines (ICEs) burning petroleum-derived liquid fuels and the global demand for transport energy is large and is increasing. Available battery capacity will have to increase by several hundred fold for even light duty vehicles (LDVs), which account for less than half of the global transport energy demand, to be run on electricity alone. However the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) would be worse than that of conventional vehicles if electricity generation and the energy used for battery production are not sufficiently decarbonized. If coal continues to be a part of the energy mix, as it will in China and India, and if power generation is near urban centers, even local urban air quality in terms of particulates, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide would get worse. The human toxicity impacts associated with the mining of metals needed for batteries are very serious and will have to be addressed. Large prior investments in charging infrastructure and electricity generation will be needed for widespread forced adoption of BEVs to occur. There will be additional costs in the short term associated with various subsidies required to promote such a change and in the longer term, the loss of revenue from fuel taxes which contribute significantly to public finances in most countries. ICEs will continue to power transport, particularly commercial transport, to a large extent for decades to come and will continue to improve. There will also be a role for lowcarbon and other alternative fuels where they make sense. However such alternatives also start from a low base and face constraints on rapid and unlimited growth so that they are unlikely to make up much more than 10% of the total transport energy demand by 2040. As the energy system is decarbonized and battery technology improves there will be an increasing role for BEVs and hydrogen which could replace liquid hydrocarbons in transport and the required infrastructure will evolve. Meanwhile, there will certainly be increasing electrification, particularly of LDVs in the form of hybridization to improve ICEs.
A Telegraph reader, Martin Coakley, has a letter in today’s Telegraph (5-11-18) asking why are we being urged to eat less meat in order to reduce methane emissions from ruminants when in previous centuries countless millions of bison and wildebeest roamed the plains of America and Africa. What about the methane emissions from them and the effect on temperatures? he asks.
A good point I think!
I have just found you ! But I’ll be reading you avidly from now on and sharing you with friends and family too. Thanks for trying to drain the CC swamp.
Paul, you know the new Keady2 CCGT power station
Siemens the main contractor have an open event for possible sub-contractors/suppliers at the Hilton just off the A15/M180 junction on Dec 4th
“the high tech PS will be first of its kind in the UK… most efficient’
typo Keadby2
Paul,
If you haven’t seen the latest wondrous article from Harrabin, please see this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46099418
It’s about how the Finns are saving the planet by buying goods from second hand supermarkets. So, absolutely nothing to do with cash-strapped punters buying cheap goods, nor a supermarket chain cashing in, no sirree.
Gems include:
A shopper: “I don’t want to go to IKEA,” she tells me. “I will find something much more interesting here, and much more original. I don’t want to have the same furniture as everyone else. What I buy here will be a fraction of the price and better for the planet.”
Harrabin:
“As concern grows about the resources we’re using and the CO2 that is producing our goods, does this place hold lessons for the world?” and;
“Everyone who buys an item from the store gets a little pat on the back on their till receipt, too. It shows how much natural resources you have saved by buying by avoiding the purchase of a new item.
I bought two cute glass Christmas decorations, for instance. The receipt thanks me for saving 84 kg in natural resources used in creating the ornaments – oil, sand, dyes, chemicals and more.
The store estimates it saved 50 million kg of resources in total last year.
What was that Roger? You bought two small, and no doubt cheap Xmas decorations and saved a mighty 84 kilos of the planet’s resources? The supermarket must employ mathematical geniuses to work that out! The models must be on, well, climate science scale. That must be almost as much as you weigh and as much in natural resources as you used travelling to Finland! And you believed the figure without issue? Question: are you as deluded as the impoverished punters who fall for the chain’s epic virtue-signalling tricks? I think we should be told…
Paul
The latest insane idea to harness kinetic energy to solve the indeterminacy problem of wind turbines. Concrete towers that fall, likened to pumped storage, coming to a pristine piece of countryside near you soon!
https://energyvault.ch/news/
Paul,
More about the growing EV fiasco on the BBC website today:
Government-subsidised plug-in cars may never have been charged
Plug-in hybrids bought for fleets with subsidies may never have been charged, research for BBC shows.
Could you make this up?
Looks like the link doesn’t work. I’ll try to fix.
Hi Paul
Please take a look at this
thanks
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/09/25/a-test-for-ecs-climate-sensitivity-in-observational-data/
Hio Paul,
You’re going to be sorry you gave me the link information! Here’s some correspondence with HMG on the subject. I asked, through my MP:
Starts:
I note the Labour has a policy of, among other things, creating 400000 “green” jobs and dispensing with fossil fuels altogether. There have been many reports, based on real world conditions, that suggest that “green jobs” displace more than double the number of real jobs. The annual cost of green activity generally runs into £/$/billions worldwide, money that, if the activity proves to be unnecessary or ineffective, could be better spent on dealing with today’s problems, such as relief and reconstruction after the recent Indonesian earthquake/tsunami and long term research into truly sustainable renewable energy.
Contrary to the BBC’s propaganda machine, the science is far from settled. It would be good to have answers, from Labour and HMG, to the following questions:
What actual, replicable, real-world evidence do you have that convincingly demonstrates that:
Scientists can now distinguish relatively small human influences from the many powerful natural forces that have always driven climate change?
Greenhouse gases now control the climate, and the sun and other forces play only minor roles?
Earth is now experiencing significant and unprecedented changes in temperature, icecaps, sea levels, hurricanes, tornadoes and droughts?
These changes will be catastrophic and are due to humanity’s fossil fuel use?
Computer models have accurately predicted the real-world conditions we are measuring today?
Wind, solar and biofuels can replace fossil fuels in powering modern industrial economies and living standards; can be manufactured, transported and installed without fossil fuels; are “sustainable” into the foreseeable future; and will not have serious adverse impacts on wildlife, habitats, air and water.
Ends
And here’s the garbage I got back:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/62258600@N03/53CJ96
I’ve informed my MP that I don’t believe a word of it.
Ian
Paul,
My hypothesis is that it is the Perigean New/Moon cycle that is effectively responsible for the global (sub-decadal) temperature fluctuations via its tidal impact on the El Nino phenomenon.
https://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2018/11/predicting-start-of-next-el-nino-event.html
BBC : Sheffield road pricing scheme
Local paper
: \\ Buses, coaches and HGVs would pay £50 a day, with a charge of £12.50 for taxis and minicabs, and £10 for vans and LGVs.
These vehicles cause “disproportionately more pollution” as they make multiple trips across the city, the council said.
The council will apply for £40m of government funding for the charge scheme//
I don’t get that ! to introduce a charge scheme , Sheffield needs£40m
it’s supposed be a money making scheme why does it need government money ?
Anyway
popn is £580K so the cost is £80 per head of population
and people will resort to tricks ..use your car instead of your van, turn your car into a secret taxi etc.
…
Interesting graphs of bonfire fireworks PM2.5 peaks
https://twitter.com/SMarr311/status/1060125309742301186
see 24 hour graphic
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrO5kI4X4AAZ2tu.jpg:large
Jeez look at these PM2.5 peaks …fireworks
https://twitter.com/SMarr311/status/1061026257515749378
Ofgem was in a hurry to give aawy the subsidies rather than verify the claimants
BBC radio : Farm dome ADs for ROCs
and RHI
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46196969
Did you see this one
This paper by Nic Lewis.
Click to access A-major-problem-with-the-Resplandy-et-al.-ocean-heat-uptake-paper.pdf
More council taxpayers’ money being wasted:
https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/clean-vehicle-campaign-s-bid-to-fuel-change/
The irony is that Barnsley Council, in their proposed Local Plan, is actively promoting commuter travel and commercial travel between “sheds on roundabouts”.
Paul,
People sometimes ask me why the facts that I present on AGW were previously completely unknown to them. One of my points in answer is that the debate in the UK hasn’t even started, so even the most eminent and intelligent people don’t even know there is an argument to be had. Another is that AGW has spawned such a supertanker of an industry that many corporate bodies would rather not address any issues that might arise during a debate – which might mean they lost opportunities to make money out of the many aspects of AGW.
This fact was illustrated to me again today by this internet release which, for the avoidance of any doubt, was issued by a senior and highly qualified British finance executive:
“Great day at the #bnpparibasGM with some excellent speakers including:
John Kerry, former US Secretary of State
Enda Kenny, former Irish Taoiseach
Enrico Letta, former Italian Prime Minister
Amongst many other distinguished presenters.
Great presentation from Antonio Camnisecra of Enel Green Power, and thought this graphic he shared was amazing …
https://lnkd.in/dhCY7wE ”
In case anyone is interested, BNP Paribas is a major global investment bank and GM stands for Global Markets – their financial markets division which, surprise!, sells energy market products, alongside all the normal currency derivatives and similar.
My point is not just that investment banks have a vested interest in the AGW meme flourishing but also that it’s sad to see such an accomplished executive falling for the pseudo-science without questioning.
The EU wants all nations to enact Article 13, requiring ALL internet information put online by anyone to have full verification and attribution statement with it, and for posters of any info to be liable in law for such reports veracity! THEY (the unelected EU
arsholes bureaucrats) say it will help prevent the spread of terrorism and far-right organizations (who’s judgement on this? Why the lefty bureaucrats of course.)I say this act (Article 13) would kill honest objective reporting on the internet, and restrict internet use to only those official EU ‘trusted’ sources of misinformation and fake-news.
https://www.savetheinternet.info/ is against this unnecessary restriction on internet use.
I give up I can not keep it all together and format this …
BBC website, front page news (just scroll down a bit)
Heysham 1: Three hurt in nuclear plant accident
Horror of horrors! Was it a nuclear leak? Was it a nuclear explosion? Was it a reactor meldown?
No, it was the release of high pressure steam.
In no other industry would this make anything other than the local papers.
Sorry to hear of the injuries, but seriously?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-46275104
Bish’s new article
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/the-threat-to-the-environment-that-the-green-lobby-tries-to-ignore/
=====================
also #GreensGoByAir
“UN environment chief Erik Solheim quits amid expenses row”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46281051
Paul what do you reckon to this interesting differently scaled graphs ?
See my reply
The start of this video, about December’s weather better says what I was trying to communicate about the EU’s article 13 …
Claire Perry the energy & clean growth minister
had an article in the Times on Tuesday ..cringreworthy
apparently wind tech has advanced just like mobile phones have.
MC adds : “Wind tech has advanced just like mobile phones have.
Both are useless when the batteries run out.”
——————-
My opinion
Wind/solar/biomass need to have a mining tax put on them just like oil and gas
cos otherwise you are not considering the full cost to granny who pays for all the wind/solar/biomass subsidies and market privileges.
If you replace a gas power plant which supplies proper ON-demand electricity with a solar/wind combo that supplies intermittent-electricity ie leccy when it feels like it, you not only get extra costs, but you also LOSE the mining taxes that the gas brought in.
Do you think magic unicorns pay the difference ?
Paul
Breaking news over at the BBC: Water vapour is not a greenhouse gas!
“I am very concerned that the three greenhouse gases most responsible for climate change (CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide) are all rising upwards unabated,” said Prof Corinne Le Quéré from the University of East Anglia.
The BBC and UEA running round with their hair on fire, just before the coming annual shindig in Poland.
How convenient.
It would help to include the link.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46289829
Ha Paul you are notorious
BTW over on BBBC Pinder says
the BBC wrote a Climate article on Nov 1st about Resplandy : Ocean Heat paper
which Nic Lewis debunked
but rather than embarrass themselves, the BBC came back on Nov 20th and completely wrote over the old article on the same URL
https://biasedbbc.org/blog/2018/11/22/long-weekend-thread-23-november-2018/comment-page-2/#comment-954130
Has anyone discussed this ?
You can view the changes on Newssniffer
https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1691114/diff/3/4
The page on Wayback
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46046067
The fact that it is entitled “climate denier” list, demonstrates their bias.
What is the opposite of a “climate denier”?
To be on such a list should be considered an honour.
Oh paul my last comment doesn’t show up
That guy who keeps a list, I see that he hasn’t updated it since he added you to the list in Feb 2015
And he links to “a daily listing of denial” which has turned itself into a private hidden page
It was in the pending tray!
Wasn’t the demise of coal trumpeted ….?
Today – it rather looks like it’s keeping the lights on…. as wind droops (live)
Paul
Interesting article, unusually, from the BBC.
“Why ‘flammable ice’ could be the future for energy.
It does deteriorate into the usual CO2 crap at the end but worth a read.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181119-why-flammable-ice-could-be-the-future-of-energy
OK ice methane in Arctic is known about
..that’s why peak-oil is rubbish
But this is same under Japanese sea
BBC Future is not proper BBC, but rather an international magazine division that produces stuff to shove adverts around.
Paul
Another story from the BBC: “Why do billions of people still lack basic sanitation?”
Delving into the scientific geniuses inventing ‘clever’ toilets and inefficient methods to deal with human waste when the solution would be to allow access to cheap, reliable electricity to install drainage systems and run sewage farms.
“Each year contaminated water kills half a million children under five through diarrhoeal diseases, the WHO says.”
Once again, the link would help!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46289654
Doh you don’t need high tech toilets
Most third problems are cultural
. in that people are willing to let the land away from their home be someone else’s problem, that’s why they soil it an pollute rivers etc.
In traditional Korean farms , you wee in a bottle and crap into a box
Separated the two things don’t smell bad
The wee you empty onto the crops diluted
..the poo box dries and you leave it 1.5 years then spread it under the fruit trees
In other countries we used to keep pigs, but their are issues like smell, rats, virus etc.
YouTube Putting Labels On Climate Videos
.. bet they don’t label the Nov 1st reports about the Resplandy
.. about the errors
You are welcome to report on this NZ fraud, you know one of the least corrupt countries in the world. NOT!
Click to access to-the-prime-minister-13-november-20181.pdf
Paul
I stumbled on this and sent it into WUWT, and I wondered if it might interest you as well.
Message: Anthony/Charles/Kip
You may find this interesting. I haven’t read it because it’s doubtless way beyond me, but I’ll give it a crack. I also have the PDF if you have problems with the site.
The 2018 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: shaping the health of nations for centuries to come (Centuries to come? The NHS can’t sort itself out from year to year, never mind for “centuries to come”!)
Available here, free, you only have to sign up: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32594-7/fulltext?code=lancet-site
(If you have a problem it may be because my browser auto logs me in so the address might not be correct if you’re not logged in).
The report makes 10 recommendations, the first two seem from a health perspective, but from the third on they make recommendations that seem to go way beyond what one would normally expect of the Lancet:
Recommendation 1: invest in climate change and public health research. (Fair enough).
Recommendation 2: scale up financing for climate-resilient health systems. (Yep, seems reasonable).
Recommendation 3: phase out coal-fired power. (Wha????!!!!!! What about oil and gas, and what about using Nuclear?)
Recommendation 4: encourage city-level low-carbon transition to reduce urban pollution. (Once again, cities are the focus of attention the rest of the country must pay for).
Recommendation 5: establish the framework for a strong and predictable carbon pricing mechanism. (Oh really! This bunch determine all on their ownio that carbon pricing is the solution to a global problem).
Recommendation 6: rapidly expand access to renewable energy, unlocking the substantial economic gains available from this transition. (Seriously?!!! Have they even looked at the financial and practical implications of renewables?).
Recommendation 7: There isn’t one!
Recommendation 6: Nope, nor one here!
Recommendation 9: agree and implement an international treaty that facilitates the transition to a low-carbon economy (I’m sure these guys will have a suggestion as to how to achieve this, cos’ so far, no one else has).
Recommendation 10: develop a new, independent collaboration to provide expertise in implementing policies that mitigate climate change and promote public health, and monitor progress over the next 15 years (Oh goody, more non jobs for the boys, doubtless paid for and controlled by the UN!)
I not that recommendations 7 & 8 are also missing from the full PDF document (OK, I read a bit of it) and I wonder if this is normal, or just sloppy.
I understood that to be published in the Lancet a document is peer reviewed? Is it normal practice for peer reviewers to accept vital missing recommendations without telling the reader they are, perhaps, classified or something?
I have no idea, I’m just a layman grunt, but it seems a bit peculiar and, in the light of the cock up with the Resplandy et al. paper peer reviewers might just be a bit more careful, but evidently it doesn’t matter because the science is settled anyway, so why bother?
OMG!!!
OM effing G!!!!!!!
I managed to get through the first 3 pages of the PDF with the usual alarmist Clichés, and then I got to the diagram on page 4.
Not a mention of a greening planet with increasing crop productions through technology. Indeed, no recognition whatsoever that technology would feature in any positive way whatsoever, far less anything else.
Just a collection of every negative effect that climate change could even remotely have on mankind, dropped into a pretty chart. These are supposed to be impartial scientists FFS, yet not one of them seems to have suggested their might be something beneficial gained from a warming climate like, lets say, fewer unnecessary winter deaths in the UK, at the last count I believe running around 40,000 or so.
There are medical practitioners involved in this report for gods sake, don’t even they see that as a possible benefit?
Regards
HotScot.
Sorry, that should be recommendations 7 & 8 in the list.
Thankfully I can fall back on the excuse that I’m a dim layman, without the benefit of peer review to correct my mistakes!
Peer Review – as defined by Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet
“Peer review to the public is portrayed as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller, but we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong”
According to Chris Fawkes on Afternoon Live, temperatures have been as low as -44c in Northern China and it looked very cold over Asia in general, although I have been unable to find any reference on the internet.
It’s warmed up to -39C
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=108.60,50.45,429/loc=117.114,57.145
Paul: here is a truly alarmist article from the Australian Broadcasting Commission which “predicts” that most of the world’s population will be drowned by a 7 metre [sic] rise in sea levels as a result of the melting of the Greenland ice cover: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-12-06/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-accelerating/10581980
“which “predicts” that most of the world’s population will be drowned ”
Sorry, I can’t see that prediction anywhere in the article.
Searching Twitter on that URL shows 20 tweets with the phrase
“Greenland melt accelerating towards potential 7-metre sea level rise ”
posted on Dec 6th
… The point is the timeframe would be massive say 500 years plus
Just in case you’ve not seen it, Paul, an interesting analysis in the CapX newsletter:
https://capx.co/another-climate-summit-means-more-expensive-ineffective-promises/?omhide=true&utm_source=CapX+briefing&utm_campaign=f301f7fcf6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_07_17_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5017135a0-f301f7fcf6-241856297
On a selfish note, it would be great if this thread had latest-first, which would make it a lot easier to keep in touch. Any chance of managing that, Paul?
Thanks,
Ian
Unfortunately, comment thread settings apply to all posts, so if I had latest first, all posts would also have to have it.
I’ll see if I can mass delete most of the older ones, to make navigation easier
Thanks for that, Paul. Much appreciated.
Ian
I wondered if you were going to mention the ‘Vertical Farm’ idea, brazenly trumpeted by BBC on 1 December https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46221656, picked up in a pathetic version in Popular Mechanics on 3 December and given (surprisingly) a more thorough and not absolutely un-sceptical presentation by the Daily Mail on 5 December. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6462597/Old-coal-mines-turned-giant-underground-FARMS.html
At least the DM gives a useful resumé of the existing ‘Vertical Farm’ in Scunthorpe. Maybe the technology has something going for it, although I am bemused that Greenies rejecting GM crops as the work of Satan because it ‘isn’t natural’ etc. may be happy to eat stuff grown in this exceptionally un-natural environment. I suppose a similar if hi-tech version of the home Skunk farms, the produce of which they no doubt are very familiar.
But there is a danger that this will feed directly into the idea that seems current in Geenie & IPCC circles that perceives a need to do what the UK has done to the coal mining industry in the uk (and fishermen, steel workers, electricity generating workers, aluminium & steel workers, cement workers etc.) to Agriculture.
I couldn’t care less about some abandoned warehouse in Scunthorpe (except if my tax money is going there), but I do have some interest in old coal mines. After achieving Chartered Engineer status (in the Water Industry), I spent roughly 20 years building new coal mines to meet the need for affordable and reliable energy and the following 20 years closing them safely and at least starting restoration work. I still do odd jobs and give advice to former colleagues…
So I am pretty conversant with old coal mines and their shafts.
These jokers at Nottingham University (apologies for the slur on general ‘jokers’) clearly haven’t bothered to talk to any of their former colleagues…
Nottingham University first started night-school classes in mining in 1882 and launched a full Department of Mining within the Engineering faculty in 1910. With a world wide reputation in Mining Engineering, by 2004 “the Mineral Resources and Mining courses ceased due to the lack of students.”
I also very much doubt that Prof. Saffa Riffat has ever been down a coal mine, perhaps not even the bit of accessible drift tunnel at Beamish Museum, let alone the National Coal Mining Museum at Caphouse near Wakefield, which I’m fairly sure is the ONLY place in the UK with any access (albeit much limited) down a coal mine shaft.
So far as other coal mine shafts are concerned, the situation is pretty much as follows. Coal Mining Records (run now by the Coal Authority) has records of around 100,000 coal mine shafts in Yorkshire alone. They used to say that their best estimate was that there are another 100,000 out there than are NOT recorded. Some of which make their presence known every year. Not a happy thought.
My quick guess is that, of all the recorded shafts in the UK, well over 90% of post Nationalisation (1947) mine shafts have been filled more-or-less properly. The others have normally been provided with large reinforced concrete caps and since the 1980s, these have normally been constructed at twice the shaft diameter (So caps usually 13 – 15 m diameter and usually at least a metre thick).
Easy enough, I am sure the Greenie geniuses will say, ‘find one that has not been filled and cut a suitable hole in the top.’ But just consider, under that cap will be virtually no Oxygen (as that will have oxidised anything oxidisable!) but lots of lovely Methane. And Mr. Riffat’s acolytes need to cut their hole without causing an explosion. Interesting. Possible, (I’ve done it successfully myself.) But you’d likely need 10 times Raffit’s £30,000 just for that.
The objection might be raised that the journos at the Mail and the Beeb have missed some of the subleties in Raffit’s Kunning Plan. But both contain diagrams with nice © University of Nottingham labels which are absolute nonsense on stilts. Dangerous nonsense.
I can’t imagine one of these ‘Vertical Mines’ being constructed in any British coal mine shaft for less than 100 times Raffit’s £30,000, nor can I imagine getting the agreement of the Health and Safety Executive (who still employ a few of Her Majesty’s Mines Inspectors) to operate such a scheme for much less than £1 Million a year just for running costs (ventilation, employing competent Manager & Engineers). That’s before he can grow anything.
Myself, I’m happy to eat nice fresh food from across the world and I am pleased that the growers can make a decent living growing it at shipping it to the UK. If (as I very much doubt) we eventually get out of the EU Evil Empire, the growers won’t have the latter’s tariffs and stupid regulations to contend with.
Our Welsh colleagues will be most upset with your suggestion that the only accessible mine is in Yorkshire. What about The Big Pit Museum on the Heads of the Valleys road in S Wales?
Ah yes.
Apologies to any Welsh colleagues for forgetting Big Pit also gets you underground. I should have said ‘in England.’
Doubt if Big Pit would want anyone practicing their Hydroponics there, however.
More magical thinking ?
Yeh these LED vertical farms could be houses in old mines !
The good thing about UV from sunlight is that it kills a lot of bugs
* I suspect indoor farming will suffer badly from fungus outbreaks.*
But old mines do test to be hot.
(I wonder how much such tunneling has caused more core heat to escape and warm our atmosphere ?
anywhere near as much as nature ?)
BTW I am in Scunthorpe.
Hmmm, Scunthorpe!
No stranger to Brumby then!
If these daft psyentists had thought of using the old Santon & Dragonby Ironstone mines that TATA now own, at least they would have had something that could work (if you threw enough money at it). No open shafts but a couple of fair sized drifts.
More importantly, no potentially explosive Methane atmosphere!
Even there and following your point, why not use ’em to grow mushrooms?
They can keep ’em in the dark. And it is obvious Raffit’s colleagues can supply plenty of prime bullsh1t!
There is a ghost of a web site The Variablepitch Ofgem Rnewables Database Interface
– he’s been threatened into shutting down…. for providing easy access to ofgem’s renewables database…. ( a fan of renewables to boot)
It is very easy indeed to imagine that “Worse Than Northern Ireland” might just have something to do with it…..
I have been told – without seeing the accounts or receipts – that two local renewables schemes (hydro power) were significantly under-declared by ofgem and received payments several times those posted on the database. More ofgem under-reporting than fraudulent over claiming – but – whatever…. it don’t look right ….
His Nov 26th Tweet
Paul,
The BBC is at it again – this time using an episode of its – often excellent and informative – technology programme “Click” to broadcast its global warming propaganda.
See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3ct4dzd
Then click on today’s (Dec 8) episode.
Gems include:
– a completely biased scientist earnestly telling us the end of world is nigh; and
– an article on solar panels out at sea in Norway supposedly designed to give a fish farm power. The presenter had to admit that, for much of the time, it had to be powered by diesel, but it was great nevertheless! She missed the point that the high-tech membrane that she was standing on was almost certainly made from hydrocarbons and indeed had to be transported a long way there by fossil fuels but go hum!
It is such a shame to see a genuine science programme abused for political purposes in this way.
Oh sorry, I forgot that the Click episode also took the time to show derision for Trump, with the clear implication that if you were sceptical about climate change too, you’d have to be as moronic as The Donald.
Q Why has belittling Trump got any relevance to a programme about advances in technology? I’m sure the BBC will tell us.
@JacotheNorth tweets
\\ The next post will be out on Thursday, hopefully.
Topics:
Hendy wind farm – who told developers to start without planning permission?
Revived tidal lagoon scheme worries Tory wind farmers
Bodnant Welsh Food Centre
Tower Regeneration Ltd
Green Party of England in Wales //
BBC4 7-8pm Will Millard Hidden Wales the presenter has been completely brainwashed
The ending enthused” Wales new resources solar, wind and tidal”
The first half had him feeling guilty as he visited old coal mines and coke ovens and expressed his shame at their CO2 producing.
Then in the second half he got happy as he visited a giant windfarm
He said to the windfarm manager “So the Wales gov wants 70% of Wales energy to come from renewables by 2040, is that happening how many of these windfarms will you need ?”
(I think he said ENERGY not just electrcity”)
The reply well “you see this farm makes enough for 400K homes and if we say Wales has 2.000K homes, we can say we need 4 windfarms like this ”
..NO NO no cos electricity use is not mainly used in homes ..you have to power government shops, factories etc
So to power the whole lot …you need a lot more than 4 windfarms
I see he didn’t visit the still active huge open cast coal mine ..which probably produces more energy than all Wales windpower
screenshot
https://twitter.com/BBCFOUR/status/1072113703481425921
Hang on most of the prog fitted the prog title of “HiddenWales”
. a cave, abandoned mine/facories etc.
But a giant windfarm is hardly hidden !
I see the BBC are running with a NASA report about melting glaciers….sea level could rise 28 metres. No context, no nuance…usual BBC.
I don’t know whether this has been covered here or elsewhere, but an interesting snippet from Auto Express got me thinking. Apparently, the Nissan Leaf they have on test does 4.1 miles/kWh.
Taking my (petrol) car, which averages 39mpg over an 8000 mile year, at an average price of £1.25/litre this year, it’s cost me ~15p/mile compared to the Leaf’s ~3p/mile, based on what I pay per kWh. This translates to an annual cost of ~£1200 v/v ~£235 for the Leaf, ignoring maintenance and depreciation. Diesel would cost less but maintenance cost would be higher, I assume.
I’m not temped, though, as I regularly do long journeys. OK for a second car, though?
Ian, Leaf new cost looks very expensive, maybe the figures are being hyped?
Not sure what you mean, Robert. The 4.1 miles/kWh comes from the answer to a reader’s question:
“Our road testers have started recording how many miles-per-kWh EVs return. The Nissan Leaf we’re running is managing 4.1 miles/kWh and has a 40kWh battery, giving it a range of about 164 miles.” This is very good, as the official range (WLTP – whatever that means) is 168 miles. Does that help?
You may know that AE runs several cars for often 6 months at a time, so the stats should be reliable and unbiased. They’re not EV car disciples as far as I can tell.
Ian, The fact that I’m driving a 1999 Honda Accord automatic says it all about me and cars. Nevertheless you have drawn my attention an interesting issue which I will consider further down the road 🙂 Best Regards, Robert
The rule is that you must include all costs direct and indirect over time
Direct – for a Leaf ,an owner pays for leccy, may have to pay for replacement battery , and has resale depreciation costs higher than a petrol car (cos with leccy everyone wants the new tech, not inferior second hand)
Indirect – The owner is paying for subsidies of all electric cars, costs of charging points, and the cost associated with decommissioning.
… For both petrol and electric there are further externalities, pollution caused by mining, air pollution costs of both burning petrol and making electricity etc.
– Not travelling at all, or using a very old vehicle may well be more economic and green.
You’re right, Stew. As for “… Not travelling at all, or using a very old vehicle …” isn’t that the objective?
Paul
The BBC is on a roll
“Climate change: COP24 deal to bring Paris pact to life”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46582025
Paul,
This has come out from the bowels of the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46455844
It’s about cement and the CO2 emissions that arise from the process. It won’t tell informed sceptics anything they didn’t already know but the figures are staggering, especially in comparison to so many warmist targets such as aviation fuel.
Paul
The government’s original ambition of installing smart meters in every home by 2020 will not be met, and the cost of the rollout will likely escalate beyond initial expectations, says the National Audit Office (NAO).
https://www.nao.org.uk/press-release/rolling-out-smart-meters/#
HotSCot yer a bit late
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6508557/Solar-power-payments-SCRAPPED.html
Homeowners with solar panels are ‘giving their excess power to the grid for free’ after government closes energy payment scheme
The Business Department has announced the closure of the ‘export tariff’
It currently pays householders for excess power that is fed back into the grid
Opponents warned that ending the tariff would leave householders who install panels from April having to give away their power to energy companies free
Surely that would be NEW contracts ?
existing people are probably locked into 20 year guaranteed payments
Mr Homewood, would you please be able to advise me how this could possibly be the case? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-46628832/the-texas-town-running-on-renewables
Thanks Trevor
Here’s the trick.
Thank God I din’t listen to Vine
\\ RobRoy December 21, 2018 at 1:42 pm Programme: The Jeremy Vine Show
Subject: Interview with Extinction Rebellion Mob.
I have just listened to a most irresponsible interview with a bunch of deluded and ignorant activists from the so-called Extinction Rebellion organisation. Following the day of over a 100,000 passengers holidays being ruined by a probable self-appointed ‘environmental’ activist, the BBC see fit to encourage these idiots by allowing them free air time.//
..full complaint on B-BBC
BBC report wind farm as powering 300,000 homes, when actual stats show it powered only avg of 166,000
\\ Dear BBC News 24 Editor,
Tonight at 9:30 pm, you will be presenting Weather World from Whitelee Windfarm, proclaiming a performance of supplying electricity to 300,000 homes.
To leave viewers with this impression will be a travesty of news reality, which may be unparalleled in BBC peace-time broadcasting.
Since 2010, Whitelee has been paid a total of £96 million to shut down – not generate electricity.
Throughout 2017 and continuing into 2018, Whitelee has only generated enough electricity to power, on average, 166,000 homes; that’s a reduction of 45% on the figure you will state as fact.// continues on Facebook
stole £1m from a government green-energy project jailed for four years.
Abdi-Jalebi had won international acclaim for his work on wind turbines and set up his technology firm Wind Technologies Ltd in 2006.
But, he dishonestly received project funding to the value of £2.8m in grant money from Innovate UK, the EU and The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC).
He was arrested 18 months ago ..have media ignored the case ..I’ve not heard of it
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/21/cambridge-academic-jailed-28m-green-energy-scam-100000-found/
This has only a tenuous link to climate change, but am I being a bit paranoid by felling irritated when the BBC, in a piece on the measles vaccination issue:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/measles-back-vengeance-anti-vaccination-movement-blame/
refer to those who mistakenly followed the lead of that dscredited researcher as “vaccination sceptics?” The Telegraph doesn’t use the phrase. How long before it becomes “vaccination denier?”
On a more CC-related note, and amid all the hand wringing about species loss, comes this from the BBC, without a trace of irony:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46621092
“Yet plants that are new to science are still being described, at a rate of about 2,000 a year.”
Paul
It’s not polar bears the BBC is pushing any longer. It’s cute, cuddly Huskies.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46596070
That should be HotScot…….Again!!!!!!
Sodding WordPress.
It’s one thing to express political opinions from a BBC reporters Twitter account, but this is the official R4Today account
Ah I guess its the guest editor Martha Lane Fox using the official BBC Twitter account
(Don’t mention the investors who lost half a billion when her company collapsed)
** That’s sexism, = ‘women are equal, but special as well’
However, #CCBGB
I’ve just heard BBC presenters drooling over the prospect of that iconic serial Das Boot being remade with women in the lead roles. I give up.
Journos get back to work, luckily NGOs have sent in some ‘reports’ to cutNpaste
I bet the journos have a whole supply in their drawers, with different embargo dates)
#1 Ethnicity pay gap
#2 Gove’s PR pack about plastic bags
#3 Extreme Weather study courtesy of Climate Experts called Christian Aid
Yorkshire Post “Grace Hammond” writes “Extreme Weather costing Billions”
BBC have same Huge costs of warming impacts in 2018
By Matt McGrath
(bet it’s been in his bag since embargoed pack was handed out at COP24)
‘Extreme weather events linked to climate change cost thousands of lives and caused huge damage throughout the world in 2018, say Christian Aid.’
What great prophet does the BBC quote ?
\\ Commenting on the Christian Aid report, Dr Michael Mann from Penn State University said the impacts of climate change were no longer subtle.
“The unprecedented floods, droughts, heat waves, wildfires and super storms we’ve seen in recent years – they are the face of climate change. The world’s weather is becoming more extreme before our eyes – the only thing that can stop this destructive trend from escalating is a rapid fall in carbon emissions.” //
Don’t talk to me about Michael Mann. I’ve just watched this video (in four bites, it’s a bit long):
It was very interesting (if not new) but, it wasn’t a “debate”. The presenters may as well have been on different continents. Michael Mann was his usual, self-flattering self. I think he meets the definition of a megalomaniac. When somebody introduces himself as “a distinguished professor of… ” which I’ve heard him do, describing his own work as “groundbreaking”, it’s hard to think otherwise.
I’m not having children to help fight climate change’
\\ He’s doing humanity a favour by taking himself out of the gene pool.//
Paul, we know that all the BBC’s output on Global Warming is PR not news.
And it’s video calls to action that are put out every 3-4 weeks certainly are PR and really belong on the Greenpeace website
.. not a public funded IMPARTIAL network
..My notes
Paul – earlier I emailed you about a study I did in 2011 on Bright Sunshine vs Max Daily Temp in the UK, 1930 – 2010. My job was the best I could do, and used your graphs, but it was amateurish. I would like to pay someone to update this study with the data you have and do it properly. You have my email address. Please contact me if you know someone who will do it.
Thanks.
Doug Proctor
Has the BBC had a conscience transplant? On the news this morning, a piece about the Dead Sea’s water loss. Similar reasons for the Aral Sea’s demise but not a hint of climate change. How refreshing.
8:50am R4today item about Sizewell C
Pro – Dame sue ion was on the line
Against – Imperial’s Prof Paul Dorfman in the studio
It’s holidays so no one tweeted except him or his office
Guess what pic they choose to show how scientific they are ? FFS
His previous modest tweet
BBC More Green “PR not news”
“Climate change: We challenged three people to transform their daily habits
By Marie Jackson”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46611132
Guido previews the Mail On Sunday’s Polar bear story
comments “In 1986 there were around 7,000 Polar Bears in the Arctic,
… by 2018 there were only 22,000 left.”
Guido also has the Caroline Looncas meat tax story
Tallbloke does the this story
Hi Paul,
have you seen the website climateemergency.uk? It has a list of district & town councils that have (unanimously) declared a climate emergency.
The wording of the motions for each council show striking similarities and if you go to the individual council websites there is almost always at least one “member of the public” who pleads with the council to do something about climate change, just before the motion is debated.
In one instance a supposed 15 year old made the following statement “I am fifteen years old. I need to start planning my life, but how can I make plans when the climate is changing so rapidly and the future looks so uncertain? Climate change is a burden on that all young people across the planet will have to carry.”
This looks like very crude manipulation by Extinction Rebellion and/or it’s parent RisingUp! but it seems to be working – Councils are falling like dominoes. They can then go to Central Government and say that their policies “have the approval of the whole country”.
I haven’t seen anything as scary as this since the Soviet era.
Paul
Climate change hits the poor, once again.
Consumer goods to be made repairable, but more expensive.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46797396
There are already quality consumer goods on the market e.g. Bosch and Miele where the initial purchase cost ensures reliability and justifies them being repaired.
Most teenagers have a natural tendency to be anxious about something and in this case it is “climate change”.
In my case it was the atomic bomb and the environment, which still concern me to an extent but there is nothing I can do as an individual.
I got by without psychiatric help but today’s teenagers probably need it to allow them to forget this rubbish and get on with their lives.
The people who spread this exaggerated nonsense should be put in jail.
BBC More or Less use to be a rock solid prog, then SJW evangelism started to creep in
Now in one prog before Xmas it flipped into a whole edition attacking hydropower
: Dam Lies and Statistics ; Are mega-dams really sustainable?
Lots of bard argument and spin
Just heard that HMG is to open a new embassy in the Maldives. How does this square with climate alarmist claims that the Maldives will soon disappear?
Global warming means, UK heating up
– so no one would build a massive 42 acre greenhouse in Ipswich for 150 million cherry tomatoes
– nor put in “carbon dioxide enrichment”
– nor need to install LED to increase light
– nor install 2 6MW boilers (6,000KW says Times)
– hydroponic
The Times
missed this on Monday
green policies at risk
Liz Truss is targeting green energy policies as she launches a Treasury review of government projects with a call to “junk the white elephants”. //
The Times comments are incredible saying essentially how can actual common sense be applied in the fantasy world that our masters think we live in ?
And commenters also put in a lot of maths and sense.
Doh do you really think our ruling masters the metroLibs are going to let this commonsense happen ?
Dream on, we live in Kafkaesque times.
With the winter weather about to invade these shores we will soon see how worthy any of these flaky sustainable power sources of wind and solar are some under real winter conditions especially in Scotland.
[My emboldings]
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast
Scroll down to the write-up on the left, and flip from the 5 Day to the ‘UK 6-30 days’ outlook.
The Xstinky Rabble’uns have got tory Scarborough Council to declare a Climate Emergency with a list of demands ‘town to carbon neutral by 2030’
Radio stn
https://www.yorkshirecoastradio.com/news/local-news/2776586/scarborough-borough-council-declares-climate-emergency/
Newspaper doesn’t allow comments
https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/scarborough-council-declares-climate-emergency-in-first-major-step-to-combat-global-warming-1-9525225
Today’s Guardian ProjectClimateFear
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/immediate-fossil-fuel-phaseout-could-arrest-climate-change-study
Real world data or modelling ?
“The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, ★used computer models to estimate★ by how much global temperatures would rise if a fossil fuel infrastructure phaseout began immediately”
H/T Golf Charlie
Article also quotes Lord Stern
Paul,
More nonsense from the BBC on its website – this time from one Helen Briggs:
The coffees you’ve never heard of which face extinction.
Hope the link works.
Of course it turns out that it’s mostly about “climate change” modelled to wipe out upland coffee plants – 50% by 2088. No evidence per se to support this is presented. What a surprise.
Try this link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46845461
I see several other news media outfits have now picked up on the coffee hysteria, notably CNN. They all pick up on the climate change meme but some are more balanced in their reporting, noting the small matter that if you actually destroy forests for whatever reason (as has been happening relentlessly), er, the trees won’t actually be there to produce the beans. Brilliant analysis.
Paul
Global governance from another angle. Ve vill eat vhat ve are told!
Europe and North America need to cut back massively on red meat, East Asia needs to cut back on fish, Africa on starchy vegetables.
“Humanity has never attempted to change the food system at this scale and this speed,” said Line Gordon, director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, at Stockholm University.
Sound familiar?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46865204
Paul, follow this link to a story about the Isles of Scilly in the Telegraph. It covers a scheme sponsored by Hitachi for ‘smart energy’ – the idea is to test technology that should then be “simpler” (sic) to deploy across the UK. The article states that the Hitachi project is costing £10.8 million. Given a Scilly population of approx 2,500 that is £4,695 a person. Take the UK population as 66.04 million wouldn’t the scaled up costs exceed £310 billion!!!!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/social-innovation/forum/isles-scilly-sustainable-smart-future/?
Also in today’s Telegraph, does Alex need correcting about Scottish climate?
Mildly random but it’s about the arctic … ship traffic over a few years.
Tomo you didn’t put a link
was it this tweet animation below ?
BTW Today’s Indy is reporting US warships to use Arctic Route
Ah yes you posted that animation over on BH
Below it someone quotes an 8 month old NASA age
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/91981/shipping-responds-to-arctic-ice-decline
Catching up with back issues of Auto Express, I came across an editorial regretting the government’s curb on EV subsidies, suggesting that people feel they ought to buy EVs but are put off by the price. Clearly, we should be taxed to make it easier to save the planet.
On the very next page is news of the latest BMW X7, a 5+m long, 2.4 tonne monster, minimum engine size 3 litre (Diesel of course), no hybrid option at launch. Further on in the same edition is a piece on the RR Cullinan SUV (really?), even bigger than the X7, with a 6.75 litre engine promising 18.8 mpg and costing up to £500K with all your options. The bad news is that this year’s production is already sold!
Somehow, AE doesn’t see the irony.
A conscience is fine, but business is business!!
A bit like the way Guardianlite (Daily Mail) have eco-campaigning stories
.. but then the whole back of the paper is adverts for cruises
..and they have a glossy supplement all wrapped up in plastic.
Same in the Times/Sunday papers ..loads of holiday adverts.
Paul
Front and centre on BBC News this morning.
“A keystone prey species in the Southern Ocean is retreating towards the Antarctic because of climate change.”
“Already there is some evidence that macaroni penguins and fur seals may be finding it harder to get enough of the krill to support their populations.”
“”It offers a profoundly adverse, but highly plausible, endgame for Antarctic krill that has serious implications for both the Southern Ocean food web and sustainable management of fisheries targeting this species,” she wrote.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46953652
From the article published in the journal Nature https://tinyurl.com/y9nr8nbs (free)
The clearest environ-mental covariate of krill density that we found was the Southern Annular Mode (SAM)
The Telegraph’s waxing lyrical about a new form of EV charging system. All you need is space for a shipping container and an address adjacent to a chlorine manufacturing plant. It’ll be green(ish, if you ignore the tricky bits), but at what cost?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/uk-firm-launches-fuel-cell-charge-point-electric-cars-will/?WT.mc_id=e_DM928229&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Car_New_220119_VarB&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_Car_New_220119_VarB_2019_01_22&utm_campaign=DM928229
Lyse Doucet has been in Mali, and decided all its problems are due to Climate Change not Islamist attacks
The battle on the frontline of climate change in Mali
taken apart by BigBrotherCorporation in a long post at January 22, 2019 at 1:09 pm
\\Extremely fat woman (clearly NOT starving) with ‘five young children’ (and probably more, older ones), says ‘worst rains in 50 years’ washed away her crops and then poured through the cracks in her mud hut, which had previously been damaged by an explosion created by (Islamic) militants.//
Hi Paul,
Interesting situation with power supply today – hardly any wind so not much output from the birdscarers, and due to shutdowns at various nuclear stations we are generating more with coal than nuclear. Looks like we are near the limit this evening looking at the gauges on gridwatch templar. Suspect if our dim MPs looked at that site they would not have a clue what was telling them !
Regards
Engineer John
Paul, have a look at GridWatch – it’s scary. I have taken a screen grab if you want it.
Yorkshire Post today have this dogmatic letter.
PR not science
\\ From: Professor Piers Forster,
Director, Priestley International Centre for Climate, University of Leeds.
AS a physicist, climate scientist and Harrogate resident, I respond to recent correspondence by pointing out that the sun is most definitely not the cause of the changes in climate and extremes of weather the world is currently witnessing.
Myself and colleagues are continually monitoring many aspects of climate including the sun’s output in detail.
Our instruments do not lie, fossil fuel emissions are the dominant cause of global warming and directly implicated in the increase of flooding, heatwaves, species extinction, melting ice caps and sea-level rise.
Acting now to reduce emissions is a win-win situation. We can save our environment, create new jobs, benefit the economy and improve the quality of our lives.
Physics doesn’t care about politics. Hopefully the solutions can also cross political divides. //
As usual the arguments are total projection
He has taken a full colour complex situation and applied over simplication and misrepresentation to build a simple narrative of his opponents.
Seems like PR science.
If you read from the bottom up
He argues sceptics are motivated by politics
Nope we are motivated by science
He maybe is motivated by politics.
The next paragraph up reads like PR “oh look green measures magically create jobs and prosperity”
Next paragraph
“directly implicated in the increase of flooding, heatwaves, species extinction, melting ice caps and sea-level rise. ”
that is a who list of claims each of which is challengeable in themselves.
“the sun is most definitely not the cause of the changes in climate and extremes of weather the world is currently witnessing.”
#1 claim that weather is more extreme than normal is challengeable
#2 The first part is a simplification , sceptics do not say that other things or CO2 dont contribute to climatic variation
..he is attempting to portray sceptics as saying ‘everything is due to the sun’
#3 By flat out denying that sun variations cause climate variations he shows he is doing PR not science.
A science argument could be that sun variations have limited impact, ..but saying they have zero is ridiculous.
You must have seen this, Paul:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/26/wind-farms-could-built-along-route-hs2-confidential-government/
I’ve thought for some time that most of our politicians are either hypocrites or on the gravy train. This suggests they could be plain mad if they’ll buy this.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
‘Great American Dying’ cooled Earth’s climate
“A genocide-generated drop in carbon dioxide”
Colonisation of the Americas at the end of the 15th Century killed so many people, it disturbed Earth’s climate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47063973
To my knowledge there is no credible, empirically derived evidence that CO2 causes the planets temperature to change.
Have these ‘scientists’ no shame??????
Heated discussion at –
https://theconversation.com/european-colonisation-of-the-americas-killed-10-of-world-population-and-caused-global-cooling-110549
Gridwatch is throwing up some interesting numbers this morning. Is there an equivalent gas grid screen?
Isn’t our coal phase out date 2030 ?
So how come the Germans are allowed to wait until 2038 ..and offer €40bn in regional compensation subsidies ?
Times
\\ Germany must find a way to replace more than half its electricity sources by 2038 as the government prepares to end a 200-year-old reliance on coal.
The move is expected to cost as much as €78 billion and cause turmoil for the 60,000 people whose jobs are linked to the industry.
At present 51 per cent of the country’s electricity is generated from atomic energy and coal. Under the new proposals, this would fall to 29 per cent by 2022 ..This means that Germany will have to make up almost a quarter of its capacity over the next three years, whether by importing electricity, buying more natural gas, or investing heavily in renewables such as wind and solar. (ha ha)
… jettisoning coal altogether as early as 2035, with €40 billion in subsidies to cushion the blow for the country’s mining regions.//
photo is of 5 “smokey” cooling towers ..yawn
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2019-01-29/world/pressure-on-merkel-as-germany-pledges-to-end-coal-power-by-2038-rtk3fstk5
… green dreamers get a kicking in the comments
This looks like it has more flaws than a dyslexic’s block of flats.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/airbase-set-to-become-the-first-to-be-powered-by-green-electricity/
BP have caved into activists
FT BP backs climate shareholder demands
Investor backlash against energy companies grows for their role in global warming
.. No one seems to be bothered about reading it
An interesting article in the Sunday Mail (which is a pity because that automatically disqualifies the content in some spheres):
https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-6661513/Climate-Change-chief-John-Gummer-faces-calls-quit-payments-green-businesses.html
But why stop there? Is Ed Davey MP, for instance (mentioned at least once on this site), still connected to “green” businesses, declared or not?
Paul – did you see the newspaper report this week that ‘researchers’ at UCL claim to have discovered the cause of the Little Ice Age 1350 – 1850? They claim European settlers in North America wiped out the indigenous Red Indian farmers such as to cause rewilding of the continent and hence a ‘sucking’ of the C02 out of the atmosphere leading to severe atmospheric cooling. Preposterous. I’m sure that you would have no difficulty demolishing this ridiculous ahistoric and ascientific nonsense. Steven Milloy calls a lot of scientists criminals and I’m beginning to think he has a point.
Orde Solomons
Spot the irony – the Church worldwide is claiming to tackle climate change but doesn’t seem to have spotted the opportunity of reducing their carbon footprint by abandoning candles. This doesn’t sound much till you hear that the Church, just in the UK, buys 10-12,000,000! a year of various sizes and specifications. What’s that amount to worldwide? Quite apart from the CO2 generated by burning them, there must be an oil-based starter product in at least some of them and also cotton in all of them. Load of hypocrites.
Radio 5 are hosting phone-ins to promote ‘Cool Planet’, their strategy to get the need for action on climate change both personally and globally. They had two scientists on this morning to answer questions about these topics. Perhaps Paul you like to offer to join in their next phone-in, I’m sure Nicky Campbell and his producers would jump at the chance to ensure that there is attention given to the BBC’s renowned balance in it’s programmes.
Just FYI – more stuff out there by the day: https://www.theclimatecoalition.org/s/RecipeDisasterReport_WEB_FINAL-ilovepdf-compressed-1-6sdy.pdf
New paper in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Volume 182, January 2019, Pages 31-38
Has global warming already arrived?
Authors C.A.Varotsos M.N.Efstathiou
It says in conclusion: “…it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities.”
This is a brand new article published today on the unsuspected Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics! The article has open access!
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1364682618305030?token=B5913FBB8716AB952054B509B3005ACCCD028509ABB9F3B4C0628BB9E720FC5715A484A23EFA4726793572E8E328890D
Paul, You know Hatfield Moors ? an insect scientist from there was appealing on Twitter for ideas for a climate action day workshop
The event is 30 miles east in Barton
Sun, 10 February 2019 10:00 – 16:00 at the Water Edge
Of course I wasn’t thinking of going, cos I expect it will all be alarmist propaganda,
.. But is it right to leave them to it, when they are using public money and all their dogma usually produces action that damages the enviro and actually increases CO2 ?
They use a video of Obama in their PR tweet.
\\ Project Wildscape is organising a one-day event for the general public to discuss climate change
Climate Change Workshop: 11-1pm with Dr Nicki Whitehouse, University of Plymouth
10-4pm: “Earth Arcade” – Games to save the world.
Delivered by Dr Chris Skinner, University of Hull. //
Project Wildscape itself is supposed to be about history
“project exploring the prehistoric landscapes of the Humberhead Levels”
They are funded by The Heritage Lottery Fund now the #NationalLotteryHeritageFund.
Funding history work is OK but not right to use public money to fund politics.
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/can-we-talk-about-climate-change-now-tickets-55089736886
maybe it’s Thorne Moors
Stew, you should go & be a ‘Thorne’ in their side,
Barton(on Mud ) used to be a bit of a hole 40yrs ago…it must have improved by now !
lived in Grimsby for 12ys so know the area.
EDF says it can’t afford to keep Cottam Power stn open
2GW coal PS
“More than 150 jobs could be at risk at a coal -fired power station near Retford that is set to close later this year. ”
are they bluffing to get capacity auction payments back ?
1pm Humberside news just featured gloating report with Andy Goss the Drax boss,
“Drax has announced a world first, the capture carbon from biofuels”
Harra has report
“Climate change: UK carbon capture project begins
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47163840
\\ The giant Drax power station, near Selby in North Yorkshire, has become the first in Europe to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from wood-burning.
Drax burns seven million tonnes of wood chips each year to drive generators to make electricity. //
(Why has Harra say Europe and not the world ?)
You may have heard about this book on the BBC this morning:
https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2019/jan/david-wallace-wells-on-climate-change-and-the-uninhabitable-earth/
Followed by an article on the invasion of polar bears in northern Russia. They forgot to mention that the problem’ll soon be solved, when they become extinct.
The BBC dragged out a new (to me at least), alarmist, author of “The Uninhabitable Earth” in an interview on the BBC news channel this morning. He seems to have taken “climate change” alarmism to new levels, using the most extreme predictions.
It is a disgrace that the BBC has given publicity to this extremist and his book, with counter argument only from presenters who don’t know what they are talking about.
He admitted in the interview that he had made no changes to his own dietary habits to help avoiding “climate change”.
Unfortunately there seems to be no link to the interview on line but it is worth watching the BBC to see if it is repeated.
https://twitter.com/dwallacewells?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-what-new-york-magazine-article-on-the-uninhabitable-earth-gets-wrong-david-wallace-wells/
Even so, the BBC gives him publicity on Breakfast television!
Looks like the BBC politics editor Rob Burley tweeted vid and then deleted it
https://twitter.com/RobBurl/status/1094888356075503617
I quote
\\ @BBCBreakfast today with fake “climate change author,” David Wallace-Wells.
His book describes what the “uninhabited world” will look like in 2100.
Great initial Q: To whom have you spoken to arrive at your conclusions?”
He said, “People like myself.”
Therein lies the problem //
Emm when even Mann calls him overly alarming
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-what-new-york-magazine-article-on-the-uninhabitable-earth-gets-wrong-david-wallace-wells/
Along with a lot of other scientists.
It is amazing that someone at the BBC thought this worthy of being broadcast.
Hopefully it will do more harm than good to the “climate change” cause and the BBC.
More climate alarmism:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47203344
These claims seem highly dubious:
“They say since 2005, the number of floods across the world has increased by 15 times, extreme temperature events by 20 times, and wildfires seven-fold. ”
If anything, concentration on “climate change” has detracted from other more serious environmental issues which is in way what they are saying:
“At least climate change features in policy discussions, they say – but other vitally important impacts barely figure.”
This seems to be a link to the actual report:
https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/age-of-environmental-breakdown
IPPR a science body or left wing thinktank ?
I quote their homepage.
“IPPR, the Institute for Public Policy Research, is the UK’s leading *progressive* think tank”
It seems that the actual source of the claim is the International Disaster Database, but I haven’t yet found the actual report.
https://www.emdat.be/
It appears that you have to register before you are allowed to access the database.
I have now registered with the emdat data base.
My initial reaction is that it suffers from lack of data prior to the 1970’s and that disasters have actually declined since the turn of the century.
I urge others to register, particularly Paul, if he has not already done so.
Yes, thanks
I looked at them a while back, and came to the same conclusion
Did you put it on your blog?
If so, how can they get away with such nonsense?
How can the BBC accept it without question?
I have contacted EM-DAT for comment.
Paul
“China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management”
Another greening study.
Sorry, abstract only.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7
You should have said that BBC page about IPPR report, has open comments
..So far 50 alarmists have piled in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47203344
Thanks, I didn’t notice.
you made a non-contentious comment
yet someone immediately downvoted it.
The best comments in that thread are the ones listed when you view by ‘most downvoted’
Deliberately non-contentious!
Although my latest comment is a little more sarcastic.
May cause some annoyance.
I now get an error 404: Page not found message when I try to download the full report.
Fortunately I had already saved a copy.
Can anyone else download the full report from here?
https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/age-of-environmental-breakdown
That link works
Its a menu page
I then selected the option for summary and downloaded it
and then full report , instantly downloaded it
And I’m on public WiFi
It works for me now.
Must have been temporary.
The date seems to have changed from since 2005 to since 1950!
I queried it with them, presumably they noticed the error.
And the BBC article has also changed, so they must have been in touch with the BBC.
I see they’re having another go at Glyphosate.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/14/weed-killing-products-increase-cancer-risk-of-cancer
This’ll be good:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/labour-plan-decarbonise-uk-green-jobs-climate-crisis
It’a already been dismantled by Paul, but another opportunity not to be missed? The pity is that it’ll be no good challenging Labour directly as they don’t (through their MPs anyway) respond. It may have to be done via questions to Claire Perry’s Dept.
Hi Paul, I was wondering if you could give any advice on where to find original unaltered historical data sets for sea and land temperatures?
They only publish the adjusted versions unfortunately
Here we go again:
https://news.conservativehome.com/t/r-l-jthtjull-kddritdlyh-q/
“We must do something.” All the usual suggestions and ignoring all the practicalities. All based on this report:
https://brightblue.org.uk/new-government-incentives-investment-end-dependency-on-natural-gas/
Action list includes:
Amend the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations and the Gas (Calculation of Thermal Energy) Regulations to enable a higher proportion of low carbon gases to flow in the gas network. They want to start using hydrogen, with all the cost ans safety implications.
The methodology for calculating the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of buildings should be changed. That’ll be a lot of use in the existing housing stock?
Increase the requirement for domestic gas boilers to be 95% efficient. And how many years will it take to complete transition to the new spec., and will it be before gas is killed off?
Introduce carbon life cycle assessment as part of public procurement procedures to drive the market for energy efficiency and renewable heat technologies in public estates. Ditto.
Establish a new district heat network regulatory unit in Ofgem. That’ll be fine when we’re all living high rise. Meanwhile, what about the existing housing stock?
“More or Less”, BBC r4 at 20:00 apparently has an item about climate change.
I listened so I would have some notes somewhere
Now on R4 MoL “True cost of the damage we are doing to the planet”
\\ Tuesday, Today programme listeners woke up to the news that the think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, had new statistics that showed the scale of the damage we humans are doing to the planet. It said that since 2005, the number of floods across the world has increased by 15 times, extreme temperature events by 20 times, and wildfires seven-fold. However, the IPPR soon corrected that date to 1950, blaming a ‘typo’, but climate change researcher and author of Six Degrees Mark Lynas tells Tim Harford why he thinks the IPPR’s numbers are still wrong.
The Labour Party says Victorian diseases are returning, but is austerity really to blame? Lizzie McNeill and Tim Harford find the case is not proven. //
I didn’t comment an more than that cos Lynas just made the points well, that we already knew, so nothing new to me
I have been attempting to post this on the blog about the BBC article, so far without success so I will try it here:
A reasonably unbiased report of this on BBC’s “More or Less”, yesterday and still on iPlayer for those who can access it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002hyq
I think it could have gone further but at least is elicited an admission from the administrator of the EM-DAT database that
it should not be used as evidence of trends in floods, although it is a pity that the don’t but that on their website as far as I can see.
I wonder if those passing comment on the original BBC article have listened to this programme.
[Weird!! This and the other comments were in the spam box- no idea why – Paul. Thanks for the link though]
Sorry I replied on the other blog topic before I saw this.
I wonder if it was because of the link to iPlayer?
Otherwise its probably certain key words in the text.
I have had problems with spam filters before but I could never find out what the key words were.
I don’t think it’s i-player, because it also rejected one without the link, didn’t it?
Another article about the makeup of bills and smart meters in the Telegraph.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/bills-and-utilities/gas-electric/green-taxes-smart-meters-profit-margins-extras-adding-550-energy/
On tonight’s “PM” programme on R4, there was an item about “fake news”.
After playing a video supporting the fact that the earth was flat, as an example, there was a discussion during which the presenter said:
“we know that the earth is round, that one is pretty clear, but most of the time knowledge is a bit fuzzy. Even on climate change, it’s only sort of 99.9% certain,
it’s not 100% certain.”
This implied that not believing in “climate change” was almost as stupid as believing the earth was flat.
I wonder where the presenter got that figure from?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002lv5
I don’t know who the presenter was (although I know the voice), because the BBC don’t seem to give that information on their website anywhere.
It may have been Eddie Mair.
About 41 minutes into the programme.
It wasn’t Eddie Mair.
Apparently he has left the BBC.
QV it was Evan Davis
I always have Twitter open on a search for @BBCRadio4 etc. when listening/watching a prog that way you can follow the comments
try BBCpm search also
Thanks, unfortunately I am not on Twitter.
Searching on the BBC website reveals nothing.
It currently says the presenter is Carolyn Quinn!
Clearly out of date.
BBC Recycled Bottles story
Looks like Harra has had his intern cutNpaste from a press release from CPRE (and their Dutch partners set to earn $billions from the sale of Recycling-machines)
My long comment is at February 18, 2019 at 11:42 pm
https://biasedbbc.org/blog/2019/02/17/start-the-week-open-thread-18-february-2019/comment-page-2/#comment-970529
Click to access bramble-cay-melomys-survey-report.pdf
“Mr Stewart’s grandfather, Mr Al Moller-Nielsen, has fished for mackerel in the waters around Bramble Cay over a period of 30 years. He described seeing dead seabirds with chewed wings on the island and had assumed the ‘rats’ were responsible. Mr Moller-Nielsen explained that crew members from more than one boat in the small fishing fleet that anchored in the lee of the cay would let dogs (including Jack Russell terriers) loose to chase melomys for exercise and to protect the birds. He said “they’d always get a few” and recalled seeing dead rats during his visits to the island. The exact dates of these observations were not available, although apparently they were made during the first half of his long fishing career at Bramble Cay, which commenced in 1983”
Not climate change but persecution evidently contributed to the decline in the population of these creatures to a level which was not sustainable?
Totally unbiased (not!) piece on today’s Politics Live, on the funding of think tanks, where Mark Littlewood, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, took a lot of stick. Funnily enough, the examples they used were all right-of-centre think tanks. It was suggested that any appearance of a think tank spokesperson, or report from one, should come with a health warning on funding, etc! Isn’t it ironic that some of the worst examples could be said to be Big Green agencies. Disappointingly, even the Tory-supporting panel member didn’t pick up on this obvious bias.
One for Stew’s blog?
When a storm wipes out the last remaining pocket of a species WWF PR calls that Climate Change extinction.
\\ A mammal has been declared extinct due to man-made climate change for the first time
The Australian government has confirmed that the species Bramble Cay melomys, a tiny mammal found only on an island near Papua New Guinea, is now formally extinct. The species was thought to have died out in 2016, with environmental experts linking its demise to anthropogenic climate change including changes in sea level //
ah QV has replied in the wrong box, it’s above.
Has there been DramaGreen entryism at the NFU ?
NFU sets out three-pillar approach to achieve net zero emission goal by 2040
Well they did put a woman in charge
\\ NFU president Minette Batters has set out a three-pronged approach to achieving the union’s goal to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture by 2040 // a full decade before most countries UN commitment
I guess farms will still burn a lot of fuel. but claim they are carbon neutral thru planting a billion trees and biofuel.
\\ She said “Simply doubling the volume of just 10 per cent of British hedges could capture almost 5 per cent of farming’s greenhouse gas emissions.”
The third part of the three-pronged approach is to grow biofuels which can be used to power carbon capture and storage systems, providing a renewable ‘engine’ to fuel the technology.
Ms Batters plan to reach net zero emissions has not been welcomed by all parts of the industry, with NFU Scotland president Andrew McCornick telling the NFUS conference two weeks ago he ‘disagreed’ with the NFU target, though was prepared to accept it is ‘aspirational and not absolute //
https://www.fginsight.com/news/top-stories/nfu-sets-out-three-pillar-approach-to-achieve-net-zero-emission-goal-by-2040-80064
After Paul’s demolition of Labour Policy, another idiotic idea to do the same with:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/21/end-gas-hob-government-advisers-say-new-homes-should-gas-grid/
I like the last paragraph of a comment by a Mr G Kolbe (which also contains a lot of useful stats):
If this was April 1st I would laugh and appreciate the joke. But it isn’t. This is the policy of a government minister who obviously has zero grasp of the most basic science – as does the rest of his department. He is living proof of re-incarnation. Nobody can get that stupid in one lifetime.
Also on the BBC, by Harrabin of course!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47306766
Paul
This puts the cat amongst the pigeons relative to climate change. Vastly more places for all those luverly CO2 molecules to hide in!
“Earth’s atmosphere stretches out to the Moon – and beyond.”
“A recent discovery based on observations by the ESA/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, SOHO, shows that the gaseous layer that wraps around Earth reaches up to 630 000 km away, or 50 times the diameter of our planet. ”
Website Link: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Earth_s_atmosphere_stretches_out_to_the_Moon_and_beyond
Posted this on the Honda thread:
Another angle:
https://capx.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=70dad7ea7e522c40e022c29da&id=52bad3bd61&e=7511d4c957
I lost interest a bit, though, when I got to:
Innovation among the established car giants has slowed with the cars of today not hugely different to those made 20 or 30 years ago.
What? That may be true in the US, but elsewhere, the only common denominator with today’s v/v cars of 20-30 years ago is that they have four wheels and an IC engine.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47311186
During a report about the “Giant Bee”, which had been rediscovered in Indonesia, the BBC announcer Shaun Ley said, “we had that report recently by concerned scientists about climate change taking away our insect populations”.
Actually the report he was referring was a review by the University of Sidney, which mainly blamed intensive agriculture and pollution, with “climate change” only third on the list of causes.
https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2019/02/12/insect-population-faces–catastrophic–collapse–sydney-research.html
“The authors found the main drivers for species loss are intensive agriculture, pollution and climate change.”
In the mind of Shaun Ley, “climate change” had become the main cause of the decline. This is yet another example of the total institutional bias towards “climate change” being the cause of all environmental disasters at the BBC. They can no longer distinguish between facts and their own propaganda.
Another example today!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47308235
The UN report lists “climate change” fourth on the list of causes but on the News Channel, the BBC promoted it to first.
Actually would say that “climate change” is insignificant when compared to the other four.
“So what’s causing the decline?
The report says that there are several significant causes or drivers of biodiversity loss. The main ones are:
Changes in land and water use and management
Pollution
Overexploitation and overharvesting
Climate change
Population growth and urbanisation
I noticed that on reports on this yesterday, the BBC started by emphasising “climate change” as a cause but gradually demoted it during the course of the day.
They actually has comments from one of the co-authors who didn’t mention “climate change” at all, although he did mention “pollution”.
Is it just me, or is everybody sick of the radio ads for smart meters, the virtues of which are extolled by an annoying, authentically-northern-accented woman (not racist, I come from The People’s Republic of South Yorkshire)? These adverts never mention that fact that these essential devices can go dumb when switching energy companies, thus rendering the benefits null and void. I’ve made a complaint on the ASA website and will report here on results.
Our discussion about the Maxine Peake adverts
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2663756?currentPage=3
Discussion about ASA
http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2707506?currentPage=2
Today’s cutNpaste PR is from the Tyndall Centre
The BBC are inevitably raising the question of whether current relatively high UK temperatures are due to “climate change”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47374936
They say it is likely to be one of the warmest Februaries since “records began in 1878”, once again ignoring CET.
This of course ignores the fact that the same weather patterns are producing below normal temperatures in other parts of the globe.
It will be interesting to see if the February mean CET exceeds the figure of 7.9c, set in 1779.
The current provisional figure for this Feb. is 6.7c to the 25th.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
Some of course are saying that this could be “the new normal”.
I might accept that when most Februaries are above average.
Paul, I hitched to Salford to see the TR event with my own eyes
and then on the way back ended up at Donny at the stadium Sunday car boot sale ..pretty big.
metrolibland is pushing PR for this
\\ new film The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind,
William Kamkwamba. At age 13, @wkamkwamba
built a windmill from textbook diagrams,
creating power for home during famine in Malawi //
There is a debate in the House of Commons tomorrow on “the UK’s progress towards net zero carbon emissions”.
I can no longer leave comments? The system no longer recognises me.
There’s nothing in the spam boxes.
I started watching the HoC debate this afternoon, opened by Libdem Layla Moran. I switched off when she claimed that “The IPCC say that we have 12 years before global warming rises above 1.5%.” If she doesn’t know how wrong that is, what’s the rest of her speech worth?
This is how it was recorded in Hansard:
“Leading climate scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have warned that unless we take urgent action we have just 12 years before global warming rises above the maximum limit of 1.5°”
I din’t know they had a clean up team.
Yes, Hansard often has to correct things MPs say in the H of C.
Without that they would look even more stupid than they do,
18:48pm BBC 1 Look North (Hull)
basically a massive advert for solar power by BBC’s @CrispinRolfe
‘Oh look Warrington Council is powering its offices and street lights entirely from a solar farm near Hull 118 miles away.
..all cos the west coast is too cloudy’
It contained the false claim that solar power is cheaper..
WC claimed to have negotiated a cheaper deal but bet overall if you account for the subsidies it’s more expensive for the taxpayer.
It also aired on the Leeds edition even though no local connection
\\ Warrington Council signs massive solar plus battery storage deal
https://bit.ly/2Vq2h8I
//
There’s a BBC newspage
Warrington Council to invest £59m in solar farms in Yorkshire
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-45803703
The item was also on the Northwest edition
\\ Working in #Warrington for @BBCNWT
on Solar energy, local council borrowing £62 million for acquiring solar farms in #Yorkshire.
They say its a good long term investment & will cut energy bills – what do you think? //
Also
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/02/28/warrington-council-sees-light-innovative-solar-power-venture/
Some claim that the scheme is subsidy free
I can’t believe that , as well as favours like priority access to supply the grid, theres probably a grant system etc.
Some more of what Layla Moran had to say yesterday:
“Climate Change is the biggest issue facing our planet. Extreme weather hit every populated continent in 2018, killing injuring and displacing millions.”
and
“The weather was lovely, was it not, but do we not remember a year ago, the beast from the east?”
Is she really saying that “extreme weather” and the contrast between Feb. 2018 and this year are due to “climate change”?
According to the Lib. Dem. website:
“Layla lives in North Oxford and is a Physics teacher by profession, formerly working as a Head of Year in an international school. Currently, she works with an Oxford-based Education company to deliver revision courses. She read Physics at Imperial College and holds an MA in Comparative Education.”
https://www.libdems.org.uk/layla_moran
I find it amazing that someone who has a background in physics and is involved professionally in education should spout such rubbish.
If this is what they are teaching in schools, it is no surprise that many children have a distorted view of the situation.
Unfortunately this is the level of indoctrination that has pervaded our education system for the last 20+ years.
“The science is settled” “97% of Scientists agree”
supported by the vast majority of the MSM and of course the “Impartial” BBC.
‘ooh oh the NASA website quotes 97%….”
…Ans, it doesn’t matter it’s still PR BS not science.
Of course, she is only 36 years old, so is a natural victim of the short-term view of the climate syndrome.
Mary Creagh, said this in the debate:
Soil is the only carbon sequestration system that is known to work at scale and for free, yet we keep treating our soil like dirt. [Laughter.] That was my little joke. Soil is the Cinderella ecosystem. We like clean air and clean water, but what we should really like is dirty dirt. The more dirt that is in our soil—I do not mean bad dirt; I mean organic content—the better it is. In Paris, we signed up to increase our soil carbon content by four parts per 1,000, but I have not yet seen any policy to support that, either in the public goods debate around farming or from the Minister. I would be grateful if we heard something about how we will incentivise farmers to achieve that and to incentivise urban guerrilla gardeners such as myself to achieve it in our own homes. If I knew how to do it, believe me I would.
Now it’s me who needs educating. Can anybody explain how this works?
A troubled #renewables #interconnector between #Scotland, #England and #Wales has been taken offline for the fourth time since its commissioning as protection systems “tripped”
The WesternLink was off on the 24th and is still off
No update on Twitter
We are thus paying £millions to windfarms to stay switched off
QV my main Twitter comment is by @No2BS..mainly climate affairs
I created BiasMonitor to comment on bias by media
Mr Homewood. Your site does a wonderful job in alerting we followers to the wonderful researched facts about global warming. The problem is of course that the average person doesn’t see the results of your hard work. I have a suggestion to make that will expand your following considerably (No I’m not selling!) I wonder therefore whether you might find time to contact me on my email. I will then put my ideas to you. Many thanks. George Lawson
Ministers mull cash for Tesla-style battery factory John Collingridge
March 3 2019, 12:01am, The Sunday Times
\\ Ministers are considering backing a £1.7bn factory to build electric batteries for Britain’s biggest car makers.
Talks are under way over state support for a shared “giga factory” — a UK version of Tesla’s huge battery factory in America’s Nevada desert.
The talks are understood to involve four of the big manufacturers — Jaguar Land Rover, BMW, Nissan and Geely. A shared factory would allow ministers to dodge concerns over unfair state aid as they would be able to claim it was support for an entire industry.
It would also allow manufacturers to share the huge investment cost, which few are willing to make alone.//
Sky News this morning:
https://news.sky.com/story/deep-ocean-live-climate-change-is-killing-the-oceans-coral-reefs-11654773
“Chloe Shute, a conservationist with Nature Seychelles, said: “This reef experienced two bleaching events in the past few decades, one in 1998 and one in 2016, both of which caused significant coral mortality.”
She doesn’t say whether this is a ratchet effect with more damage done each time, or wheher it recovered, only to suffer repeat bleaching.
UK carbon emissions lowest since 1888
https://weather.com/en-GB/unitedkingdom/science/news/2019-03-04-uk-weather-carbon-emissions-fall-sixth-year-in-succession
While this featured on the BBC News Channel, I can’t find anything on the BBC website.
Now all we have to do is get other countries to do the same.
CO2 stats are bogus anyway
that’s real CO2 coming out of Drax chimneys yet it us counted as zero if it’s from wood burning.
@QV it’s from CarbonPants (Greenblob PR agency)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-fell-for-record-sixth-consecutive-year-in-2018
\\ These findings are based on Carbon Brief analysis of newly released energy use figures from the UK’s Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).
The department will publish its own CO2 estimates on *28 March* //
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-fell-for-record-sixth-consecutive-year-in-2018
news is carried by Guido
Green Energy could really be called Austerity Energy
..cos you get far less energy for each £
Hi Paul,
I wonder if you have heard about Warrington council who are borrowing, I think, £65 million, to buy soilar panels which are to be installed in Yorkshire and will allegedly generate 49MW – I presume that will be the peak power. Given that subsidy for PV panels is about to end I cannot imagine how they will get a return on the investment once interest is taken into account. Would be interested if you have any data on this scheme which I can only assume will end up wtih council ratepayers footing the bill when the actual power is much less than the 49MW.
Keep up the good work – I look at your site most days
Engineer John
Any links?
Seems strange they are installing in Yorks!
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/17464355.major-solar-farm-near-york-to-provide-energy-to-cheshire/
It was on Look North last night but no longer on iPlayer.
Apparently it had planning approval.
Thanks
I’ve also found it in the Telegraph
Rule#1 always check to see if someone has already mentioned it
If you look a few posts above you can see I wrote about it
Unfortunately my Dashboard works in a different order!
I am viewing thro WordPress-Reader which yes arranges the posts old to new at bottom
but also has the convenience of keeping the page from being super long
cos it splits it into 2 pages
See if this works for you
https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/27436983/posts/2
Oh and my comment was actually saying “Hey @EngineerJohn I already mentioned this a few comments up the thread”
Further to my complaint to ASA (Feb 24, 10:50 above), I signed on to ASA reports and today saw this:
http://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/smart-metering-communications-body-ltd-a18-457472.html
It is very thorough and detailed and ruled in favour of a press ad because the savings claims were linked clearly to behavioural change**, whereas that was not so clearly the case in the radio ad, which was upheld.
The potential savings were based on data from BG and BEIS.
The action required for the radio ad (Ad(a)) was:
“Ad (a) must not appear again in its current form. We told Smart Metering Communications Body Ltd t/a Smart Energy GB that if making energy savings claims for smart meters they should make sufficiently clear that these depended on users monitoring their energy and making changes.”
**The ASA accepted that using the in-house display could be useful but NONE of the people I know who have smart meters ever look at them.
It’s a pity they didn’t also look at the issue of meters going dumb on change of supplier, if it was all down to the smart meters.
Ian, do you, or anybody else know, when these so called “Smart Meters” go dumb do they also lose the “Demand Management” remote switch off functionality or does your supplier retain the ability to “Manage your demand”?
Not a clue, sorry, but as it’s a comms. problem, perhaps that’s the silver lining.
Paul I just read the ASA and MSE report and wrote a comment on BH
Mar 6, 2019 at 1:25 PM
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2663756?currentPage=3
A frustrating read, Stew. What a mess, and at what cost!
Hi Paul, here is an update on Peter Ridds battle with James Cook Uni regarding his thoughts and comments on the state of the Great Barrier Reef and their subsequent dismissal of him. He mentions that he is currently writing a book on the poor science and the state of the Barrier reef.
I thought your readers might be interested in this update;
Update 11
Posted by Peter Ridd
3 hours ago
Share
1
Dear All,
Just letting you know that my court case is scheduled for 26-28th March in Brisbane. The main arguments of both sides have been submitted to the court and the James Cook University arguments will certainly make interesting reading when they become public during the hearing. My legal people have been excellent and I am confident that if this can be won, then they will do it.
On a philosophical note, in my opinion JCU will lose the ethical argument even if they manage to win on some narrow legal definition. If they win, it will mean that a judge has decided that a university has set up legally binding contracts that give them the power to effectively take away the right to intellectual freedom of an academic and silence him/her. That would be something of a pyrrhic victory. The university hierarchy may feel vindicated but the general public, especially those in North Queensland who are most affected by the questionable Great Barrier Reef science, will take a different view.
But without getting over-confident, I reckon the chances of us winning are considerably above average, so we will see.
For me the last few months waiting for the court case has been productively spent writing a book on the Great Barrier Reef. It documents why it is actually in excellent shape, looks at all the supposed threats to the reef, and with one exception shows that they are massively exaggerated. It documents some of the appalling “science” and explains how our science institutions, especially those of the Great Barrier Reef, have become so untrustworthy.
Thanks again for all the help, and we will let you know how it all develops. For those living close to Brisbane you would be most welcome to come to the proceedings.
Kind regards
Peter
Help spread the word!
The CPRE’s becoming as political as the other environmentalists:
https://e-activist.com/ea-action/enclick?ea.url.id=2145204&ea.campaigner.email=Zei9ZJDrFzZFe6UQik58FlESkN1MQhKC&ea.campaigner.id=A36ktPsKNfGZkArzVWMSmA==
“becoming”
No they have form … I did suspect the usual entryism trick where outsiders hijack an NGO
but when I checked I found the last long term president was well brainwashed into magical green thinking.
They have an office in the small town here
They were all in the square around a shiny reverse vending machine truck on a tour , lots of photos from the paper
I asked who was financing the tour … The Dutch company that makes the reverse vending machines … I see they have put finance into CPRE
… looks like corruption.
PS The campaign started on Feb 22nd
but take a look at the order of the tweets that tweeted that CPRE webpage URL
It was not CPRE , it was FrackFree-Dee who tweeted first
There has been no mass tweeting of it by CPRE
Here’s a similar list that brings up a couple of extra tweets of the link, by an account called ResistFracking
Analysis, 20:30 tonight on BBC Radio 4.
“What is the chance of the human race surviving the 21st century?
How can we successfully reduce threats from pandemics, natural disasters, climate change and nuclear war?”
It is interesting that they include both “natural disasters” and “climate change”, after all, I thought that all disasters were caused by the latter.
I would put the chances of the human race being made extinct by these causes at;
Pandemics 0.02%
Natural Disasters 0.01%
Nuclear War 0.01%
Climate Change 0%
There are probably others which are not on the list.
It will be interesting to see what conclusions the programme comes to.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000358s
prog repeated Monday at 20:30pm
13:45pm today The Age of Denial
\\ A Warm Winter
From credit cards to climate change, we bury our heads in the sand. Isabel Hardman explores our capacity to deny what’s in front of us. The idea of being “in denial” is well known to psychologists. But how does it operate at a community level?
The series begins in Norway, with a town where the response to the obvious impact of climate change was…silence.//
Is she the right wing Isabel ? ..no that is Isabel Oakshott
Hardmen does work on the Spectator, but also presents the BBC’s Week in Westminster show
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000357k
This programme covered such wide range, that is was difficult to assess the risk from individual “threats”.
I don’t think it was ever made clear how “climate change” would specifically bring about the extinction of the human race.
I thought that the contribution from Caroline Keulemans, the EU Specialist Climate Change at Netherlands House of Representative, was interesting.
https://nl.linkedin.com/in/caroline-keulemans-64b47028
I thought that conflating the issues of global population and “climate change” was misguided.
She was clearly in favour of curbing the world human population but was obviously feeling guilty about her single child, even though that is below the replacement fertility level of 2.1 children.
Trying to convince people to have fewer children for environmental reasons is unlikely to succeed, particularly as in some parts of the world, people go on having children in the face of genuine hardship, and much more immediate problems than “climate change”.
More to come next week.
Personally I think that the problem of a decline in biodiversity is a much more serious issue than “climate change”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0003cvz
It seemed me that just because people weren’t discussing “climate change” or anyone questioning the “facts”, were automatically classed as “deniers”.
On LBC this morning, a caller was extolling the virtues of heat pump heating systems. When asked about how hot heating water would get, he suggested that you could add or increase the size of the radiators. New physics? He admitted working for, guess what, a green energy consultant.
Greta Thunberg has just been nominated for a Nobel Prize. At least, in her case, she can be excused for her ignorance/innocence.
Found on the BBC website:
“Climate change: How people around the world are directly affected”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-47575165/climate-change-how-people-around-the-world-are-directly-affected
I suspect that most of the so called effects of “climate change”, are not related to the changing climate, but to other environmental issues.
Te following is a passage from Booker/North’s The Great Deception, about the EU. Check out the parallels with climate alarmism.
One of the hardest things for future historians to reconstruct about British attitudes to ‘Europe’ in the late 1980s and early 1990s will be the peculiar psychological pressure which had by now built up to make the benefits of Britain’s membership of the Community an article of faith which no rational person could question. In the worlds of politics, the media and big business, acceptance of ‘Europe’ had become an unchallenged orthodoxy.
In this respect the British supporters of ‘Europe’ caught something of that quasi-religious faith in the ‘project’ which had long been shown by its devotees on the continent. They were ‘believers’ in a way reminiscent of those who accept any collective religious ideology, taking for granted that it possessed an inherent moral superiority which brooked no questioning. The symbolism of ‘Europe’, centred on the altruistic ideas of selfless co-operation, ‘peace’, ‘ever closer union’, itself carried religious overtones. It was this which underpinned that all-embracing sense of ‘rightness’ which for many years seemed to carry all before it. Although to a degree this was deliberately engineered, by the skilful use of key words and phrases, the mindset it engendered became largely unconscious. One of its most successful tricks was to make the word ‘Europe’ itself synonymous with the form of government taking shape just at one end of it; so that any distrust of the political ‘Europe’ could be portrayed as xenophobic hostility to everything stood for by the wider geographical Europe with all its diverse people and cultures.
To support the ‘project’ was thus to be seen as ‘pro-European’, implying that this meant outward-looking, positive, internationalist, progressive, on the side of the future. Any ‘anti-European’ could be labelled as inward-looking, negative, narrowly nationalistic, fearful of change, belonging to the past. The EU’s sympathisers described themselves as ‘Europhiles’, which sounded upbeat and pleasant. Those opposing it were condemned as ‘Europhobes’, conveying that they were consumed with negativity. From within the ‘pro-European bubble’, even the most rational doubts directed at the ‘project’ condemned the doubter as ‘hysterical’, ‘embittered’, ‘fanatical’ or ‘swivel-eyed’.
Quote form one of the school children striking in Stoke, in tonight’s PM programme:
“In school we’re told to like look to the future and study for GCSE’s but what is the point if there is no future because of climate change?”
We have a new one – “Climate Hawk”. This piece says some of the right things but fails to question the basic assumption that carbon dioxide is the problem:
https://capx.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=70dad7ea7e522c40e022c29da&id=3a4fe340f6&e=7511d4c957
WordPress is pushing a couple of suggestion blocks at me at the foot of this page
*tamino’s Blog *
And another alarmist blog
from NTZ about untampered weather records
Japan flat
Ireland temp been dropping for 30 years
http://notrickszone.com/2019/03/17/global-warming-leaves-ireland-in-the-cold-emerald-island-has-been-cooling-over-past-3-decades/
Paul, Farage’s march arrives in Doncaster on Thursday night
I think I might come over and do the walk Wadworth – Worksop on Friday
and the Mansfield – Beeston on Saturday
https://www.marchtoleave.com/route
Another prediction of doom:
“Climate change: Water shortages in England ‘within 25 years'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47620228
Yet cc is predicted to cause more rain in winter and less in summer, and no annual change.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35037983
I was wondering how long it would be before Cyclone Idai was linked to “climate change”>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47638588
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-47673327/mongolia-a-toxic-warning-to-the-world
Another classic bit of ‘something’s happened therefore it must be due to climate change’ journalism from the BBC. This time it’s from Population Reporter Stephanie Hegarty. History and English graduate and obviously no objectivity. I sense this one fails on many aspects and quite how they come up with an increase in temperature of 2.2 degrees for the whole of Mongolia is anyone’s guess – I’d love to know what the standard error on that one is given the topography and extreme temperatures! Anyway – I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your notice – keep up the great work Paul
Paul Brooks
Another massaging-of-the-numbers exercise:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/25/coal-more-expensive-wind-solar-us-energy-study?CMP=share_btn_link
As a minimum, they seem to have forgotten the standby capacity required.
In an interview on “Beyond 100 Days” today, Janet Napolitano (Head of Homeland Security under President Obama) was discussing her new book, “How safe are we?”
When asked which she thought was the biggest threat, she said “climate change”, citing “more hurricanes” and “more tornadoes” as evidence.
It’s amazing what lies people will tell in order to sell a book.
Searching Twitter leads me to entire text of Breitbart story
\\ Wednesday on CNN’s “Right Now,” former Obama administration Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said climate change is a national security threat, the U.S. Mexico border is not.
Napolitano said, “One real threat is the impacts of climate change on our safety when we see extreme weather events when we see landfall hurricanes when we see wildfires. Those are going to continue to increase. We need to rejoin the community of nations and do our part to reduce global warming, and we also need to do much more by way of adaptation to the warming that’s occurred. Cyber-security is a real threat, extraordinarily complicated. Mass gun violence, propelled by lots of different ideologies, a real threat.”
She added, “What’s not a real threat to the safety and security of Americans is the southwest border. The border is a zone. It needs to be managed. It needs to be managed in accord with the rule of law consistent with our values. But we need to recognize that that border is a zone through which lots of travel and trade occurs and it needs to be managed accordingly.” //
The full interview is now available on the BBC iPlayer, at about 39 minutes in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0003m0g/beyond-100-days-series-1-28032019
nugget of info from radio just now
“The streets of London are CONGESTED with Uber drivers, driving old Toyota Prius’s with clapped out batteries,
.. so they are driving on petrol all the time, but DON’T need to pay the Congestion Charge”
Twitter #1
After a day of driving around Central London for the first time in a while, it was quite noticeable the amount of #Toyota #Prius on the road. Still the go to car to avoid paying the congestion zone fee. Only #EV seen 3 #Tesla Model X
Twitter #2
Central London is flooded with Prius , driven by Uber drivers , We don’t need them , the tube is good enough . They cause most of the congestion in the West End from what I can tell . Black cabs are a symbol of London , Prius’ are not…
Ha apparently cos of all the Uber’s the buses are less full, and therefore more subsidised.
(Buses : £722m highest bus subsidy in our history ..)
“The official figure for the standard Prius Hybrid (on 15-inch wheels) has jumped from 70g/km to 78g/km, meaning that cars sold from February 2018 will no longer be congestion charge exempt as the current limit is 75g/km.”
It is not clear that TfL are implementing this
Most black cab drivers are white and most Uber drivers are brown
.. is that the reason why Sadiq has failed to close the loophole ?
Re Christopher Booker
Paul,
It was with great sadness that I read the great man’s final article in the Sunday Telegraph today, after his decision to retire due to ill-health.
When the history of the AGW fiasco is written, Booker’s part should not be forgotten because he is the one major British media figure who not only spotted the stupidity of the concept and, perhaps even more importantly, its incredible economic consequences, but he has been unwavering in his desire to bring the lunacy to the attention of the British public, especially over the last 10 years or so, aided and abetted by your good self on numerous occasions.
For myself, from my original earth science background, I was always sceptical of AGW but it was reading Booker’s two fascinating and revelatory books – “Scared to Death” (with Richard North, 2007) and “The Real Global Warming Disaster” (2009) – that formalised my views and led me on to much research and the accumulation of knowledge since. I really don’t believe that my personal journey to enlightenment could have occurred without Booker. I only wish that even a small number of our stupid politicians and media leaders would at least try to follow the same path.
The saddest part of all this is wondering who on earth will now carry on the good fight in the media. I remember reading some tosh about Booker’s column continually repeating what was on notalotofpeopleknowthat but, as nobody else seemed prepared to stick their necks out and do it, we will forever be in Booker’s debt.
He will be sorely missed.
I followed much the same path, from being brainwashed by the BBC and MSM, Booker opened my eyes to bothe the catastrophe that the global warming scam is imposing on the western world and the disaster that is the EU’s fedaralist project. HIs book and Nigel Lawsons both explained the total futility and incredible expense of the global warming scam.
I did not agree with some of his later writings but accept that he had much greater knowledge than me and may still be proven correct.
His writings should have been compulsary reading for MP’s before they joined the house. If that had happened the UK would be a much wealthier nation.
Paul, Hysterical Climate debate on Radio Humberside now
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072r3pd
Prof Dan Parsons Uni of Hull is spouting masses of PR BS now
Now Arron Kylie from Friends of The Earth is on puking a pile of unsubstantiated claims
“12 years ..left ” etc.
Prof Dan just tweeted his support for the Climate Strike
Dan is engaging me on Twitter
In an ideal world I’d get him to live BBC Humberside debate against You or the Bishop
On Look North this morning, a climate campaigner was complaining about Ineos beling allowed to sponsor Tour de Yorkshire, being involved in fracking. All very predictable, but what I hadn’t heard before was his claim that “gas is actually dirtier than coal!”. One to watch out for, as a new line of attack? Safe to make it on the BBC, of course. No challenge forthcoming.
Talking of fracking, a recent convert (apparently, with qualifications) to fracking is Kevin Holindrake, MP for Thirsk and Malton. He had a post in a recent edition of conservativehome containing lots of errors:
https://news.conservativehome.com/t/r-l-jilubty-kddritdlyh-s/
Apparently last summer was good for Butterflies!
https://butterfly-conservation.org/news-and-blog/butterflies-bounce-back-in-heatwave-summer
Another conservativehome post:
https://news.conservativehome.com/t/r-l-jipjdjd-kddritdlyh-z/
They don’t say what “saving the planet” is costing council tax payers, nor how they power their refuse processing plant when the sun goes down. Comments suggest, though, that not everybody believes the propaganda.
Last weekend’s Any Questions in Bristol/BAE, featured climate change, where Caroline Lucas suggested personal flights should be limited to one per year or fewer, Kwasi Kwarteng gave a pragmatic answer, Labour sat on the fence and the BAE rep said “not us, guv.” Nobody there, or in any answers asked CL what she thought of 40000 delegates flying to far flung destinations fir IPCC meetings. Talk about hypocracy.
Heads up,
David Attenborough giving it large on climate… again
‘Climate Change: the Facts’
airs at 9pm on Thursday 18th April on BBC1
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-04-09/david-attenborough-bbc-climate-change/
The trailer on the BBC has Attenborough saying:
“We are facing a global catastrophe. Climate change is happening and happening fast. What can we do to avert a disaster.”, accompanied with the usual video of smoking chimneys, ice falling into the sea, falling trees, forest fires and dried up river beds.
If only the programme was going include some unbiased “facts”, but I fear the will only be the “facts” which support the alarmist viewpoint.
Now Legal & General leaps on the catastrophist bandwagon:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47941180
Blog entry detailing Rothschild illuminati owning tide height data and weather.com possibly to doctor weather station and satellite data. https://sinscienceandspirituality.blogspot.com/2017/12/is-global-warming-rothschild-conspiracy.html
Oh dear:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/04/16/rocketing-eu-carbon-prices-spell-big-trouble-careless-companies/#
Claire Perry MP endorses XR’s “science”
She’s obviously In the wrong party for starters…..
The BBC actually mentions CC in a positive way… Must be a mistake. 7th paragraph :-
“One scientific advisor to the DOC, Dr Andrew Digby, says scientists have seen bumper quantities of fruit on Rimu trees in recent years, an occurrence possibly caused by climate change. With so much fruit, many female kakapos have bred earlier and, in some cases, laid two clutches of eggs.“
Rare kakapo parrots have best breeding season on record https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-47960764
This won’t get much coverage on the BBC:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6941213/Jeremy-Corbyns-brother-calls-climate-protesters-deranged-holds-counter-demonstration.html
This won’t get any coverage on the BBC.
But I don’t think that calling it a “hoax” helps much.
Unfortunately I think that most of the proponents of “climate change”, genuinely believe what they are saying.
Good old BBC, positively drooling as they announce record Easter temperatures. Never mind the fact that Easter’s a moving feast and that this year it’s as late as it can be. Why spoil a good line with facts?
woke up this morning (22/4) to BBC Today programme at c 6,50 am with Nick Robinson interviewing Bill McKibben. Sorry . not an interview . A 5 minute unchallenged polemic . “the science is proven” .. “BBC do not allow climate change deniers” “millions of refugees…”. etc. etc… I missed the start .. I will listen to it again later on iplayer to get the full experience and check that i wasnt dreaming. .
But this seems to be the most biased item yet … You should listen and follow up. .I am going to complain to BBC . Deserves a main feature on this blog
and then now watching BBC News24 . “Weatherworld” c 09,30 . again bias. I have heard “Climate Change” mentioned over a dozen times. relating it to extreme weather, bird migration , seed banks (and plants going extinct) – again you have to watch it to appreciate,,,!!!
correction Weatherworld was part of of BBC News on BBC2 (although probably also on News24)
It is on the BBC News channel, is not always listed separately.
The next scheduled broadcast is at 20:30 tonight and at 03:30 on the 24th.
One claim I found slightly suspect was that a rise in average UK temperatures of 1/4 of a degree since the 1960’s was causing problems for migrating birds.
At a time when there is instant global communication, and just after they do a piece on XR, the BBC present the news from colombo, with a specially flown over news anchor. Irony doesn’t exist in the BBC!
Paul, if you have time I suggest you give a listen to Nicky Campbell on ‘Your Call’ yesterday. The subject was Donald Trump’s visit to the UK but widened to touch on many things, this included Mr Campbell referring to climate deniers (does anyone really deny that there isa climate?) and further calling those who question AGW or ACC ‘flat earthers’. I have complained to the BBC about Mr Campbell’s obvious bias on several occasions but with just the usual bland replies of effectively “Oh, we don’t think so.” Perhaps if you have a listen you may find sufficient to lodge your own complaint, you do seem to carry more import than the average listener. Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0004bb4
Like a lot of our leaders and betters (if not smarters), he fell for Saint David’s propaganda piece. I hope The Donald gets his RedTeam study underway as soon as possible.
I hear that NASA have detected a ‘Marsquake.’ Enterprising lot, that Ineos!
Hi Paul, Sorry about going on on this, but is there any chance you could organise a “Go to latest comment” button at the top of the page? Its fine as is if you want to make a comment but a bit of a chore, especially on the phone, if you just want to catch up.
Thanks,
Ian
I find that if you just press the END button , it takes you to the bottom.
See if that works
Thanks, Paul/Stew (see below). As noted above, the problem is solved on my PC by clicking on “leave one”. Hitting END gets me there as well, but in two bites (?). I’ll check out the Inoreader on my phone, if I can, as I can’t see a “leave one” link there. I’ll also check out the wordpress account idea.
Thanks again,
Ian
My last comment hasn’t been posted yet but I see I missed the “leave one” button. I was thinking about the phone, where the comment box appears right at the top (on Samsung, anyway).
@Ian You can try an web app called Inoreader
that lists comments with the latest at the top, even replies.
Or You could try opening a wordpress account and use that to follow blogs.
For Paul’s Blog it loads faster and the post comment box appears at the bottom just below the latest comment
Latest Ho-Hum
Click to access Cutting_climate_impact_of_land_use.pdf
Farmers have a bigger, more immediate problem – payments for what they actually doing now are as much as 2 years overdue. Making the changes suggested in this report, set in that context, are laughable.
Paul you may be interested in the response I have received from the BBC following my complaint about the recent programme CLIMATE CHNAGE – THE FACTS!
Thank you for contacting us about ‘Climate Change – the Facts’ and your concerns surrounding the accuracy of the programme.
Dear Mr Medlock
Climate Change – the Facts represented the work of a wide range of scientists from the UK and US, as well as other countries, demonstrating the scale and scope of scientific endeavour and thinking around this complex subject.
Their interviews were based on their research, describing what it has revealed and in some instances expressing personal reactions based on their deep insights. The overall content of the programme was also based on peer reviewed scientific research, which was rigorously checked by an independent scientific consultant, a leading academic at University College London. Inevitably in a 60 minute programme there were some subject areas which could not be addressed in greater detail or which we did not feature.
The vast majority of climate scientists agree on the fundamentals of human induced climate change and this was reflected in the film. As climate change is accepted as happening, the BBC no longer seeks to ‘balance’ the debate by interviewing those who do not agree with this position.
There are many complexities in communicating climate change to a mainstream audience; the film sought to balance potentially alarming scenarios with scientific analysis on attribution (the extent to which extreme weather events and other phenomena such as sea level rise can be linked to climate change), climate modelling and projections of what may happen in the future (in which inevitably there are many uncertainties) and actions aimed at reducing carbon emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change going forward. While Sir David Attenborough drew on his own experience of reporting on this subject over many years, he also balanced a sense of urgency with optimism that there are ways of addressing the serious issues we undoubtedly face.
We hope this helps to address your concerns and we thank you for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
BBC Complaints Team
So now we know!!!!
And the propaganda’s working. On Newswatch this morning, they aired complaints that the BBC isn’t covering CC often enough! The presenter interviewed Harrabin, who made the point that news has to be news and that repeated shots of collapsing glaciers, etc turn people off. He also admitted that sceptics no longer get any air time.
That prog is the same PR fakery that Feedback used before “BBC/XR Climate Allarmism week”
Pretend question “Is the BBC doing enough on CC ?”
Real meaning “We BBC are mad activists and are merely setting the ground for our mad activism”
.. I bet their actual complaints show they get complaints of too much coverage.
@John Medlock : You got the generic reply
see https://cliscep.com/2019/04/26/cliscep-v-the-bbc-round-1/
Deforestation continues:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48037913
Of course this is mainly due to population pressures but linking it to “climate change”, is doomed to failure as claims become increasingly disproved.
Bjorn Lomborg on his Facebook page draws attention to an approved Geography study book by an exam board for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. He posts a schematic of doom and destruction from the book.
https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg
I’ve just ordered it from Amazon!
9:50am Russia Today RT has coverage of Putin in Beijing announcing his plan to DOUBLE gas transit through eastern Russia.
…. That’s probably why Putin’s little helpers Extinction Rebellion are not working today,
they are celebrating China buying Russian gas instead of western pseudo-green lalaland energy solutions.
XR and Emma
https://www.altnewsmedia.net/news/the-riff-raff-are-just-so-awful-darling/
Apparently it is only “deniers” who are responsible for “climate change”>
Axa have a Green virtue-signalling advert on Talk Radio
making the improbable claim
” ocean-acidification is causing fish to lose 50% of their sense of smell”
I guess it comes from their Sky doco
I wish someone would stamp on this egregious nonsense. Less alkaline is NOT acid! It is less Alkaline! This is the sort of thing these idiots should have learned in science class aged 12! This is Basic, absolutely basic science and no one is challenging such a fundamental misuse in the media. No wonder they get away with it if no one pulls them up. I have to say though that this is the standard for most of the pap being claimed to have science behind it!
The real problem facing earth’s biodiversity, and its nothing to do with “climate change”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-48142018/what-does-a-biodiversity-emergency-mean-for-humans
Unfortunately, this is being conveyed in terms of its effect on humanity, rather than the species which may potentially be made extinct.
The simple fact is, the human species has expanded beyond the level which the planet can sustain it and allow other species to co-exist.
BBC The ClimateZombie army that never sleeps
7 pages of PR for IPBES report “Nature Crisis”, “Nature Emergency”
I can tell it’s PR cos stories that have nice round numbers like “upto one million”, always are PR
Googling : The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
gives me
Nature loss: Report to show scale of ‘silent crisis’ – BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48160456
2 hours ago
has spent the last three years working on the …
Nature crisis: ‘Shocking’ report details threat to species – BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48169783
Four things to expect this week – BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-48146615
Nature’s emergency: Where we are in five graphics – BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48104037
* What does a biodiversity emergency mean for humans? – BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-48142018/what-does-a-biodiversity-emergency-mean-for-humans .
* Identical page with a slightly different title
Why nature’s crisis is one for humans too – BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/48142018/what-does-a-biodiversity-emergency-mean-for-humans
Biodiversity heroes: The teenagers saving Madagascar’s wildlife – BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48113501
3 days ago – With its somewhat ungainly title, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) will publish a …
It’s one million of what total ??
If reports as they do, fail to put that important context, then they are just PR
Everyone knows there are millions of undiscovered species
Such that total living species are somewhere between 2 million and ONE trillion species.
Its ok, this story will now be lost in the blanket coverage of the latest “Royal Baby” story, which is obviously much more important.
The same day that another species loss is announced, there’s the news of the royal birth. The press coverage will go big on what the baby will be wearing because it will have a massive impact on sales of such garments. Sustainability? What’s that matter, when you have the chance to ape the royals? Parallel universes.
This is a speech which took place in HoC last Friday. What absolute C**p they talk. James Heappey is my MP and will be getting words from me.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-05-02a.372.6&s=speaker%3A25438#g379.1
I like the way he wants to claim carbon offsets on his expenses!
Paul,
ScottishPower Renewables (which, despite its name, is Spanish-owned) has fingered Friston, on the Suffolk coast, as the “most appropriate location for development” for the base required for its offshore windfarms in the North Sea…
Here, covering 30 acres, will be the infrastructure necessary to connect the powerlines with the national grid. I can’t think of any more heinously inappropriate site: a towering industrial horror that, in that flat, sandy landscape, will be visible for miles. The Suffolk coast is an area of exceptional beauty and fragility, first settled in the Bronze Age. Villages are still small. The local towns, such as Aldeburgh and Southwold, are famous for their charm, and much visited. Often the tallest thing to be seen across Suffolk’s marshes and sandlings is the tower of a medieval church. The loudest noise at the RSPB reserve of Minsmere is the boom of the bittern. Next door is the Suffolk coast and heaths area of outstanding natural beauty: the impact of the development could be so adverse that it could lose its protected status.
From https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/scottishpower-wind-farm-consultation-sases-worries-1-5955116
Campaign group Substation Action / Save East Suffolk (SASES) say the substation will have a “massive impact” on the area and are deeply worried about the cumulative impact of all the projects being planned as part of the east coast being marketed as an “energy hub”.
A spokesman for the group said: “We still need answers as to why East Suffolk is facing a tsunami of seven major energy projects over the next 10-plus years.
“ScottishPower are calling this their ‘final’ consultation, but it seems like nothing has changed, it’s getting worse.
“ScottishPower’s paperstorm of over 16,000 pages, is a case of quantity over quality. The Planning Inspectorate, which is meant to be the guardian of the planning process, is failing to hold ScottishPower or National Grid to account.
“Energy companies need to show they can respect the unique landscape of East Suffolk, the Suffolk coast and the communities that choose to live and work here.”
SASES claims the energy sector has “no long-term strategic plan for the transmission of electricity whether generated by wind, nuclear or other sources” and this will blight east Suffolk unless tackled urgently…
Suffolk Coastal deputy leader Geoff Holdcroft said the Friston site would have “significant adverse impacts on the landscape, heritage assets and the local community”, while Suffolk County Council said it was “gravely concerned”.
The Méteo France site is showing the lows for May 6 here
http://www.meteofrance.fr/documents/10192/72974410/CAR_OBS_Q_FRANCE_TN_20190506.png/92d26f86-fae9-4c46-b8d8-ef6c4f7a4bfc?t=1557234147005&json=%27type%27:%27Media_Image%27,%27titre%27:%27Carte%20des%20températures%20minimales%20observées%20le%206%20mai%202019%20en%20France%27,%27alternative%27:%27Carte%20des%20températures%20minimales%20observées%20le%206%20mai%202019%20en%20France%27,%27legende%27:%27Carte%20des%20températures%20minimales%20observées%20le%206%20mai%202019%20en%20France%27,%27credits%27:%27Météo-France%27,%27poids%27:%27123,3ko%27
The average for France as a whole was 10= lowest for “early May” since proper records began in 1947. The lowest was -3.8° in Loir-et-Cher and sub-zero temps even in Bergerac. Some mountain readings set new records but I don’t have details. Here in Saone-et-Loire we escaped with 0.3° which is by a margin the lowest May temperature I’ve recorded in the 10 years we’ve been here.
Thought you might be interested.
Hello Paul
Many thanks for all your research.
I have written to my MP detailing the fraud and corruption in the climate debate, together with the evil of brainwashing children.
I cannot find a CONTACT box on the site but if you or any readers would like to use parts of it I am happy to share it.
YP : NT to increase Puffin surveys off the Northumberland coast
While quite rare, puffins return each year to the Farnes to breed, where they can be seen in quite large numbers.
In 2018, 43,956 pairs of birds were counted on the Farnes.
in more northerly locations puffins are now in decline due to lack of sand eels
The NT manager said warmer seas are driving plankton further north
that 44K total is quite a lot, when at the same time XR moaned about the Hebrides/Orkney? island declines
Scientists test radical ways to fix Earth’s climate:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48069663
What can go wrong?
I notice the way that this is being portrayed on the BBC News Channel is along the lines of :
“Radical NEW ways to “repair the climate” and “reverse global warming” are being considered…”
For a start, I don’t think they are “new”, since most of them have been suggested before and rejected as being unfeasible.
Also “reverse global warming”?
Does the BBC really know what is saying, i.e. make the world colder?
It’s not the ‘climate’ they need to fix: it’s the weather – for the next 30 years!
One of the most over-used words in politics in recent times is “crisis” but there’s a word I fknd myself using quite a lot lately. Take the USA:China trade dispute and Brexit, both of which ate causing the Chancellor concern because of the likely impact on the economy and trade. Surely, he should be welcoming the slowdown if it’ll help our CCC-imposed objectives?
I forgot to say the word! It’s HYPOCRITE, of course.
He’s at it again:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/need-urgent-global-response-plague-plastic/
He says a lot that I agree with, like:
A lack of waste collection in developing countries creates dumps of rubbish that provide ideal breeding grounds for rats, flies and disease-carrying mosquitoes. Rain collecting in plastic food packaging is considered notorious for the breeding of dengue-carrying mosquitoes.
But spoils it with such gems as:
Now a report … shows that 400,000 to one million people are dying every year as a result of mismanaged waste.
And:
Plastic is cheap because the fossil fuels used to produce it are heavily subsidised. In the G7 alone, this amounts to more than $100 billion.
He’s got a very good point as to why the planet’s in such a state, but with his other hat on, he would prevent the very economic development that would address that problem.
One way to call out such BS
is by installing Dissenter by Gab and tagging the page as BS
so other Gab users can see
Thanks, Stew. I’ll have a look at Gab.
Here is the eight in my ‘deep climate’ series as posted in Friends of Science. It deals with Europe’s electric vehicle juggernaut.
6:50pm Alarmism from BBC Look North, Hull edition
“You can help save the puffin from extinction”
… Don’t be daft puffins are not that endangered
BBC P Murphy kept sayong Climate Change, Climate Change
They want photos of puffins eating
https://twitter.com/BBCPaulMurphy/status/1128705256295141377
This weeks “Costing the Earth” on BBC R4 was about “Eco Anxiety”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00050qr
It seemed to me that any anxiety on the subject was caused by exaggeration of the problem by those making claims about climate change.
One claim made several times was that “hundreds of species” were being made extinct every day by climate change. Of course, no examples were given.
Is there any factual basis for that claim?
The programme also makes reference to the following paper by Prof. Jem Bendell who contributed to the programme. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet.
Click to access deepadaptation.pdf
Also during the programme. Prof. Bendell said: “we saw in the summer of 2018, disruption to agricultural production across the western hemisphere”. being the new normal.
Again what is the factual evidence for this assertion?
Was agricultural production significantly disrupted during the summer of 2018?
Then there’s CPRE:
https://e-activist.com/page/message?mid=55b2707bc02740298455a06c91ac70c5
Among other issues, it mentions: “The air in our cities is dangerous to breathe.”
I live in a cul-de-sac very close to a school, so it fills up and empties twice a day, a bit like the tides, and I often see parents sitting in their cars with the engine running. My council’s recently approved its Local Plan, which contains many references to climate change, air pollution, sustainability, etc. I’ve asked my councillor to find out what the council plans to do about the “climate crisis”, particularly in this context. If I get anything back at all, I’m guessing it’ll show it’s all just virtue signalling.
This is an interesting, if worrying, read, with parallels in the climate change sphere:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/17/now-right-wing-has-twisted-mean-racist-need-new-political-language/
label/smear/dismiss … a common PR trick
It’s the Ad Hom of Dehumanising your opponents
instead of tackling their arguments
.. It’s fascist of course
And another downside to EVs:
It’s not clear to me whether there’s an onboard generator or battery pack. Either way, another expense and hit on the fuel economy of the RAC vehicle.
The comments are interesting.
Surprisingly little coverage of this on the Today programme, where for some reason the death of Niki Lauda was given much more coverage, including top billing on news bulletins.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48337629
I am not so sure how “new” this study is, since it says in the artlicle:
“The IPCC report in 2013 only considered what is “likely” to happen, which in scientific terms means they looked at 17-83% of the range of possibilities.
This new study looks at a broader range of results, covering 5-95% of the estimates. ”
Surely it is simply looking the least likely estimates.
Good laugh here at the expense of Greta (not cruel, IMO): https://order-order.com/#:Rpp-csZYJFcSuA
That think just goes to the Guido homepage not a specific article or comment
Ah yes I guess you meant the Full Will Franken video
..as mentioned in the comments here
You have to feel sorry for these poor renewables investors:
https://www.investmentspace.co.uk/renewable-bonds-1/
I may have a bit of that.
As true scientists can we all please spell the linear measure as ‘ metre’. A meter is a scientific instrument.
Call this home education? The council and the paper are indulging a cult. https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/norfolk-children-present-handwritten-letters-on-climate-change-to-city-hall-1-6065531
In an interview with the Labour education secretay on the Today programme about including “climate change” as a core subject in the National Curriculum this morning, John Humphries said:
“Everybody, at least everybody with six brain cells, understands that there is a climate change crisis.”
Well John, maybe those with only six brain cells “knows” that, but people with more than six, who actually check the facts, think otherwise.
The problem is, everyone at the BBC, has so isolated themselves from the sceptical side of the argument, that they are totally unaware that there is another, valid, point of view.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00057rg
About 77 minutes into the programme.
Interview with Angela Rayner,
“Everybody with six brain cells understands there is a climate crisis”
Rayner “careful Donald Trump ..you are at risk of dissing him”
Humph “I take it ”
A date range Twitter search yields six Twitter discussions
“Everybody with six brain cells understands there is a climate crisis”
I totaly agree with that statment,..
But anyone with more than 7 brain cells knows there is no crisis !
Saint Greta
https://twitter.com/mauser98k2/status/1131815941875130369
This fits in
https://www.thegwpf.com/climate-change-and-the-ten-warning-signs-for-cults/
Paul you should follow the BBC corrections page
https://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications
It has this
My guess is their trick was to look back to a time when international floods were not recorded much,
So they are comparing apples with oranges.
The smart meter correction
I spot no proper connection note on the web story
Just the normal trickery using a Stealth Edit.
See edit phase 3 of 6
There is of cost to the screwups
2.5 million meters, 15% of those installed not working.
The total overall cost is £11bn so the BBC said 15% of £11bn is £1.7bn
But the put it right cost might not be that full amount cos
#1 a portion those dumb meters, might be able to be fixed by a future software update.
#2 The cost of replacing some by Smets2 should be lower that first time.
Saturday June 1 Radio4 8pm
#BiasedBBC continues its joint XR #FakeGreens project
with Alice Roberts spitting #GlobalWarming propaganda in your face
by taking over the Saturday Archive show
A Saga of Trying (and Failing) to Save the Planet
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005mpm
Don’t you have an account I can tweet to Paul ?
“From ridicule to hero: The history of the eco-warrior
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/c5c82250-9aad-4533-9a3f-43cf37e27d46
Paul,
A couple of shockers from the BBC over the last 24 hours:
Firstly, this from their news app (apologies, I can’t get the link to work) :
Climate activism failing to represent BAME groups, say campaigners
Black people and those from minority backgrounds are being left out, some campaigners say.
I’m really sorry but I must be too thick to conflate “climate change” with racial discrimination and I find this bizarre.
Secondly, an article by Packham from that “gift that keeps on giving” – Springwatch. First episode Monday night, BBC2.
You will recall that we have been relentlessly informed for years that spring is getting earlier and earlier due to “climate change” and indeed viewers have been encouraged to send in their stories about how such-and-such a tree is in flower or a bird or butterfly appears earlier and earlier in the calendar. Without the merest scintilla of embarrassment, however, Packham reported how, in 2019, various birds such as the cuckoo and swallows were actually two weeks later than average but this was simply down to an unusual phenomenon called “weather”. One is inevitably led to the conclusion that, in recent decades, all changes were due to “climate change” but in 2019 – no siree!!! – it is simply “weather”.
I can’t wait for the 2020 spring – which will no doubt be early – and look forward to the scientific explanation for that.
Their Twitter thread where they say which photos they will use
Their BTO blogger tracks late arrivals
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/natureuk/entries/649bdc51-c950-4e67-b488-7bf72fa46bfc
Puffin watch
\\ Seabird numbers have been given a dramatic boost after a conservation project to eradicate Lundy of rats began 15 years ago.//
\\ Number of puffins on Lundy Island rises from less than 20 to 375 after £50,000 project to exterminate killer rats
Puffins almost became extinct on Lundy, after rats were eating all their eggs//
Manx Shearwater up from 297 to 5,504//
https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/now-lundy-island-rat-free-2913613
The erection of five 125-metre-high wind turbines and associated infrastructure were allowed on cliff-side agricultural land at Orkney, Scotland for overall accord with the development plan and material considerations strongly supporting the permission, despite significant effects on seascape, landscape, visual amenity and archaeological assets.
Never mind the bird killing.
13 bird reserves
https://www.northlinkferries.co.uk/orkney-blog/birdwatching-in-orkney/?fbclid=IwAR0Z82QWiVHxmYGvDy6rArhVS7LgIzMQnUTaWfqSSZRdVnsjOv_vOHGnDF4
Rory Stewart, May 28th: “The ice shelf if disappearing at 10 times the rate people thought”. Anybody know what he is talking about, cos I don’t think he does?
search Twitter to get headlines
The Indy carries something similar to this one
“a key part of world’s largest ice shelf in Antartica is melting 10 times faster than expected”
… yeh maybe undersea volcano ?
Listen to The Stress Test on Radio 4 – http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005f7d
“Vivienne Parry and resilience expert Dr Sandra Bell find out if we can keep the lights, and everything else, on in the face of a series of surprising but credible future shocks.
What are the possible causes and consequences of a lengthy, widespread power cut in the UK? Solar flares, geo-political changes and sudden climatic shifts are on various people’s watch-lists, and would dramatically stress our energy supply system, possibly to breaking point. A panel made up of those charged with energy security, and those who advise them, work together to keep the UK running in a variety of scary scenarios.
We find out how our current decisions could make our future selves, and our children, safer. And uncover the hidden costs of possible changes – financial, social or environmental.
Panel:
Keith Anderson, Chief Executive of Scottish Power
Professor Jim Watson, Director of the UK Energy Research Centre
Simon Virley, Head of Energy in the UK government between 2009 and 2015, now partner and head of energy at KPMG
Fintan Slye, Director of the System Operator at National Grid.”
Some realism, but not much from a bunch of paid-up climate alarmists. Interesting to hear them talk about relying on the Short Term Operating Reserve when the Grid goes down without once mentioning the word “diesel”.
I heard bits
There was irony at 10pm on BBC News
actual Power Cuts in Venezuela
..cause Mad Socialism
Back to that R4 prog
Yeh they did Solar Flares
and then some activist was hanging on
“We have to account for the cost of not acting”
… then other BS
provokes the question How much money has UK Climate spending saved so far
How many lives has it saved
In Quality adjusted lifeyears ?
The petition can be found at
http://www.mariacaulfield.co.uk/bringcop26tolondon
\\ Maria Caulfield MP May 23
Please sign our Parliamentary petition calling for the UK to host the next global climate change summit, COP26, which will see world leaders setting out the next stages of the Paris Climate Change Agreement.
@CEN_HQ //
…Em get lost we can’t cos it will increase UK CO2
can’t you do it online ?
To get action you can either do meaningless chat on a blog
..or you can use entryism to hijack the resources of huge largely tax payer funded NGOs
Another one just fallen is the Museums Association
April 2019 \\ The Museums Association (MA) has pledged its support
to Culture Declares Emergency (CDE)
as part of its commitment to the ethical and sustainable future of museums.” //
Some nutter is founding a a Climate Museum
Now TWO week non-coal electrcity record claimed
\\ If you ignore the coal burned to make the 10% of energy we imported //
The picture the BBC uses is not of a pure coal power station
but of Drax power station which burns coal and WOOD
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48473259
Paul – when did the BBC and the Met Office stop using the expression “man made global warming” and start referring to “climate change”? It is such a meaningless statement isn’t it.
Do you think the warming pause or the failure of all the 1980/1990 predictions have caused a change in their position
Paul,
http://www.infrastructure-intelligence.com/article/jun-2019/work-begins-new-dawlish-sea-wall
Article on the work being started on the addtional sea defences at Dawlish which they are raing 2.5metres to sope with rising sea levels and climate change.
Just spotted this story. If it translates into real world product, could increase electric car sales significantly?
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/106508/new-battery-will-give-electric-cars-over-600-miles-of-range
PR not news
\\ development and commercialisation process expected to take between three and five years //
Rule is #1 it doesn’t work unless they show you a working model
#2 if battery tech is comng then no one should buy an EV today
..they shoukd wait until this magic tech comes in.
#3 what resources are required?
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/06/09/inside-bulb-london-start-up-hoping-bring-green-energy-masses/
Bulb being promoted as a renewable only energy company in the Telegraph today.
This week’s referral link gets youand the friend you refer £150 each off your bill
That discount like the subsidies is paid by magic unicorns
…nope of course the customers are the ones that pay in the long run.
Puffin alarmism as a proxy for Cliamate alarmism
BBC Radio4 PM is doing a series on the Isle of May Puffins
– previous episode oh ExtremeWeather will kill them in winter
Tonights episode at 17:39pm was monitoring the sand eel eating
see @IofMayBirdObs on Twitter
It’s also done as a podcast, but one of the two will have tricky editing
7 episodes
Today’s episode ..Puffins are coming back with food,for their chicks ..some are intercepted their fish seized and measured and puffin kept for a while to measure etc.
The puffins don’t get their food back
So the research is not zero impact.
(dunno why the thickos don’t just photo the fish and send the puffin off in a few mins)
The researcher ( Mark Newell @cehseabirds) says the fish are smaller over 25 years
most common category was 50-60mm
25 years ago was most common category 60-70mm
explanation “plankton relies on cold water , so warmer temperatures makes plankton less common” hmmm
“so puffins are having to work harder, so its mre difficult to rear chicks”
So in the winter the parents and chicks are weaker and have less resilience against extreme weather”
Isee he’s on Radio Scotland as well
“The researcher ( Mark Newell @cehseabirds) says the fish are smaller over 25 years
most common category was 50-60mm
25 years ago was most common category 60-70mm
explanation “plankton relies on cold water , so warmer temperatures makes plankton less common” hmmm”
“hmmm” indeed. Surely the more likely reason for the fall in the size of sand eels is because they are taken commercially in vast numbers to make fish meal, with the larger fish less able to escape the nets. Did Newell consider, or even research, this possibility ?
I bet the puffins are actually competing with other birds for the same fish
. so the bigger picture is more complex.
Tweeters are speaking of 40K then 80-100K puffins on the Isle of May alone.
I didn’t hear the prog make it clear that on the Isle of May Puffin numbers declined and then came back up.
“Huge numbers of rabbits on the Isle of May this year-”
UK numbers
424,318 Operation Seafarer (1969-70)
488,763 Seabird Colony Register (1985-88)
580,714 Seabird 2000 (1998-2002)
UK Population estimate (AOB Apparently Occupied Burrows)
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2966
Something special about May , every decade there is a year wil a sudden low return rate from overwintering
Graph : http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/images/puffin_isle_of_may_return_rate_2015_v_Variation_1.gif
typo : Something special about May , every decade WITH a sudden low return rate
I know he is a simple nut-case, and really quite impervious to alternative or moderating ideas, but I really felt Charles went over the top, and deep into politics in this 8 minute video.
Indeed, if Charles wanted to do a parody of himself, he could not have done much better..
Youtube comments are closed
and 3 tweets of URL have no discussion
There is no Twitter discussion either
But what is interesting is that Prince Charles appears to be running a lobbying org
The Prince’s A4S @princesa4s
“The Prince’s for Sustainability campaign”
Something that looks like “Common Purpose” another global syndicate
They’ve put up the same vid on their hysterical Youtube account
..It has open comments zero so far
( I don’t advise doing that, cos then they’ll know we are on to them)
That 1:30pm item on Radio2 Vine Show
The Good Energy guy seemed to be saying that the other firms are just buying REGO certificates for 30p per MWh
..whereas Good Energy are supplying only full renewable themselves
.. Vine said so your energy is 100%
..the guy hmm’d
and a third guy challenged on gas and the Good Energy admitted their gas is not 100% renewable cos there is just not enough in the market
but we’d be pretty sure that even Good Energy still doesn’t have enough 24 hour electricity so probably buys some REGO’s
Good Energy’s Twitter thread
AFAIK If I own some wind farms I could also retail leccy to industrial/domestic customers
So I sell the actual the leccy to a factory say on a non-green energy account
then I sell my REGO’s for that electricity to Shell Energy who balance that against the domestic electricity they sell to customers on Green tariff who are really getting gas generated electricity.
Fairly concise piece in the Telegraph about the avbsolute futility of Theresa May’s plan to waste £1,000,000,000,000.00 to acheive the pointless aim of Net Zero emissions of CO2 by 2050.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/10/theresa-may-spend-1-trillion-pointless-policy-climate-madness/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
Is this South Australia MkII or could it actually work, and who’s paying for it:
https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&cx=007466294097402385199:m2ealvuxh1i&q=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/10/scottish-power-build-vast-battery-improve-wind-energy&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi90MTt9-DiAhWIyIUKHRDyAPcQFjAAegQIAhAC&usg=AOvVaw1VxDC0YQr_n7N_0HNgq4LE
actual url, articleis by Jillian Ambrose
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/10/scottish-power-build-vast-battery-improve-wind-energy
============
BBC : Super battery’ for Scottish Power’s Whitelee wind farm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48582270
It will be able to achieve full charge in less than half an hour.”
“The battery can been fully discharged or used in bursts as and when required to keep the electricity network stable by balancing supply and demand.”
“By integrating storage technologies with onshore wind, we are blowing away one of the myths about renewable generation not being available when you need it.”
@Golf adds : They seem to be assuming that the wind goes from zero to maximum efficiency for wind turbines, at the flick of a switch on a diesel generator. It would be interesting to know whether this massive battery facility does have “emergency power”.
An article in the telegraph has a graph in the middle of it that implies that Sweden is 74.9% ready to switch to a sustainable, affordable, reliable enery future!
The UK apparently is at 70.2% ready.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/15/ministers-accused-reintroducing-consumer-subsidies-onshore-wind/
Oddly there is no real explanation for these figures.
Another panic in Greenland:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/18/photograph-melting-greenland-sea-ice-fjord-dogs-water
There was another in the Guardian about a large gas find near hull:
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/201713/new-onshore-gas-discovery-potentially-uks-largest/
Will reality trump hysteria?
Solar companies feeling the pinch?
http://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/bt-solar-ltd-a19-549757.html
The Guardian in full flow today:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/18/polar-bear-russia-siberia-norilsk-climate-crisis
Where’s Susan Crockford when you need her?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/19/march-of-the-under-10s-generation-growing-up-as-protesters
Apparently,. 10-year-olds are good at spotting fake news!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/19/britons-want-faster-action-climate-poll
Nobody’s asked me, though you’d think the number was 100% after lidtening to the useful idiots on Any Questions singing the same tune.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/19/uk-firms-face-deliberate-disruption-hit-zero-carbon-goal
Sheffield used to be a “Nuclear-free Zone”. It could soon be an Industry-free Zone, which would solve the horrendous, council-generated traffic problems.
BBC News reporting on this story about Spy satellite imagery taken of the Himalayas in the 70s https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48696023
I listen to LBC, despite the adverts, one of which has irritated me no end, though. It’s for the Evoque and is now in print:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/land-rover/range-rover-evoque-review-posh-new-baby-suv-returns-rule-school/
I rarely agree with George Monbiot (in fact, never, till now), but think he’s on to something:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/20/cars-cities-land-rover-pollution-urban-spaces
I’ve asked my Libdem councillor: Noting their concerns about air pollution and the school run behaviour in the borough, shouldn’t the council and Mayor Jarvis be writing an open letter to Landrover regretting their silly advert?
Shouldn’t the Libdem HQ be sending something similar to Mayor Khan?
I’m not holding my breath.
Paul, I got an email this morning advising that the HoC will debate the ‘Public inquiry into the bias in the BBC’ petition on July 15. Link here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/234797.
Supporting evidence for the case could be the list of attendees at that notorious Chatham House conference which persuaded the BBC not to give airtime to sceptics. I did have a copy of that list though whether I still have I couldn’t say. If anyone can do an analysis of those who attended, the majority of whom were not scientists as the BBC claimed, it might be worth briefing as many MPs as possible.
I’m a bit hamstrung because I’m currently not living in the UK but I will be in touch with a few ‘sympathisers’ who can apply a bit of pressure.
This was the list:
http://omnologos.com/full-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-seminar-on-26-january-2006/
Paul – did you catch up on this – excellent post. Unfortunately something is stopping me getting the source paper.
Id like to think that in the future intro and conclusions will be illegal on papers – just the method and results.
Paul,
Have you come across Jason Enfield? He’s an independent environmentalist who campaigns against wind farms. Interesting article here:
http://jasonendfield.weebly.com/home/isle-of-man-sea-bird-populations-plummet-as-wind-farms-overwhelm-the-irish-sea#comments
Steve
Paul,
I am writing to Ofcom about the BBC policy on reporting Climate change to argue that current government policy initiatives cannot be adequately debated by the public when the major provider of news will only report one side of the argument. I want to add that part of that one side of the argument is frequently fake news promoting alarmism.
With your permission, I would like to use the work that you do and I seem to remember a recent summary of your complaints against the BBC that have been upheld. If you could send me a link to that (and any other info that would help), I would be very grateful.
Thanks,
Peter
This is the main list:
Then of course there was the Attenborough programme:
You are welcome to use all of this work
Oh, goody! Sky’s caught the climate alarm bug and is running a feature all day. Apart from the “fact” that wind is now far cheaper than ANY other energy source, how do you feel about being lectured on taking fewer flights by somebody soaring over the UK in the basket of a propane-fired hot air balloon?
Just switched on to Sky News (Monday lunchtime). OMG!! Not only is Sky having a “climate change week” but they have started with a long, emotional article on Fairbourne and “Britain’s first climate change refugees”. Just where have their researchers been on this debunked fairy story? How many times do the likes of you Paul need to go over the facts, not least the point that Fairbourne’s houses are built on soft sediments hardly above normal high tide levels and therefore stupidly sighted in the first place and on the actively moving Irish Sea coast?
This just isn’t a story that stands up to the slightest analysis but that doesn’t seem to bother Sky in the least.
Sorry for the long link, I can’t paste the image. Basically, are we in the west going to go down to car ownership levels of the Third World or are they going to come up to ours, despite the “Climate Emergency”?
Thanks Paul.
There’s conference coming:
http://t.email3.telegraph.co.uk/r/?id=h7aeff7d8,2e136f6e,2e136f81&WT.mc_id=e_DM1038635&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Tec_New_TechIntel&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_Tec_New_TechIntel_2019_06_25&utm_campaign=DM1038635
“Our strapline is this: we convert carbon into money.”
The opening language suggests carbon dioxide must have been invented by the Nazi Party but the ideas look interesting. There’s stil the challenge of scale and cost, though.
In the meantime, according to Sky, if Heathrow III gets built, that’s the end of airport development in the UK. Reactions to that will be interesting. Of course, one response will be that we up north don’t need any more airport development – we’ve got HS2! We need this sort of pronouncement to wake the less-than-100%-committed up.
Paul,
here’s a cracker from McDonnell.
Outbreak of megalomania in the leafy Surrey hills! Mole Valley District Council declares a climate emergency!
Paul,
I thought you might have a chuckle at this ludicrous letter sent out by one Hazel Watson – a leading light in the new Lib Dem regime in the Mole Valley district of Surrey (containing Dorking and Leatherhead).
It’s delusional, self-important clap-trap from start to finish and, inevitably, she confuses plastic pollution with climate change.
It would all be hilarious were it not for the fact that dealing with the emergency will inevitably add cost to ratepayers’ bills.
Such is life in Climate Emergency Surrey it seems.
Mole Valley District Council: A New Direction under the Liberal Democrats
Mole Valley District Council took a step in a new direction at an Extraordinary Council Meeting on Tuesday 18 June when it declared a “Climate Emergency” and committed to do everything in its power to play its part in the global environmental initiatives and become carbon neutral by 2030.
In adopting this approach, the District Council committed to review the way it, and those who provide services on its behalf, operates as the world strives towards achieving carbon neutrality.
It will now drive ahead with policies and programmes that will ensure that our area plays its part in delivering effective measures to help safeguard our world from the damaging effects of global warming.
As first steps, the District Council has started investigating a number of practical measures, including:
• obtaining green energy supplies for all council consumption;
• assessing the emissions from Council buildings and ways to reduce them;
• considering how the council and its contractors can stop using glyphosate;
• bringing smart travel to the district, engaging with Surrey County Council to achieve this; and
• developing new web pages of practical advice for residents on how to reduce their own carbon footprint.
It will also be seeking to provide more electric car charging points in the area in order to promote the take up of electric cars amongst Mole Valley residents and will be looking to reduce the use of single use plastics in Mole Valley through the introduction of drinking water dispensing points where reusable water bottles can be refilled.
Overall, we plan to lead the District Council in finding real life practical solutions to mitigating the effects of modern consumer living. We believe that people are becoming increasingly aware of the imminent threat of climate change and we aim to encourage Mole Valley residents to support and join us in this critical endeavour.
We understand that climate change is a global emergency. We cannot just sit by and let it happen. We can be a leader in the fight against climate change, and to do this we have to act now to create a clean, green and carbon-free Mole Valley.
Best Regards
Hazel
Hazel Watson
County Councillor for the Dorking Hills.
This newsletter goes to over a third of the homes in the Dorking Hills. Please feel free to share it with your neighbours who may not have received it.
Want to know more about what we are doing for the Dorking Hills? Visit my Website or Facebook Page by clicking on the buttons below.
Will you donate to help us campaign in the Dorking Hills? Every £5 or £10 helps us to campaign for what you want to see happen in our area. If you do, click on the “Donate” button below.
Hazel Watson’s Website Link
Hazel Watson’s Facebook Page Link
Donate: Help Us Campaign in the Dorking Hills
Copyright © 2019 Mole Valley Liberal Democrats. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this e-mail as at some stage you have provided your e-mail address to County Councillor Hazel Watson or the Liberal Democrats and in doing so have opted into our mailing list. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, our apologies – please click on the unsubscribe button and we will remove your e-mail address from our mailing list.
Our mailing address is:
Dorking Hills Liberal Democrats
27 Highacre, Dorking, Surrey RH4 3BF.
E-mail: hva.watson@btinternet.com
unsubscribe from this list
Published and promoted by Michael Watson on behalf of Hazel Watson and the Liberal Democrats, all at 27 Highacre, Dorking, Surrey RH4 3BF. Printed by Mailchimp.
Councillors maybe be put their own name in
Here’s put a copy
https://mailchi.mp/cc2c0485f0cd/mole-valley-declares-climate-change-emergency
See the video tweet and the way a resident replied
It turns out that the greenhouse effect is caused by convection and not radiative gases:
The worlds news is saying that it was 45C in Paris. Not what it says here:
http://www.meteociel.fr/obs/classement.php?archive=1&ua=&all=1&mode=4&pays=fr&jour=28&mois=6&annee=2019&mode=4&sub=OK
Yes a bit strange isn’t it ?
Yet AFP does carry the story Gallargues-le-Montueux 45.9C
some sources say 45.8C
It’s very close to Nimes
On your list there are two Nimes stations one reads 44.4C , other 44.1C
GLM is 1.5C higher
It’s always a bit strange when the record site is so much higher
On Twitter some French people are talking about GLM, but not that many
On Twitter I spot RamiAbukalam A BBC arab guy in London who doesn’t speak perfect French is fishing twice for quotes from local residents
He asks if they speak English, so I guess he wants English audio.
Paul,
Two speeches given in the HoL by Matt Ridley. Both will, I’m sure, appeal to you, especially the second, with your accountancy credentials.
My Lords, I declare my interests in coal but also in renewable energy—wind and wood in particular. I am genuinely shocked by the casual way in which the other place nodded through this statutory instrument on Monday, committing future generations to vast expenditure to achieve a goal that we have no idea how to reach technologically without ruining the British economy and the British landscape. We are assured without any evidence that this measure will have,
“no significant … impact on business”—
but where is the cost-benefit analysis on which this claim is based? Where is the impact assessment? They do not exist. We are told that the Treasury will run exercises in costing the proposals after we have agreed them, but that is irrational. Who among us in our private life says, “Yes, we’ll sign a contract to buy a house, and only after the ink on the purchase is dry will we try to find out the price of the house”?
We are faced with a measure which is likely to cost at least £1 trillion on top of the £15 billion a year that we are now spending on subsidies to renewable energy. Let us remind ourselves just how big a sum £1 trillion is. If you spent a pound a second, it would take you 30,000 years to get through £1 trillion. You would have had to start before the peak of the last Ice Age, when woolly mammoths and Neanderthals roamed across the tundra where we now sit. Now we are talking about spending £1,000 a second for the next 30 years.
The Committee on Climate Change says that the cost will be even higher. It assumes that UK GDP will have almost doubled, from about £2 trillion to about £3.9 trillion a year by 2050, and that we will have been spending 1% to 2% of GDP every year between now and then. That means that we will have spent between £30 billion and £60 billion a year for 30 years: a total of £900 billion to £1.8 trillion. That number has been described in this debate as “manageable” and “affordable” by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. It has been described as “nickel and dime” by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. But hang on a minute—where does the Committee on Climate Change get the estimate of 1% to 2% of GDP?
5.30 pm
On behalf of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, to which I am proud to be an unpaid scientific advisory panel member, Andrew Montford has been trying to find out how the CCC reached this cost estimate—and he has got nowhere. He has been referred to many documents which repeat or otherwise restate this number, but none that actually calculates it. He has referred to a statement that gives 1.3% of GDP as an estimate of the sum of the resource cost, yet there is no breakdown of the resource cost. My noble friend Lord Deben says that it is all set out in detail. In fact, it is not: it is impossible to get at how this calculation was arrived at.
It is important to note, by the way, that this £900 billion to £1.8 trillion is arrived at by comparing hypothetical policy scenarios anyway. This allows the Committee on Climate Change to soften the overall cost of decarbonisation by netting off energy efficiency savings. But these would be pursued anyway, so it is not right to do that. The CCC also ignores the deadweight losses from taxes and subsidies, which are likely to be a significant extra cost.
Let me give your Lordships an example of just how much of an underestimate the 1% to 2% of GDP might prove to be. Take hydrogen. The Committee on Climate Change places great emphasis on hydrogen: it mentions its importance in electricity, in heating, in buildings and in industry. It thinks that we will need to burn about 8 billion kilograms of hydrogen a year by 2050. It estimates that 80% of this hydrogen will have to come from reformed natural gas. So, when process losses are taken into account, we would actually end up by significantly increasing both our fossil fuel consumption and, of course, our emissions—all of which would make carbon capture and storage absolutely indispensable to this net zero ambition, as I and others have said in the past. Where are the constructive plans to do this at a reasonable cost? Silence.
If the environmental movement is really serious about zero emissions, it must embrace either nuclear power or carbon capture. Renewables and behaviour change will not work. One is physically impossible, because of low energy density, and the other is politically impossible. Most British homes are heated with gas. To replace that with electricity and bring all British homes up to the most energy-efficient standard would cost around £2 trillion, according to the Energy Technologies Institute. That is £2 trillion on homes alone.
What will be achieved by all this spending? We will not prevent floods, storms or drought: they will always happen. We will still have to deal with flooding, even if we get emissions to zero. Nor is the purpose of these plans to bring down global emissions. We have no hope of that—we are 1% of global emissions and others are glad to export to us from their low energy cost economies. So we would mainly be exporting our emissions and living the good, green life on China’s fossil fuels. The only remaining purpose of this measure—and we have heard it again and again here today—is to set an example to the world, to be the shining city of virtue on a hill. Who are we kidding? When the Prime Minister goes to the G20 meeting this weekend and asks others to follow suit, she will get very few takers. Japan has just announced another 20 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations. The EU has already rejected this very target since this instrument was tabled. America, Australia, Brazil, China, India—none of them will pay the slightest attention to what we do here today. This is not soft power, it is soft in the head.
There are real environmental problems in this world: the overfishing of the oceans, plastic pollution, invasive alien species, and the conservation of the curlew and the red squirrel in my part of the world. These are urgent and important. They need money, but it will be a pittance compared with the sums we are talking about. Yet they are starved even of that pittance because of the coalition of preachers and profiteers who have climbed on the climate bandwagon and demanded a limitless budget.
We need to look at these costs alongside the cost of doing nothing—that is, the cost of damage by climate change. This is called the social cost of carbon and is an estimate of the total harm done by emissions now and brought forward from the future. That metric is not mentioned in this order or in the Committee on Climate Change’s report. The best guess in the current scientific literature is that the social cost of carbon is about $45 per tonne, which is roughly the number that the Obama Administration were using. Can my noble friend give us his department’s estimate of the social cost of carbon? What is his department’s estimate of the abatement cost per tonne of the net zero ambition?
Once we know those numbers, we can know whether we are getting value for money with this expenditure. Otherwise, we might be committing to a climate policy that is actually more harmful and costly to human and planetary well-being than climate change itself—which would surely be irrational. I fear that hasty and ill-supported commitment making of this kind is the sort of thing that provokes judicial review. The Government should pause, think this through and do a proper cost-benefit analysis before they commit to this policy.
Before I sit down, I will address some of my noble friend Lord Deben’s remarks. Some years ago the Committee on Climate Change published on its website a personal attack on me, claiming to refute some points I had made in this House. It did not have the courtesy to inform me that it was doing this and it refused to tell me who had written it. It contained material inaccuracies and a quotation from an IPCC document that had been doctored to remove a critical clause which confirmed the accuracy of my remarks. I pointed this out to my noble friend but he refused to correct the errors—so I shall take no lessons in accuracy from him.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2019-06-26/debates/804DA01C-D0F5-4B59-BDB5-8C55743B2B4D/ClimateChangeAct2008(2050TargetAmendment)Order2019#contribution-85A5233A-7A0A-4604-B60E-703F9AC2C620
More hypocrisy:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/06/29/britain-set-lead-way-space-tourism-race-uk-space-agency-change/
[T]he UK Space Agency has confirmed it is drawing up regulations to allow sub-orbital human spaceflight, with Virgin Galactic the most likely candidate to take tourists beyond Earth’s atmosphere where they can experience weightlessness and see the curvature of the planet.
Is this instead of Heathrow III?
Hi Paul, Check out Churston school in Devon’s website. They have employed a climate change teacher, promoted by the U. N. Obviously part of the plan to misinform children as thoroughly as possible.
Ooops!
https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/03/new-study-in-journal-of-earth-sciences-human-activities-not-responsible-for-observed-co2-increase/
Paul,
nice little example of the impracticality of EV’s from Brexit Central.
https://brexitcentral.com/the-european-parliaments-fleet-of-chauffeur-driven-cars-shines-a-light-on-the-paradox-of-the-eu/
Hi Paul
I from Canada and I am getting picked on in Huffpost Canada. Where can I go you get real temperature data for Canada that goes back into the 1800’s. I had it once but don’t know where I got it from. Even Envir. Canada is taking out the high temperatures from the 1930’s
You could try Knmi:
https://climexp.knmi.nl/start.cgi
They give daily and monthly data, but only for a limited no of stations.
Then there is Giss for monthly
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/stdata/
I forgot to give you my email geo5204@yahoo.ca looking for Canadian temperature data for Canada
Paul More BBC claptrap. Breakfast c 6.15 today. Feature on how major archaeological sites on Orkney (Scara Brae etc) are in danger from sea level rise .. 1 metre by end of century! You should have a BBC specific thread just for us to record all the BBC tv and radio propaganda and lies !!!
and 7.08 new record temperature of 32C in Alaska… “which is in the arctic circle!!” “very worrying” but Naga did not mention global warming ,,, someone should be sacked for that oversight.
But whilst this implies that this is new record for Alaska , a little research shows this is a record for Anchorage only. Alaska has had higher temperatures .see >. https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/sweltering-heat-wave-produces-all-time-record-high-in-anchorage-on-independence-day/70008741
So nothing new. And just the usual BBC approach… dont let the truth spoil a good climate change story
Having just read the Christopher Booker expose of BBC lies (as linked on your obit page) is anyone continuing the documentation of the BBC bias? somewhere where we can add these lies each time we find them ?
oh 7.26 BBC repeating the Orkney sinking story again
in fact . i envisage a BBC bashing site . At least 2 threads .. one on Global Warning Bias linking here , one on Brexit Bias (linking to Guido or similar articles), and other areas of bias as necessary (LGBT…XYZ whatever it is these days, “modern” teaching and the left wing education “blob” , anti Christian etc etc )
@MJR we hve specific topic threads threads over on BH
Log of BBC Climate bias
In practice most stuff is highlighted on
https://biasedbbc.org
Keeps track on Twitter writing a post with the tag #biasedBBC
Also install the Gab Dissenter browser extention
cos then when you look at any webpage and find bias, you can tag it
..so fellow gabbers can see your debunk
other topics are listed here
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion
Paul,
Cracks beginning to appear in green’ism?
Admission EV’s might never be the panacea we are told?
Public transport solves all (In cities of course)?
And it’s actually reported by Harrabin!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48875361
comments are closed now
as most moderators don’t work Sundays
Looking at lowest rated
eg \\ Green activist Harrabin banging the drum again. The only electric vehicle that successfully solved anything was the milk float. Unfortunately, delivered milk is so expensive everyone wants to drive to the supermarket to get it cheaper.
Economics of the real world getting in the way of green fantasy, again.//
\\ In the future nobody is allowed to have any personal freedom or fun unless you have shedloads of money or you are a high-profile green campaigner!//
(10th most popular comment)
We win the top comments also
\\ Let’s ve quite clear: electric cars are not pollution-free with respect to their energy usage. They just move the pollution from the exhaust pipe to the power-station. //
The 8th most popular
The 9th most popular got deleted
This website tracks such deletions, but I didn’t catch it
http://www.ihysdb.com/Home/Home
Paul I put all my notes about EV-PR Girl over on
BiasedBBC July 9, 2019 at 6:23 pm
stewgreen I could not find a link on BBC bias pages to the crowd funding to challenge BBC. I think it should be shared more
Actually it did come up : A news poster called Right Angle posted at 12:48pm on Wednesday …
That was the first I knew about it cos I don’t read ConservativeWoman everyday
(Daily I read here, BH, B-BBC, Times & Yorkshire Post ..and usually itBBCb)
It was on itBBCb but I am behind
https://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.com/2019/07/bbc-appeal.html
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stopbbcbias/
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/stop-bbc-bias-stage-one-achieved/
I not sure I support a legal challenge, cos it will likely be a stitch up.
..and probably a road to nowhere.
If you monitor a prog live ..and tweet the presenter/producer , you can get an item corrected there are then
..even not, it still means a lot of Twitter users get to see your correction.
The ASA have ruled on a challenge to FoE’s claims about fracking:
http://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/friends-of-the-earth-ltd-A17-401802n.html
FoE won, thanks to a very well resourced and argued defence.
“Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find “Man-made Climate Change Doesn’t Exist In Practice””
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice
Very worth a read.
A couple of interesting articles:
https://capx.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=70dad7ea7e522c40e022c29da&id=fe66a09651&e=7511d4c957
https://capx.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=70dad7ea7e522c40e022c29da&id=5ed223a2a3&e=7511d4c957
The proposal in the second one would be a lot more useful than planting windmills?
More BBC hypocrisy. As if the Travel Programme wasn’t enough, when they’re predicting climate doom at every opportunity, they’re now suggesting we get on a plane to go eat:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006vw5
Paul
In an email from Uswitch today:
“ENERGY: Ready to join the green energy revolution?
Most of the electricity produced in the UK in 2019 will be renewable, for the first time since the industrial revolution. Find out how to switch to a green energy plan that could be good for the planet and your pocket.”
If you provide me with an email address I will forward it to you.
This is appalling misrepresentation.
Complained to the ASA.
Noticed UK uSwitch making spurious claims…
uSwitch: “ENERGY: Ready to join the green energy revolution?
Most of the electricity produced in the UK in 2019 will be renewable, for the first time since the industrial revolution. Find out how to switch to a green energy plan that could be good for the planet and your pocket.”
and have complained about it…. (thanks for the links!)
“Dear uSwitch
I wish to formally Complain about your erroneous marketing.
In your latest circulation, you seem to suggest that “Most of the electricity produced in the UK in 2019 will be Renewable, for the first time since the Industrial Revolution”.
This is of course arrant nonsense, and I’m not sure who you think you are kidding.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/updated-energy-and-emissions-projections-2018
My requested Outcome – remove it and apologise profusely and abjectly in your next distributed email, debase yourselves if possible.
Best wishes”
Dominic
Follow up your complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.
The process is quick and easy.
Paul
just had a speed read of –
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-07-15/debates/AF16A1B4-E52D-46BC-9EEF-555F504FD7B2/BBC
debating (re e-petitions)
bias in the BBC,
the abolition of the licence fee,
restoration of free TV licences for the over-75s.
97% of ‘debate’ was about TV licence;
2% congratulating each other;
1% saying stuff like –
“we ought to remember that the BBC’s news coverage is looked at around the world as a beacon of straightforward, unbiased news reporting. As a country, we ought to be proud of that. If it has a bias, it is probably towards London,”
So our glorious leaders have spoken…we all have to pay to fed lies false news & propergander (gander poop !!! )
On Monday parliament debated the petition “Public inquiry into the bias at the BBC” . Here is the transcript. Unfortunately most of the discussion was about the licence fee and the OAP free licences. Bias is hardly mentioned.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-07-15/debates/AF16A1B4-E52D-46BC-9EEF-555F504FD7B2/BBC
My local council is going to be “a zero carbon borough by 2040”, helped along the way be using mine working water in heat pump installations. They’re probably aiming to repeat the success of Sheffield City Council in the 70s when they became a “nuclear free zone.”
https://www.barnsleychronicle.com/article/underground-idea-to-solve-fuel-poverty
I’ll be interested to see how economic that is, with the potential to heat 300 homes per mine.
In the same article they’re bemoaning fuel poverty and deaths due to excessive cold. They’re clearly not reading the script because everybody knows it’s excessive heat that kills!
Time to buy shares in bronze foundries?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/22/memorial-to-mark-icelandic-glacier-lost-to-climate-crisis
Alternatively, a good excuse for more tourism? By sailing ship, naturally.
I would like to see this article suitably reviewed here, I do not have sufficient knowledge to do so as effectively as I know you can:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736
A bit of fun (at least it would be if it wasn’t so serious:
I had to laugh when I saw this. News outlets must be impartial? Never!
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/204439-uk-ofcom-tv-channel/
Then I saw this, which is going to be interesting, particularly if they look closely at climate change reporting, noting that Russia’s climate model is the only one, I understand, that gets near to reality.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46648010
East Surrey weather, Thursday, July 25
https://imgur.com/a/qbm6xsj
East Surrey weather, Saturday, July 27:
https://imgur.com/a/U9i5yyW
It’s a CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!!!!
By the by, looking at the Thursday chart, see how the 35C (for which read >34.5 and 32.5C and<33.5C This makes Cambridge's "highest UK temperature EVAH" even more suspicious. A clear, negative, 3C difference between maximum temperatures in east Surrey and Cambridge must be a relatively rare phenomenon in my opinion. No, I don't have the data but I am extremely suspicious.
Sorry, that should have read “see how the 35C (for which read >34.5C and 32,5C and <33.5C). This makes etc etc.."
The comment seems to have edited itself in the ether.
My comment self-edited again! It seems that the process doesn’t like “greater than” or “less than” symbols and edits chunks of text out.
I give up. You can work out what I was trying to say. Sorry for wasting people’s time.
Actually in this browser it looks fine
but greater/less-than symbols are RESERVED for html commands
So your browser probably detects it that way instead of displaying them
To display them write the character coding instead
>
#60 for less than
https://www.w3schools.com/html/html_entities.asp
I’ll try again cos its also blocking the string beginning with “&”
I’ll put a space but if you leave it out the 4 character code will render the string as “greater than”
& #62;
Thank you Stew. Noted.
Hey paul. Have you read the latest comedy
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/the-only-global-climate-event-of-last-2000-years-was-ours/
Picked this short video up from a WUWT post, though originating in GWPF:
Takes some of the gloss off the CPRE.
excellent video
Political-Greens are so often #FakeGreens
CPRE the UK’s main NGO dedicated to PROTECTING the countryside
is so twisted
They promotes electricity supplies that industrialise the MOST countryside
.. whilst they hiss and spit nuclear/gas that take up the LEAST countryside.
There is such a difference between real-world maths and Green-dream maths.
Mr. Homewood,
The liberal press in the States have lately (late July ’19) been running a story that rising oceans are affecting operations at the Kennedy Space Center. If you have any insight into the back story on this, it would be appreciated. Thanks!
Paul,
I’m sure you’re on top of this already but the BBC website is running the story that the Met Office has been up and fully validated the Cambridge “hottest EVAH in the UK” reading from last Thursday. The BBC even show a photo of the station complete with the two large climate-controlled (and thus heat-belching, year round) buildings only yards away. Of course they don’t make mention of the nearby buildings any more than they mention the fact that readings down the road were significantly lower. This combination clearly invalidates this particular weather station, but not if you are the Met Office or the BBC.
Paul,
I have a complaint running with the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) regrading an email I received from Uswitch stating:
“ENERGY: Ready to join the green energy revolution? Most of the electricity produced in the UK in 2019 will be renewable, for the first time since the industrial revolution. Find out how to switch to a green energy plan that could be good for the planet and your pocket”
The ASA has asked me for clarification as to which particular part of the email I’m complaining about. In order to give them something tangible to work with.
“We note your complaint stated “I received an email from Uswitch today which stated: “ENERGY: Ready to join the green energy revolution? Most of the electricity produced in the UK in 2019 will be renewable, for the first time since the industrial revolution. Find out how to switch to a green energy plan that could be good for the planet and your pocket” The claim is patently untrue and misleading”.
Could you kindly clarify the particular claim you are referring to and also provide the reasons why you believe the claim to be untrue and misleading please? Any other details would be helpful.”
My email to them today is as follows:
Dear xxxxxxx,
Specifically, my complaint is that the statement: “Most of the electricity produced in the UK in 2019 will be renewable, for the first time since the industrial revolution.” is patently untrue and misleading.
I have attached, for your information, the latest government report “UK Electricity generation, trade and consumption, January to March 2019” – Section 5 – UK Electricity January to March 2019
From: “Key results show”
Paragraph 2.
“Renewables share of generation increased to 35.8 per cent in Q1 2019 – a record high for Q1 and the second highest quarterly renewables share. The increase in renewable generation is largely due to increased capacity. Wind and solar’s share of generation reached a record high of 23.6 per cent. (Chart 5.2).” [My emphasis].
Although only mentioned in the last three words of the report, hydro is also an important Renewable source of electricity however, as it is hugely destructive of the environment there are unlikely to be any new facilities built in the foreseeable future following the cancellation of the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Project. (£1.3bn Swansea Bay tidal lagoon project thrown out: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-44589083)
Paragraph 3. States:
“Low carbon’s share of generation increased to 51.8 per cent in Q1 2019”
However, Low carbon is not “Renewables” as it includes Nuclear power and Bio fuels, including the import of pre processed wood pellets shipped across the Atlantic from the USA for use in the Drax Power station which was found in a Friends of the Earth Briefing (attached) to be producing “….carbon emissions of 3346 kg CO2e/MWh, more than three times the 1018 kg CO2e/MWh that result from burning coal. This is approx. 14 times higher than the GHG emission maximum of 240 kg CO2e/MWh that are allowed for biomass under the Renewable Obligation’s sustainability criteria. [My emphasis]
Any attempt to use the Low carbon figure of 51.8% disguised as Renewables is dishonest and misleading.
In addition, it can be seen from the governments official report that: Nuclear accounted for 16.0 per cent of total generation in Q1 2019, falling 1.8 pp from Q1 2018 to its lowest level since Q4 2014. “This was due to a continued unplanned outage at Hunterston B and a statutory outage at Dungeness B, which stopped generation at both sites for the entire quarter. The capacity of these two power stations accounts for 23.0 per cent of nuclear capacity.”
When these Nuclear power stations come back on line the proportion of Low Carbon sources will increase.
It is therefore disingenuous of Uswitch to make its announcement either by referring to the 51.8% figure quoted for “Low Carbon” electricity production (which is downright dishonest) or attempting to present that the current expandable proportion of “Renewables” (wind and solar) could possibly rise much beyond the 23.6% quoted in the government report before the end of 2019.
A 26.4%+ increase in Renewable energy, to form “Most of the electricity produced in the UK”, will likely take decades to accomplish, certainly not 9 months from the governments March 2019 report, and December 31st 2019.
I trust this is sufficient information and look forward to hearing from you soon.
xxxxxxxxxxxx.
Attached documents:
Click to access Electricity_June_2019.pdf
Click to access decc-s-biomass-carbon-calculator-beac-what-it-means-bioenergy-74112.pdf
Nicely composed e-mail.
Unfortunately I suspect it will be swept under the carpet along with most other facts about renewables. 😦
We all have to hope we can start to make a difference.
Yes I thought straight away
#1 That the headline is “more that half of UK electricity came from low-carbon sources
.. so #2 U-switch are getting mixed up between “low carbon” and “renewables”
(a web and Twitter search doesn’t show any other times they made that claim)
BTW “most” is not synonymous with “the majority”
in normal parlance it doesn’t mean “more than 50%” it means say 70 or 80%
Some of you may have followed Juan Brown’s excellent Blancolirio channel reporting of the Californian Oroville Dam issue (a slight understatement). I was immediately reminded of this when I saw the news reports about the dam above Whaley Bridge, in Durrbyshyre. So, I looked up Blancolirio for a reference to put here and guess what I found:
BBC continues the scary stories. Guess what growing urban areas and populations can get warmer. Of course it’s the usual ‘could’ scenario.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-985b9374-596e-4ae6-aa04-7fbcae4cb7ee
fyi this: http://theconversation.com/heatwaves-and-flash-floods-yes-this-is-britains-new-normal-121351
Looking through back issues of Auto Express I spotted this article:
https://www.mediafire.com/file/azo2dzsd51anvca/Biofuel.pdf/file
I wonder if the delay in publishing the findings of the consultation relate to poorer fuel consumption, offsetting the paltry 2% CO2 “savings”. I’m going to ask my MP to check it out.
Just spotted Paul’s earlier article:
It’ll be interesting to see what my MP comes back with.
A related issue in todays Highways Agency bulletin:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tackling-tyre-graveyards-as-new-road-surface-using-rubber-is-trialled?utm_source=4014c8c4-b8b2-420b-8f06-eed9c485a239&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=daily
As tyre wear is a significant contributor to particulate contamination and (local) motorways are AQMAs, I wonder if their trial will be monitoring for that aspect? I’ve written to them to ask the question.
Mind you, they need to do something about tyres: “There are over seven million tyres filling one Kuwaiti landfill site which is so vast that the ‘tyre graveyard’ is now visible from space.”
Paul,
After the all the UN food v emissions nonsense the BBC has kindly provided us plebs with this incredibly exciting game to play:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46459714
Yes, you can work out the equivalent car drive or flights to Malaga (I kid you not) or land area for farming needed for your consumption of a beef burger a day, or indeed whatever else you are evil enough to shovel down your throat.
I found the game and the explanations most enlightening – the flow of utterly deluded people approaching the BBC is not diminishing.
PS Don’t think you can get away with scoffing chocolate – it can be just as unpleasant (CO2-wise) as beef, apparently.
PLEASE let the grid outage be at least partly due to lack of spinning reserve. Is this a tatse =of things to come?
On a related topic, a study on the economics of power storage concluded
“Allowing the renewable energy system to fail to meet demand for just five percent of the hours over a twenty year period can halve the cost of renewable electricity, the researchers report.”
So that’s OK, then.
Ian,
This scenario may have legs. As Ross Clark writing in Saturday’s Telegraph reports: “Just before the power cut at 4.17pm yesterday, ESO (i.e. National Grid) put out a tweet boasting a new record: that 47.6% of the nation’s electricity was being generated by wind.”
Now, call me a cynic but I am deeply suspicious about why the BBC etc hasn’t been trumpeting this “unprecedented” statistic all over the planet, every hour. Could it be that this electricity breakdown will prove to have resulted from the very significant instability of wind power that grid engineers have been warning our ridiculous governments about for years? Maybe, just maybe, this horrid episode will provide proof to our masters that whilst wind power can play a part in the nation’s energy mix on small or local scales it is wholly unsuitable for powering a modern economy on a national grid scale. Don’t bet on this being reported in the national press though.
Two European professors recently wrote that the IPCC projections of future warming are based on huge unknowns, and do not take the past properly into account.
http://www.science-climat-energie.be/2019/07/24/climate-about-which-temperature-are-we-talking-about/
Blogpost about why is there hindrnnce of LPG
when pollys like Sadiq claim to want clean air ?
https://independencedaily.co.uk/life-could-be-a-gas/
Texas Wind Power . . .
The jump in energy costs shows just how unpredictable the Texas power market has become as coal-fired generators are retired for cheaper natural gas and renewable energy sources.
ERCOT said its reserve margin, which is the spread between total generation available and forecast peak demand, with the difference shown as a percentage of peak demand, is at an all-time low of 7.4% because several coal-fired power plants have been retired as of recent.
Monday’s price spike also shows how renewable energy, which makes up about 25% of Texas’ energy generation, had difficulty generating enough power to handle the demand surge.
Grid data from Bloomberg showed wind power generation in the region slid by 50% Monday, with most of the energy generation coming from fossil fuel power stations.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-13/blowing-texas-energy-costs-hit-record-high-monday-heatwave-strikes
Cauliflowers!
“Cauliflower shortages as extreme weather kills crops”
According to the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49330210
But they left it to someone else to blame it on climate change.
“The British Retail Consortium said: “This is yet another example of how retailers are having to manage the effects of climate change, which has created a greater variability in the weather and resulted a slightly poorer harvest in the UK.””
Who in the UK hasn’t had a perfectly good holiday in the UK ruined by rain?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/15/wind-farm-behind-massive-blackout-awarded-nearly-100000-compensation/
How much would it have been if the site had been fully commissioned?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/passantino/iceland-held-a-funeral-for-its-first-glacier-lost-to
Anyone know if this is the reality or is it another story without context?
There was a long winded thing on radio 4 about it. The whole place will have no glaciers by the end of the century apparently. So the funeral spokesman said for at least 10 minutes. The funeral was real .
According to Sky – Trump wants to buy Greenland because climate change!
https://news.sky.com/story/why-does-donald-trump-want-to-buy-greenland-11788910
Apparently, Trump knows (but the Danes don’t) that because the Greenland ice sheet is melting at such an incredible pace, Greenland’s vast mineral wealth – hidden and inaccessible for millennia – will shortly all be revealed ready to be exploited under the new sunny sky.
He’s devious that Trump!
Either that or Sky is talking utter delusional boll***s.
Paul,
Re Elton John defending Harry and Meghan:
I’m sure you are already familiar with this but see:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/08/19/elton-john-defends-duke-duchess-sussex-online-reveals-paid-private/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_As7f6fpRsybk
It contains the gem: “Sir Elton insisted he and his husband David Furnish had made “an appropriate contribution” to a company that specialises in offsetting carbon emissions. The flights, said Sir Elton, were as a consequence carbon neutral”
Well, sorry Sir Elton, you may be a musical and performing genius and a national treasure but you need to stick to the day job. No amount of money will cancel out the unnecessary and excessive “carbon emissions” of these private jet flights. You may think you have salved your conscience but you are still 100% guilty of climate crime, as are the Sussex dynamic duo who accepted the gift. Tut tut.
Paul
An interesting little crumb buried on the BBC website.
Microplastics in water pose ‘no apparent health risk’
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49430038
Wrong again BBC!
You can retire now, Paul:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/08/26/british-start-up-beats-world-holy-grail-cheap-energy-storage/
Some sceptical comments but no mention of the energy required to evaporate the liquid. Not a lot of good relying on simple air heat exchange in northern climes?
BBC program Inside Out, doing a piece on extreme weather in Dales etc etc Monday 2nd Sept. I believe. The trailer is just a complete ” we are all going to drown now”.
RS
Paul, I’ve just been talking to Tallbloke and we wondered if you and any of the guys want to meetup ?
He’s doing a pub talk in Barnsley next Friday on Climate/Astrophysics
BTW My contact is my email on my domain name, or @no2BS on Twitter
Oh the date got changed to a week on Thursday
12th Sept
https://www.facebook.com/groups/barnsleySITP/permalink/1350871715037242/?comment_id=1352096508248096
That Barnsley Skeptics in the pub link says
Roger Tattersall is coming on the 12th September.
He is a good speaker who also runs the Tallbloke’s Talkshop blog.
He is talking about how orbital influences from other planets influence the climate here on Earth.
Sheffield City Council is to discussits energy policy at a meeting later this month. It’s item 7 on this agenda:
https://moderngov.sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/documents/g262/Public%20reports%20pack%2029th-Aug-2019%2010.00%20SCR%20-%20Infrastructure%20Board.pdf?T=10
“[T]he Carbon Trust were commissioned to support the SCR in preparing the
Draft SCR Energy Strategy document …”
They also plan to test the strategy:
“(C) University of Sheffield ‘Provocation Exercise’
Dr Nick Taylor-Buck at the University of Sheffield has been awarded internal funding to
carry out a ‘provocation exercise’ on the draft SCR Energy Strategy. PhD students will
scrutinise and test the evidence and assumptions within the Draft SCR Energy Strategy,
with the aim to plug any gaps identified in the evidence base or reinforce the evidence
already given. The work will report in early September 2019.”
I wonder what the starting assumptions will be. I sent my own critique into my borough council on theirs. Waste of time.
There’s also this gem in the list of targets, on top of all the usual expensive blather:
“Energy Resilience and Reliance on Fossil Fuels
In 2015, 1.4TWh of electricity (18%) was imported from outside of our City Region meaning that we are reliant on other generators from around the UK. The electricity generated within our City Region is primarily from using natural gas as the fuel, and whilst this is a cleaner fuel
than coal, the transition towards a greater proportion of low carbon electricity generation needs to happen with greater haste, if this Vision is to be achieved.”
Clearly, this was printed before #Hornsea power cut, but they’ll push ahead anyway.
Some good (?) news from Grimsby:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/09/01/offshore-wind-boom-reviving-east-coast-towns-neglected-depressed/
At the same time, we hear that Newport Steelworks is about to close, losing 380 real jobs. No connection, of course!
Paul When you return from your bike ride and you want to get your teeth into something try this http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/empowering-the-planet/on-the-front-lines-of-climate-change-in-the-worlds-northernmost-town/ar-AAGK2cn?MSCC=1567517996&ocid=ientp . A huge pile of polar bear dung. I am sure you will enjoy correcting all the mis-information. Microsoft seem to be as bad as the BBC
Paul,
fill yer boots mate.
Give me $1.8 trillion and I’ll turn it into $8 trillion by spending it!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49635546
Ofgem has published National Grid Electricity System Operator’s technical report
Publication date 10th September 2019
Ofgem has today published National Grid Electricity System Operator’s technical report into the recent power cuts of August 9 2019, which was submitted to Ofgem on Friday 9 September (you can access the appendices).
The technical report will form evidence as part of Ofgem’s formal investigation into the power cuts and the actions of National Grid Electricity System Operator, National Grid Electricity Transmission, 12 distribution network operators in England and Wales and the generators RWE Generation (owner of Little Barford Power station) and Orsted (owner of Hornsea offshore wind farm).
Ofgem launched the formal investigation on 20 August after receiving National Grid Electricity System Operator’s initial report.
The government is separately reviewing the actions of National Grid Electricity System Operator. Its Energy Emergencies Executive Committee plans to provide a report on initial findings in the coming weeks to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy by the end of this month.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/ofgem-has-published-national-grid-electricity-system-operator-s-technical-report
Another risk to the system stability/interconnectors?
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/nuclear-regulator-puts-edfs-flamanville-104408727.html
Have a look at this :-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49645748
Sand Eels……
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2019/02/28/ices-cuts-danish-sandeel-quota-advice-for-2019/
Law of unintended Consequences?
https://www.mediafire.com/view/qhvkzproyi6bjqu/IMG_20190912_29723.jpg/file
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/17/air-pollution-particles-found-on-foetal-side-of-placentas-study
It would be interesting to see how the phenomenon varied with culture/degree of development. It is recommended that people avoid high pollution travel. Would that include the London Underground?
Paul
Utterly unbelievable. The BBC stitching climate change into the imminent Rugby Word Cup.
“There are concerns that the movement of people connected to climate change could leave these countries unable to field competitive rugby teams.”
Utter rubbish. The islands are predated on by Australia and New Zealand to poach players often fielding them as natives thanks to residency rules.
“Current stars like England’s Manu Tuilagi or Ireland’s Bundee Aki both have Samoan connections but have moved to play with richer nations.”
Manu Tuilagi has been resident in England since he was 12 years old. He plays for Leicester Tigers, became a British citizen in 2014 and represents England in their National squad. His immigration to the UK had absolutely nothing to do with Climate Change and everything to do with career advancement!
This is just appalling abuse of the BBC’s position as the premier broadcaster in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49741856
I urge everyone who reads this to have a look at this excellent work about the manufacturing of Thunberg by Corry Morningstar. If there should be anyone who read last year’s article and thinks that this is the same, you’re wrong, this is a follow up, a volume 2.
Paul. Greta Thurnburg at UN today .. I havent laughed to much in years !!!! psychotic or what!!!!! you should share the clip on the site …
Paul
New satellite planned to examine some of the things we don’t know about climate change, including clouds!
But…..I thought the science was settled?!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49799760
About time
Well, that#s alright, then:
http://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/smart-metering-communications-body-ltd-G19-1018548.html
“Concerning ad (b), the TV ad, Clearcast said they had seen substantiation from Smart Energy GB which demonstrated how smart meters allowed the energy network to understand better how energy was being used, allowing them to integrate renewables into the energy system and move towards a lower carbon future. They said they had advised Smart Energy GB to word claims cautiously, which they saw reflected in the reference to a “more energy efficient grid they help to create, they’re a start”.
“Concerning ad (e), Radiocentre said the ad was approved on the basis that it made clear that the environmental benefits of smart meters were derived from the more efficient energy systems they help to create, a claim for which they had seen evidence from Smart Energy GB.”
Is there any substance to this? Christopher Monckton: New Irish study shows greenhouse gas effect cannot cause global warming
This just in from AVAAZ –
“Greta and the climate kids are under attack.
New investigations just revealed that powerful networks of climate change deniers and far-right figures are spreading toxic smears about the 16-year-old who inspired millions of us to march.”….
Followed by lots of red ‘DONATE’ buttons
(‘Greta and the climate kids’ sound like a 5th rate pop group.)
Paul,
Have a look at this latest pile of cr** from the BBC. It’s a 10 minute report under the highly emotive title “The Displaced: Climate change in Vietnam ‘destroying family life’.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-49854753
It shows people having to leave their sea level homes in the Mekong Delta due to inundation from the sea (although floods and heat get a mention too) undermining their – clearly poorly built – waterfront houses.
Needless to say, there is no statistical evidence whatsoever presented on such trivial matters such as rainfall, temperature or ENSO cycles. Nor any data on how much of the “sea level rise” can be attributed to the fact that the unconsolidated deltaic sediments on which these populations reside subside naturally over time even without having human settlements built on top, so the addition of the developments is only going to increase the rate and amount of subsidence. But, hey – why spoil an emotional story with a few facts?
Dear Paul
this may interest:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-weather/cooler-oct-nov-expected-for-northern-europe-the-weather-company-idUKKBN1WH1U1
Weather forecasts for those with an interest in the seasons
Paul
Extinction Rebellion FAIL!!!!
LOL
Paul,
Here’s another “ship of fools” to watch out for:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49941340
It seems that a German ship full of climate scientists is being released in the Arctic to drift around for a year, of course in order to monitor climate.
A climate change-seeking boat adrift in the Arctic for a whole year beginning at the start of winter? What could possibly go wrong?
Hi Paul,
you may find this series of videos of interest. I was supposed to attend this meeting but was called overseas on business so unfortunately was unable to attend. A friend was one of the organisers and they made a useful video record of the speakers.
Cheers,
Mike
The Andrew Neil show on BBC tonight (Wednesday) featured an interview with a XR rep.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00095pr/the-andrew-neil-show-series-1-09102019
The interview starts at 20mins 30sec in and is the first one I’ve seen where the interviewer did more than pay fawning lip service to XR. How refreshing. I was almost embarrassed for the interviewee. I hope a well-followed Youtuber will pick this up and give it the circulation it deserves.
Is this the place to suggest timely articles? if so – a recent article from ScienceNews on geoengineering to fix the “climate crisis”
“In a climate crisis, is geoengineering worth the risks? More research on such tech as ocean seeding and space mirrors is needed, some scientists say”
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/climate-change-crisis-geoengineering-worth-risks?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=latest-newsletter-v2&utm_source=Latest_Headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest_Headlines
I’m glad more research is needed – I can remember the geoengineering proposals to cover the Artic with soot to prevent Global Cooling back in ’78…. (enclosed. Plus ca change )
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Re the debacle at the Rugby World Cup in Japan, one wonders who will be the first to cry “Rugby World Cup ruined by climate change – it’s the worst typhoon EVAH!” or similar. In fact I am amazed that I haven’t seen such a headline in the media already. Either I am missing such or the AGW crowd must be too busy supporting XR protests and encampments to have noticed this golden opportunity to showcase their “science”.
Paul
It would be interesting to understand if there is any difference in traffic on your site over this period of XR protests. Particularly new users, if that’s possible.
My theory is that XR will encourage many of the more objective onlookers to seek reliable information on the subject.
I’ve also posed the question to Anthony over at WUWT.
I’ve certainly noticed a surge on the Soros funding XR post which I did a few weeks ago. I guess this is from other sites posting links
Paul, this XR Pass-the-Broccoli dance from London demonstrations is illustrative of the high level of their debate:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2580131282030407&id=100001006812570
Try to get a full screen of it to get all of the fun-loving characters in.
It’s hard to comment, other than to state that you really, really couldn’t make this up, well, other than if you had consumed the sort of substances that perhaps some of these appear to have taken.
so, this sunday morning .. BBC 1 sunday morning live…. which is basically a religious programme. and included a discussion on climate change… So it is official, according to the BBC climate change is now a religion.. and as usual for the BBC, the presenter and moderator was an ineffectual numpty although 2 or the 4 guests did raise the odd challenge and hint of realism to the rubbish the other 2 spouted.
Paul
Off topic, but a subject dear to all our hearts, good old Auntie.
The Institute of economic affairs has released a document by Professor Philip Booth titled: “New Vision: Transforming the BBC into a subscriber-owned mutual”
The PDF is free to download from the IEA website here: https://iea.org.uk/publications/new-vision
Might be worth keeping for a slow news day, not that there are many these days.
Article in the DT here asking if its fake news.
Subs needed unfortunately…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/10/15/climate-change-fake-news-global-threat-science/
My local council’s just declared a Climate Emergency and announced a policy to be Zero Carbon by 2040, hopefully 2035. It’s also promoting its Local Plan, which proposes to create over 20000 homes and 30000 jobs (with attendant buildings and infrastructure) at the same time. Never fear, though, because their Zero Carbon policy is going to require “zero carbon construction,” so that’s OK.
I thought I’d better look up this phrase before criticising the council. Here’s what I found:
“Wisely, the government set boundaries to what it meant by zero carbon. The embodied energy content of construction materials is not covered, and neither is the transportation of materials. Additionally, transport emissions associated with developments are not included as the government intends to deal with these through other policy instruments.”
So, zero carbon construction is more or less just designing for zero carbon heating and lighting and the construction and use carbon costs are ignored. Talk about self-delusion! (or is it the taxpayer they’re hoping to delude?).
I’ve just found a new to me example of unintended consequences.
In order to reduce petrol vehicles emissions a number of Worldwide Governments set up various emissions tests. One of these is a cold starting test when tailpipe emissions have to be below a certain number of parts per million (ppm).
Many car makers have devised a system to meet the test which actually result in increasing overall emissions: here’s how-
A “secondary air supply system”(sas) has an air pump pipes and valve/s which pump fresh air into the exhaust pipe for about a minute after starting from cold. Thus there is more air and the same fumes which reduces the ppm ratio at the tailpipe. So the overall result to ppm globally is the same whether the sas is operational or not.
Meanwhile the emissions resulting from the creation and carriage of the Unnecessary pump, valve and pipework on millions of vehicles has added to global emissions.
But the test was passed so that’s ok!!
What was that about weaving webs?
Paul,
Another “you just couldn’t make this up” moment from the Telegraph website today. I’m sure Mr Hohn is only wishing to take Heathrow over so that he can close it down and not make another vast sum of money at all, dear me no.
Extinction Rebellion backer Chris Hohn builds £630m stake in Heathrow
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/10/19/extinction-rebellion-backer-chris-hohn-builds-800m-stake-heathrow/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_AtRKdrLKR19d
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/
Paul,
Noticed this in Washington times.
Similar story to the James Cook Uni treatment of scientist ref Great Barrier Reef.
Been done see the main blog
BTW Don’t get mixed up between the metroliberal Washington Post
and the conservative Washington Times
“The day California burned” on BBC2 tonight. Climate change got the blame inside 2 minutes, despite all evidence to the contrary. I’d heard enough.
Paul,
Another cracker. It seems that as Susan Crockford goes on her world tour, the Grauniad has finally noticed that, actually, those cuddly polar bears are doing extremely well despite all the predictions and they are to, er, rebalance their climate change images in favour of humans and, as you can see from the link below, pollution that has got nothing whatsoever to do with AGW.
See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/18/guardian-climate-pledge-2019-images-pictures-guidelines
If you google “Guardian polar bears climate change” or similar, you will see a relentless, continual list of Grauniad articles over the years ranting on about the catastrophe that climate change has been to polar bears and showing images of dead or dying polar bears that clearly have resulted from such, in their view.
Now in this long, rambling article of self-justification, you get such gems as: “We know, from years of experience, that people love polar bears and pandas, so it is easy to see how these appealing creatures have become the emblems for the topics of endangered species and what we previously termed as global warming. Often, when signalling environmental stories to our readers, selecting an image of a polar bear on melting ice has been the obvious – though not necessarily appropriate – choice. These images tell a certain story about the climate crisis but can seem remote and abstract – a problem that is not a human one, nor one that is particularly urgent.
So it made sense when we heard that research conducted by the team at Climate Visuals has shown that people respond to human pictures and stories. Images that show emotion and pictures of real situations make the story relevant to the individual.”
Is there anywhere in this article an admission that all the stuff the Grauniad has come out with on polar bears has turned out to be complete rubbish? You already know the answer!
Paul
I used to get your updates and had done so for 15 years. Now I don’t and seem to have been removed from list. Can you put me back on manually I have tried many times with the add button.
You checked your spam box ?
Paul will no doubt be reporting properly, but a piece on BBC News this am shows propaganda works. Apparently, there’s been a “damning” report on the failure of fracking development. It was mentioned in passing that a major part of the enormous cost to date was policing. Whilst Quadrilla are, apparently still keen to press ahead, the impact of shale gas will be a lot less than expected because of the increasingly competitive cost of renewables!
Paul,
I found this video of a guy basically reproducing Bill Nye’s ridiculous, failed attempt to prove CO2 causes global warming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=194&v=kwtt51gvaJQ
Hilariously, in the comments thread was a link to a local Hero doing the experiment properly, and finding quite the opposite result. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgjT_665T6U&t=77s
Geraint (our local Hero) goes on to reproduce the experiment in his kitchen to address specific criticisms from ‘qualified’ commentators in another link. Caution; he is very rude about Greta, Al Gore, David Attenborough and Prof Brian Cox in the other videos.
He also has a book on Amazon called “Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of THE BIG LIE of Climate Change science” Paperback – 25 Jun 2019.
I have begun to read it and it’s straightforward enough for me to understand, and I think it deserves a little publicity as it presents things (so far) in terms laymen like me can grasp.
Paul,
Have you seen this piece of nonsense?
An area of the UK the size of 22,000 football pitches could be carpeted with solar panels…
Shadow business secretary Rebecca Long Bailey said the scheme could deliver a net benefit of £800 billion to the economy by 2030 and create 850,000 skilled green jobs.
https://www.independent.co.uk/labour-climate-change-solar-panel-net-zero-emissions-green-new-deal-a9169101.html
another
The Guardian – Offshore wind turbines ‘could meet all global energy needs’
Jillian Ambrose Energy correspondent.
Yes just like treadmills COULD meet all global energy needs
Does anybody have access to this pay walked info, please?
https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1584896/council-declarations-climate-change-emergency-mean-planning
It’s cached
Hi Paul, Just had this sent to me as justification for battery storage. This is being touted by Green groups and to Governments in Australia as proof that storage will be viable next year!
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/the-new-economics-of-energy-storage?cid=soc-app
Hi Paul, Don’t know if you’ve caught this from Lewandowsky at Bristol et al. Leader: “Scientists reveal how the fossil fuel industry misled the public about climate change”, I’ve not looked at the paper yet – the first question, of course, is “who funded this work?” These people have no sense of irony!
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-scientists-reveal-fossil-fuel-industry.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-nwletter
Hi Peter, this guy is a total idiot. He wrote the backup to the 97% claim. He was in Australia for a fair while and wrote articles for the ABC. Most commentators laughed at him.
I
Paul
This video might not be entirely appropriate to your blog but it is extraordinarily informative about the effects of the low frequency sound waves from wind turbines and what they do to the human body.
Quite simply jaw dropping!
The lady presenting the video is a Physicist and has been studying the subject since the 1980’s. She also happens to be engaging and entertaining.
It’s about 50 minutes long, but once you start watching, it’s like a good book, you just don’t want stop. It’s followed by an extended Q&A session I didn’t watch but I will.
https://livestream.com/itmsstudio/events/8781285/videos/196181579?fbclid=IwAR1qDQNhEo87cUf-ydglUWNm0N45nnjo6n0vq3jtDRLcGFUvql0MIQgqlsM
Did you think that you’d seen every possible stupid story on the effects of the magic molecule? Think again after this wondrous piece from the all-green Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/10/30/global-ketchup-consumption-squeezed-trade-row/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_AtT67yjySRsL
Apparently, the demand for ketchup is falling due in part to people turning away from hot fried food due to, er, global warming.
The logic takes your breath away. Is there nobody at the Telegraph with enough IQ or common sense to figure out how ludicrous this makes them look?
Paul,
Dave Cullen has just released an excellent video on how everywhere in the world is hotter than everywhere else in the world:
Well worth promoting IMHO
Best wishes
Steve
Paul, can you tell me how I change my email address please?
I think you’ll have to subscribe again, Neil
Paul
Further to you climate change facts. I found this recent publication which summarises everything rather well.
http://ccdedu.blogspot.com/2019/10/an-irish-overview-of-latest-climate.html
(download link in the text).
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/07/25/former-uk-energy-minister-claire-perry-appointed-cop26-president/
The gravy train in action. Wouldn’t be so bad if she’d been any good!
An interesting series of 5 articles in the Telegraph ends with one about the challenges of the charging requirements for electric vehicles. At one point it says:
Alex O’Cinneide, at renewables private equity firm Gore Street, says: “The grid is not monolithic. It has areas which are better resourced than others. If we don’t deal with the peak power problem properly, we might find that our infrastructure falls short.”
He adds: “We will not necessarily end up with lots of ‘brownouts’, but it could lead to a surge in electricity prices for users. Market forces will mean that it could cost a lot more for people to charge their cars after work like everybody else.”
Enter the smart meter?
And another thing! The Climate Emergency-obsessed LibDems have a large advertising van circling Parliament Square pushing their message. Spot the irony.
Paul,
Needless to say, the BBC is all over the government banning fracking today:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50267454
As the Americans say – this is so stupid it burns.
This is such scientific and economic insanity you can only assume it’s for electoral reasons – i.e. appease the green blob and hope they vote for you. As Mother Theresa of Brussels found out, of course, it doesn’t work like that. If a group of people hate you to start with, throwing them a sprat will just be laughed off. Meanwhile, in the real world, jobs are lost, energy costs rise, tax income goes out of the window and our energy “security” flies out with it. The real winner, of course, is not the greens but Putin.
Ian
Spot on, and why say “tremors” when you can scare the kiddies and Useful Idiots with “EARTHQUAKES!”
Frustrating to hear Ledsom talking about following the science, followed by a real expert who said they’re doing nothing of the kind (I bet he doesn’t get asked on again!).
Terrible smog in Delhi but, for once the BBC didn’t mention climate change as the cause, which was cited as the result of burning crop residues. Why don’t they plough this material in, as in the UK, or is it that they don’t have the technology?
Tip I already posted on the Citizens Assembly thread
@TonyJuniper tweeted
New Board Members will soon be appointed to help me lead @NaturalEngland toward key Government goals, including Nature recovery & net zero emissions. Might you have what it takes to help us on this journey?
Closes November 14. See here for more details:
https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/appointment/natural-england-board-members-2/
BBC radio : Kids don’t want Climate lessons
Presenter “but only ONE child in each school wanted CC on the curriculum”
kids voted 17 to 1 against Climate lessons
MH said “When climate change was mentioned, I thought
“Here we go – more brainwashing.”
Imagine my surprise when only one pupil opted to learn about climate change, and the vast majority (17) wanted to be taught adult life skills instead – things like how to fill in a tax return; how mortgages work; job interview techniques, etc.
Maybe the brainwashing isn’t working after all
Yet at min 23 Futurologist Mark Stephenson said for 2050 the kids DONT need lifeskills lessons, they need CC lessons
cos “The Futures vastly climate changing world …it’s serious by then we’ll have increased sea level rise, feedbacks will kick in”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0009zbw
Paul,
This lunacy speaks for itself:
General election 2019: Green Party pledges £100bn a year for climate action https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50305284
This is, presumably, on top of the £billions per year in green subsidies that we have to endure. The expenditure is forecast to go on for 10 years. That’s a total of £1,000,000,000,000! To your surprise and their credit, the BBC go on to comment that the sums of money involved are so vast that it will radically change government borrowing and taxation policies.
And this is meant to persuade us to vote for these people?
Shukman finds a new hockey stick graph for the BBC!
Apparently, public concern for climate change is rocketing, not least as a result of the actions of those fine citizens in XR:
General election 2019: How big an issue is climate change for voters? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50307304
Well done David!
Just one thing though: you say that 27% now put climate change in their top 3 concerns at this time. Does that mean that 73% couldn’t give a monkey’s?
Paul,
I have been a member of the CPRE for many years – a formerly highly noble organisation with serious work to do in areas like protecting the green belts.
However, over the last couple of years it has become increasingly, and emotionally green. They’ve even got a CEO who writes letters with text like “climate emergency” or “climate change is the biggest threat to the countryside” or other such nonsense. I finally lost it, however, when they sent me a triumphant letter about how they had played their part in the banning of fracking and weren’t they marvellous? I wrote a letter stating the reasons why fracking is a good thing and that the alternatives were more than likely Putin and covering their precious countryside with over-sized windmills with all that those entailed.
They sent the following response (apologies to your readers for the length of this):
Dear Ian,
Thank you for your email. I will take some time to clarify our reasoning for our position on fracking below.
CPRE adopted a policy in June 2017 that there should be a moratorium on fracking unless it can be clearly demonstrated that fracking would:
help secure the radical reductions in carbon emissions required to comply with planning policy and meet legally binding climate change targets;
not lead to unacceptable cumulative harm, whether for particular landscapes or on the English countryside as a whole, and
be carefully controlled by effective systems of regulation and democratic planning, which are adequately resourced at both local and national levels.
Since the adoption of this policy, recent developments have given further weight to this precautionary approach. Current policies proposed in the UK’s Clean Growth Strategy are not sufficient to meet the fifth carbon budget under the UK Climate Change Act, and the Committee on Climate Change stated in 2016 that commercial-scale fracking is incompatible with carbon budgets unless significant emission reductions are secured elsewhere and the industry is tightly regulated to avoid fugitive emissions. Neither of these conditions have been satisfied as of yet.
Given the scale of fracking needed for the industry to be commercially viable, the cumulative impact of such development, particularly in the setting of AONBs and National Parks, is a significant threat to the character of the English countryside. Even if fracking was pursued to replace gas imports, we would need to drill wells on a very significant scale to even make a dent in our energy security. New research from a Cardiff Business School study for Friends of the Earth reveals that about 6,100 wells would be needed to produce enough gas to replace even half of future UK gas imports between 2021-2035.
The main threats that we perceive to the countryside include:
Climate change obligations: Fracking risks putting the UK even further out of reach of climate targets that we already look set to miss. The process threatens the UK’s legal climate change obligations to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.
Industrialisation of the countryside, tranquillity and landscape impact: The potentially massive scale of proposed fracking and ensuing cumulative damage could have dramatic effects in fracking locations.
Earthquakes: Particularly in former mining areas. One earthquake resulting from operations in Lancashire led to a temporary moratorium on fracking in 2011.
Water supply: Potential for fracking fluids to leak into local aquifers, and contribution to water shortages due to the substantial use of water in the fracking process.
There have already been sites that started exploratory fracking, which have caused earthquakes. A site in Lancashire recently was approved despite very strong local opposition, which will be the first site since the earthquakes. This, coupled with a relaxation of the rules in place to reduce earthquakes is worrying.
The government’s own report of gas supply states that current supply will satisfy UK demand even in the most severe scenarios over the next 20 years. Even if fracking was pursued to replace gas imports, we would need to drill wells on a very significant scale to make a dent in our energy security.
Fracking commercially would cause huge damage to the English landscape for very little return in terms of meeting our energy needs. The level of heavy traffic involved, particularly during exploration phases, is disruptive, damages local roads and creates pollution. If fracking is allowed to become routine, the borders of our protected landscapes could become littered with fracking rigs, while legislation still allows for other forms of well stimulation (e.g. acidisation) to take place within AONBs and National Parks. Fracking cannot be part of the countryside that CPRE wants: one that is beautiful and thriving for current and future generations.
For these reasons CPRE will maintain its policy against fracking until circumstances are altered to address these concerns. Hence, we fully support the moratorium on fracking and hope this is followed by a total ban.
Best wishes
Ellie
There is so much utter garbage in this that I didn’t think it worth rebutting line by line. I simply stated a couple of facts, suggested they return to the day job implied in the title CPRE, and resigned my membership.
I dont think Rural England will have any people left in it when the CPRE gets done “protecting” it.
A few months ago CPRE were outside their office in our town promoting their tour of the fancy Dutch reverse vending machines.
It transpired that CPRE is getting a kickback from the Dutch corp who is sponsored the tour.
I pointed out that most of us already put bottles in our red bins and thus into the correct reprocessing route.
so these machines is an unnecessary & wasteful thing.
And that they need to go after the 15% who are actual litter louts.
They turned their backs on me.
I checked and found their Green Zombie-ism isn’t new but dates back to the long term chairman who was a true believer.
Meadowhall shopping centre flooded due to Don beating flood protection. What’s getting it’ll all be the fault of climate change? There’s talk of beating rainfall records, but only a few weeks ago the issue was lack of rain.
Where did you find the info about the Wrigley man and his daughter escaping from the Hebden Bridge flood of 1837? They were ancestors of mine – thanks. I now live in Hebden Bridge after 30+ years in San Francisco so I’m all too acquainted with both floods and tinder dry landscapes.
https://news.sky.com/story/iran-discovers-new-oil-field-that-could-boost-reserves-by-a-third-says-president-rouhani-11858734
Who’s going to break the bad news, that they’ll have to leave it in the ground?
97% Consensus Scam – missing/broken link?
Paul, I have been trying to follow the link in your 28th October 2015 article about the 97% consensus scam. However, I have twice today tried to follow that link through to the Financial Post but on each occasion my computer has advised me, “This site can’t be reached. d2uzdrx7k4koxz.cloudfront.net’s server IP address could not be found.”
Is the problem with me or is it more general? If the latter, do you know whether there is a back-up copy of the article to be found somewhere?
Thanks for any help you can give.
Regards,
John.
Yes that was never a proper link
Paul was quoting the FP 2011 article
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats
Stew,
Many thanks for the link; it has worked well for me.
Regards,
John.
Paul
Some sanity on Aussie bush fires, from Australia!!!
https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/11/hysteria-heats-up-with-wrong-answer-to-an-old-problem/?fbclid=IwAR18DAe6RPNWsery7T6nKVp31hrXIFix5c2PE-Uc27NoWDmSdikTuDqQWTI
I’ve noted that the Polar Bears are barely holding on (again), well according to the Mirror
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/exhausted-polar-bears-cling-life-20875630
I searched Twitter on The Mirror’s special green edition .. no alarmists were interested in it.
And a handful of sceptics piled in and the Mirror’s tweets got ratioed
I finally got hold of a document discussing local councils’ approach to the climate emergency:
It’s a PDF created from a screen dump, but readable:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/emptspx6noi41ne/P0-MP-SPA-P3715-1RP-2000-0009-B-Plan_Representations-Vision_MU.pdf/file
All very good when you’re spending somebody else’s money.
Sorry. Wrong link!
http://www.mediafire.com/file/zxucv66cuxo556m/Local_Councils_-_Climate_Emergency.pdf/file
Paul,
burying wind turbine blades.
https://www.educationviews.org/landfill-begins-burying-non-recyclable-wind-turbine-blades/?fbclid=IwAR0jogKKBsw3CaMNYdxmBSGBtmJagVKMaO4op6mIDcAUBntE7OB_231cIM4
Paul
Aussie Pollie rips into the climate change scam in Parliament.
Whoops!!!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!
Why won’t a FaceBook address post?????
@HotScot Facebook posts automatically embed
put your mouse or finger over its timestamp
and right or long click
and select copy link URL
then come here and paste
I hear the expression “Global Average Temperature” used widely. How is this calculated, measured, estimated or guessed? The French Mathematical Society (SociétédeCalculMathématiqueSA) dismiss it as wishful thinking. Reference SCM SA White paper “Global Warming”, 2015/09.
Extract from White Paper
“Determining an average temperature for a system as complex as the Earth has no physical meaning. Unfortunately, this question, fundamental though it is, has never been tackled by organizations involved in meteorology. For them, the answer is simple: you take all the sensors and calculate the average!”
So are we talking about the temperature at sea level, at 10,000 feet elevation, on land on the sea? The fundamental data to pursue the current climate hysteria is not available. How do we get this across to politicians, governments, and the IPCC. Can anybody explain the derivation of “Global Average Temperature”
Worth reading the French Mathematical Society white paper. It all comes back to fidelity of data and the proper scientific method.
Paul – Guido has today posted this link to an excellent Forbes article. Just in case you havent seen it . https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/
Repost from my BH thread about the Yorkshire Post
Tuesday front page
: Leeds citizens’ jury says ‘We must lead revolution for environment’
City should act on transport and housing to fight CC
“drastic measures must be taken to avert crisis
Taking the buses back into public ownership..”
Sounds like the usual anti-capitalists reds pretending to be greens.
Who are they ??
“the 21 strong jury put together by the Leeds Climate Commission, was selected through a process to make it representative ..”
LCC is chaired by Prof Andy Gouldson
He said the 6 who were initially not so concerned
“a majority have changed” ..emm he means 4 of the 6 ?
If only:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/31/matt-cartoons-november-2019/
Interesting: https://capx.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=70dad7ea7e522c40e022c29da&id=eeb4a2cb3f&e=7511d4c957
Hi Paul, From a local newspaper KLIK Bait down the Rabbithole 116 times number of EVs on roads led to this:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-09-05/methane-and-climate-10-things-you-should-know/
Interesting short article from the real world:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/our-tree-planting-obsession-may-do-more-harm-than-good/
On that subject, you’ll have seen the Labour’s promise to plant 2 billion!(!) trees. My council’s going to plant 10000, but pro rata Labour’s target, they’ll need to add over 2 million to that number. There won’t be a lot of room left for all the houses they expect to build.
Hi Paul, Have you seen this? It points out just how deep this shit is getting in Australia.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/asic-investigating-large-companies-climate-change-risk-management/ar-BBY152H
Paul,
Please look at this. Its an excellent explanation of the fraudulent NOAA temperature adjustments. Its excellent: Tony Heller – realclimatescience.com
It’s six weeks old , but Heller’s point do seem to stack up to me.
Not that such national temperature trends matter to me.
The only things that matters to me is catastrophe
If a country can still grow food and still have good health then that is OK
Whatever drives local decadal temperature variations 2C warmer, 2C colder , what’s it matter if we can have the nous and tech to cope with it .
If alarmists can walk 1m uphill in 100 years to flee sea level rise then they don’t deserve saving.
oops typo If alarmists can’t walk 1m uphill in 100 years …
Many thanks for your site – I find it very informative.
I read an article in the Daily Telegraph today entitled “German car lovers fight back with Fridays for Horsepower”. In the article it stated: “Forests that could convert CO2 into oxygen are being cut down to obtain the raw materials required for car batteries. It’s insane.”
I am aware of the mining and transport costs of Lithium and Cobalt, but was intrigued by the implication that forests are also being cut down.
I have done a (very) quick search on the internet but can’t find any reference that implies that wood (or anything else from forests) is used for Lithium batteries.
Is the quote in the article correct? If so, maybe you could highlight this just to bring to people’s attention the full implications of battery-powered cars.
Interesting conspiracy theory blog from Frances Leader an anti-capitalist, anti-fracking anti-nuclear protester
She says XR are a front group for the establishment and corporations.
– ‘designed to get people arrested and then excluded from future jobs’
– that it is all driven by common purpose, an astroturf fake grassroots org, that is an extension of previous anticapitalist orgs like the Occupy Movement
– That she was running a camp at Balcombe and XR invaded it and kicked her off
and did things like SELL for money food prepared with ingredients her volunteers have donated.
Her interview YouTube audio
.. ah she was converted by Piers Corbyn against Climate Crisis meme
You might find this humorous. Expecting bad fires because of climate change, and then it doesn’t happen! https://crosscut.com/2019/08/washington-usually-ablaze-wildfires-time-year-what-happened
Sent to me by a neighbour. No idea where he got it from, but amusing:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/zaw1lu1snwaabqn/image1.png/file
My local council is proposing a small new housing estate to demonstrate their eco credentials, including being “fossil fuel free”, which I need to look at a bit more closely. They’ve identified a snag already:
“In reviewing the two options [Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) v/v standard construction], officers recommend that the scheme is delivered using a traditional construction approach in this instance. The rationale for this is three-fold:
“Firstly, COST. The MMC scheme is currently more expensive to deliver than the same spec of units on a traditional basis.
“Secondly, Officers have raised concerns relating to future repairs and maintenance of MMC properties. As the Council would be purchasing a small number of MMC units, the opportunities to shape/amend its specification are limited. As such, there are concerns over the cost/inconvenience to tenants in having to replace certain items/components on the standard property types. An example of this is that window replacements on MMC homes currently require that the window is removed from the inside. If this window was in the kitchen, this would require any units/built in appliances to be removed (which might also need
replacing), thus adding to the cost of the repair and inconvenience to the tenant.
“Finally, a MMC scheme restricts opportunities for the Council to achieve against our Inclusive Growth and Local Spend agendas as MMC units would need to be purchased from elsewhere in the country and would require specialist installation from qualified fitters. This would prevent local contractors from benefitting from work opportunities and restrict local spend.”
In other words, green construction isn’t very user-friendly and promises of local green jobs are hollow.
Just about as credible as his BoE predictions?
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/bank-of-england-mark-carney-greta-thunberg-fossil-fuels-worthless-084903717.html
I quote from Sherelle Jacob’s Telegraph article
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/02/kowtowing-stormzy-greta-thunberg-exposes-elites-lazy-groupthink/
hello paul: I don’t know if this is the right medium for this, but I wonder if you have seen the article in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph, Sunday 5th January 2020, main section p.20, with the title “Climate change ‘experts’ should listen to Australia’s farmers on wildfires”, by Jamie Blackett. Very useful to nail the lies about a link between climate change and the Australian widlfires.
How to Talk to Climate Deniers
doh !
So you want to convince an advocate of the dangers of anthropogenic climate.
Here are some strategies for a hard conversation.
Lead with values, not facts
Emphasize the potential benefits
The messenger matters
Follow up with evidence
Or is trying to convince an advocate of the dangers of anthropogenic climate change a waste of time?
SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND
There’s no one way to talk to people about climate change, the Columbia University climate scientist Kate Marvel has written in The Times, “but dialogue, language and mutual respect matter.”
It works both ways, it’s a pity there is such a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the evidence.
Coastal erosion news
There’s been 120 hectares of UNerosion
On Google maps I notice a new island that I’ve never heard of
Turns out this island has formed naturally out of a sandbank opposite Whitton on the Humber in the last 10 years.
The strange thing is that corresponds to the EA flooding farmland a few miles away : the Alkborough Flats Tidal Defence Scheme in 2005/2006
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitton_Island
That’s quite a carbon footprint!
https://t.co/F9VYwCqbfv?amp=1
Oh I answered below
“The initial alert was a report of an electric car having caught fire, but police later confirmed to NRK that the fire started in a 2005 model diesel car.”
https://www.thelocal.no/20200108/norway-airport-flights-held-as-hundreds-of-cars-burn-in-fire
BBC Look North at Skipsea
“There is coastal erosion here, but Climate Change now makes the tides higher and stronger”
those claims seem BS to me
Netherlands Supreme Court Rules They Must Reduce CO2 by 25% by end of 2020
The logic was the gov used to have a target of getting back to 1990 levels by 2020
The court says that since CC affects the human right to good health it breaks the human rights act not to implement the plan
The government defence was that this economically viable.
The court said ‘tough , human rights come first’
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/netherlands-supreme-court-rules-they-must-reduce-co2-by-25-by-end-of-2020/
Hi Paul need some help from you. Friends of Science posted on facebook your article on Austrian bushfires https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/12/24/green-ideology-not-climate-change-makes-bushfires-worse/?fbclid=IwAR05EiEfFtCaYA_Vr4z2538aAiJJLlUkktLMW7isbdnZtveezZfATgPOqac. And it was flagged misleading https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-bushfires-australia-breitbart-newspunch/?fbclid=IwAR08rxDkScmX3RmZ51pgdlDMHJXBFCTuCkymRgdh4TCJNGo1mOSW8a-tiok.Since we are not the author we can’t fight them. Anything you can do would be appreciated. Sincerely,John Raven
I note it says “Climate Feedback”. Is this a fact checking site for Faecebook?
Interestingly they themselves totally misrepresent the article from the Firefighters themnselves, saying we claim “the bushfires [in Australia] were caused by arsonists and a series of lightning strikes, not ‘climate change'” , and then go on to claim that global warming has made the fuel drier.
We/Firefighters never claimed what they said, but pointed out that the build up of fuel loads had actually made the fires much worse than they would otherwise have been.
They also assert that climate change that the drought was due to climate change, without any basis
Can we challenge their judgement? If so, I will draft a reply.
Thanks
Paul
BTW John
Have you got the Facebook link to my story?
I can’t see that particular post of Pauls on FoS
but I can see others
I wonder if it only shows up to you John
John I see there is a Facebook group against you guys
..so maybe they are falsely reporting your posts.
Is there a process to submit an article for consideration on your blog?
I’ll email you, Duncan
Hello Paul, The BBC may have produced a more balanced programme on net zero. “The Inquiry” on Radio 4 1730 Saturday 11/01/20 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/favourites/m000d73d
Paul,
Have fun. 🙂
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46384067
I wonder why no comments:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/01/14/green-fortunes-will-made-economy-forced-decarbonise/
Paul,
if you have not just listened to Joshua Rosenberg on R4, Word of Mouth, 4.00pm until 4.30pm, you absolutely must:
“Carbon is a gas”, they actually said it and Joshua did nothing to correct his guest. The whole program was based on the fact that they do not think we have Orwellian enough words to describe climate change and we need a better narrative.
Extreme weather (hurricane Sandy) and even Polar bears. You could not make it up if you tried.
Listen again on BBC sounds or catchup,
Yours,
RockySpears
It gets worse:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/14/james-murdoch-criticises-fathers-news-outlets-for-climate-crisis-denial
https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/dangerous-misinformation-news-corp-employee-s-fire-coverage-email-20200110-p53qel.html
Paul
This might interest you.
A Decade of Constraint Payments.
https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/354-a-decade-of-constraint-payments?fbclid=IwAR0gnwZfbgc6FqMgQWMExq6V3nuwpCi-5oKTAiuCBhiSh_WC3dZAQtQTS88
Paul, in our local news.
South Hams council votes for lights to go out. Not the headline the news used.
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2020-01-16/delight-for-extinction-rebellion-campaigners-as-devon-council-refuses-new-gas-plant/.
Paul,
OMG!
https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/finance-news/boris-appoints-mark-carney-as-climate-change-finance-adviser.html
What on Earth is Boris thinking of?
Mind you, there might be an investment upside – sell all your fossil fuel-related shares now, then buy back after all the virtue-signalling investment house CEOs have listened to Carnage and his activist wife so the shares have crashed. As and when people start realising what a load on nonsense it all is, it’ll be one of the biggest buy signals in history.
Hi Paul, further to previous comments – re-German TV ARD wil be showing this tonight on the German/French Channel “Arte” @ 6.40pm
Re: Extinction Rebellion
Notwendiger Klimaprotest oder Ökoterrorismus? Wer sind die Köpfe der Bewegung, und wie gewaltbereit ist sie wirklich?
Reportage | arte | 20.01.20 | 19:40 Uhr =18.40 GMT
Paul, you may be interested in the following email I sent to the MetOffice; feel free to email me about it if you wish.
“As a public service freely provided to you I monitor your data at https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_max_est_2020 relative to what has over many years been a good proxy for those values, namely the average of maxima gleaned from https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/observations/gcq89t680, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/observations/gcpy8jchu, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/observations/gcw2hzyun . Admittedly, the value of this proxy has been severely demeaned by your discarding of the decimal digits last April, about which I have previously complained (see CS0019979).
Even so, it can detect gross errors, which I believe to be the case for yesterday. Viz the maxima for Pershore, Rothamsted and Rostherne were 2, 6, and 1 degrees respectively, giving a mean of 3, which is far removed from the 6.9 recorded at cet_max_est_2020. Please can you explain how this discrepancy came to occur, or if it is not an error then why not?”
I’d be interested in seeing their reply!
Thanks
Paul
Whilst it’s known that birds and bats are victims of wind turbines, there is now growing concern that Whales and Dolphins are also dying at an alarming rate because the infra-sound offshore turbines generate is making them deaf.
This is particularly concerning around the shores of the UK as we have the largest windfarms in the world.
Nor is this a report from an anti wind farm activist, this is from an environmental journalist who is now calling for the development of offshore wind farms to be halted until we can understand what’s going on.
“According to research by the CSIP (Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme), whale beachings in the UK rose by 15% in the period 2011 to 2017, a total of 4,896 whales, dolphins and porpoises died. The actual number of deaths is likely to be much higher as not all carcasses are washed ashore.”
http://jasonendfield.weebly.com/home/stranded-whales-were-deaf-raising-more-questions-over-offshore-wind-farms?fbclid=IwAR2a7wDYgD5vJUyxWWCIUmqtIT2DcUHo0JnHdu6-7iU2QgRMwKjSa46J6nk#
Paul
you might be aware of this but I just found out tonight.
There is now a citizens assembly on climate change called Climate Assembly UK.
Thirty thousand letters were sent out randomly to citizens From 6 November. “ To ensure the most representative sample, 80% of those receiving an invitation were randomly selected from every UK household address in Royal Mail’s Postcode Address File. The remaining 20% were randomly selected from the most deprived areas within the Royal Mail’s Postcode Address File, simply because response rates are estimated to be lower from these postcodes.”
So we now have 110 selected laymen, with unknown qualifications or knowledge, potentially laying down the law on a subject that the most highly qualified scientists and engineers around the world cannot agree on.
It would be nice to think of it as some window dressing to shut XR up, but somehow I imagine that when the politicians get their grubby mitts all over it, the whole thing will turn into a campaigning tool for the left.
The recruitment page is here. https://www.climateassembly.uk/detail/recruitment/
Did I hear / read a headline yesterday,Sunday, about the Assembly having their first meeting (on Sunday) – Nothing in the News about it.
copy of letter to the Telegraph:
Dear Sir,
Davos: the rich teaching the poor how to be mean
Sherelle Jacobs is right to warn that ‘climate change is complex’ even while Sir David Attenborough’s warnings, in ‘onomatopoeically crumbly prose’, echo in our heads, and visions of Australian bush fires and other disasters are held up by the BBC as warnings of climate apocalypse; she is also right to be sceptical about ‘the world’s elite’ descending on Davos, a ‘luxury ski resort’, arriving ‘in their private jets to discuss global warming’ and how to ‘“save the planet”’ over ‘pan-seared Indonesian soy cutlets cooked by a celebrity vegan chef flown in from Canada’, while being lectured by 17-year-old climate campaigner Greta Thunberg, who ‘rattled off Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change figures’ on ‘requisite cuts in carbon emissions’ (‘Beware the consensus of Davos doom-mongers’, Telegraph, January 23, 2020).
The BBC seems to think that if they bombard us with images of natural disasters – whose causes are equally ‘complex’ – as yet more evidence of a ‘climate emergency’ we will finally capitulate and agree to the draconian measures that environmentalists say are needed to ‘avert disaster’. And yet if, by their own actions – and more importantly, inaction – the richest and most powerful world figures do not seem to believe in this ‘emergency’, why should those who are expected to bear the brunt of their ‘solutions’, like going vegan, abandoning our cars and air travel and giving up the dream of having children?
Elsewhere, the Government’s climate advisory body has recommended that reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 will ‘require a “fundamental” shift in the way Britain’s land is utilised’, chiefly by ‘mass tree planting, bio crops and less red meat’, although ‘[f]orestry could be included in a carbon trading scheme, for example, meaning the carbon sequestered by the forest could be sold to airlines and fossil fuel providers to offset their emissions’, with related costs ‘passed on to consumers through higher air fares’; and when the rush to veganism slows – numbers rose from 150,000 to 600,000 between 2006 and 2018, but may reach a plateau – future governments ‘may need to consider regulation or pricing’ to bring meat consumption ‘down to 50 per cent if other measures to limit greenhouse gases are not effective’ (‘How landscape of Britain will change in fight to save planet’, Telegraph, January 23, 2020).
And yet if reforestation is the answer to climate change, the deforestation carried out by the Anglo-Saxons must have been at the root (pun intended) of the problem, and the ‘climate emergency’ that has still not arrived must have started with them denuding Essex of most of its trees. Of course, we are told that the proposed forest expansion could be ‘swapped’ for the carbon emitted by road and air travel; we are also tempted with the vision of profits to be made from ‘going green’ – but only with hefty public subsidies for ‘renewable energy’ like windmills, which do not turn all the time, and when they do, turn rather too fast, while mangling the seabirds they are supposed to help save.
But having faced the public with an apocalyptic vision of changes so drastic that civilisation would go backwards and life would again become ‘nasty, brutish and short’, they suddenly show us how it could be averted simply by buying new things – like the electric cars that at present, because of their impracticalities, very few people want. In this regard, vegan capitalists must be congratulated for pioneering the novel marketing approach of selling people food not on the basis of what the packet contains but of what the packet does not contain – meat, eggs, milk, fish, containing all the nutritional elements necessary for good health; indeed, judging by what strict vegans will not eat, it may be better for animal welfare – if not human welfare – to throw away the contents and eat the cardboard box. And what with everyone being surrounded by trees, there will be plenty of wood to spare for cardboard packaging, as well as wooden clogs and rickshaws to transport us to the nearest group of huts – weather and rising sea levels permitting of course.
Ms Jacobs is right to warn against ‘the consensus of Davos doom-mongers’; historically, world leaders have sacrificed their peoples in wars that were at least necessary for the people’s security; the real danger lies in world leaders agreeing not to fight each other, but to combine against the people of the world, seeking other ways to curb their numbers. Now it seems the favoured method is DIY population control – getting the people to curb their own numbers through fear of the future.
But not all world leaders are signed up to this new approach, notably Russia and also China – no slouch when it comes to curbing its own population – and when we have impoverished our own people, beggared our economies and bled our defence structures dry, they will be waiting to curb ours in more direct ways. And yet the elites of Davos must be given credit for attempting a remarkable feat: the rich teaching the poor how to be mean. But when the taxpayers run out, so will the taxpayer subsidies; and even the rich may start to feel the pinch.
Yours faithfully,
Ann Farmer
0203 842 8751
277 Prospect Road
Woodford Green
Essex IG8 7NQ.
An excellent synopsis of current policies, and letter,though I am sceptical it will be published.
Saw your 2017 article on the “Committee of Climate Change”
Look at what their current CEO gets….approx $200K+ in pension benefits alone!
All working out of swish offices in Sloane Square!
@DrB ..it’s actually more
Paul
I am following the Climate Assembly UK (like there’s another one in another country?) on Facebook.
Today I was faced with none other than the hysterical climate alarmist and proven liar, David Attenbourough, with an impassioned plea.
No questioning the science, simply that the task is for a bunch of 110 numpties to tell the rest of us how to reach Net Zero.
The science it seems, is indeed settled!
Biofuel good:fracking bad – or is it?
https://www.barnsleychronicle.com/article/firm-slapped-with-200k-bill-after-polluting-blaze
This’ll be a challenge:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51226066
Even then, they’re “only” targeting the industry’s emissions (265000TCE). “[T]he plan won’t cover emissions generated by fans – the much bigger part of the problem. When they are accounted for, F1’s footprint rises to some 1.9 million CO2 equivalent tonnes.”
Today’s contribution from Donna. Not climate but highly relevant.
Paul,
this is very interesting. Rolls Royce are pushing ahead with SMR Nuclear reactors and intend to have the first of 15 or so installed in the UK in 2028.
Click to access smr-brochure-july-2017.pdf
As announced on Radio 4 and published on New Atlas.
https://newatlas.com/energy/rolls-royce-plans-mini-nuclear-reactors-in-britain/?utm_source=New+Atlas+Subscribers&utm_campaign=7ce44a50d0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_27_09_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-7ce44a50d0-92281965
Paul . just listening to BBC R4 “infinite monkey cage” from 27/1 discussing coral reefs and their disappearance (all gone by 2050???). Couple of dodgy scientist and a buffoon comedian(?) spouting usual doom and gloom and half truths. Apparently edinburgh in same latitude as anchorage.. Also attributing Permian extinction to excessive CO2 as warning for what is coming . Even i can check wiki that says “Potential causes for those pulses include one or more large meteor impact events, massive volcanic eruptions (such as the Siberian Traps[14]), and climate change brought on by large releases of underwater methane or methane-producing microbes.”
You need to listen to this programme. A good analysis of the lies needed.
Also this mornings 6.30 news on R4 – second item was about huge antarctic glacier melting and huge sea level rises.
Second piece of good news in less than 24 hours:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51334031
Paul
I found this by accident. From May 2019.
“Scientists caught ‘adjusting’ sea level data to create false impression of rising oceans”
https://www.sott.net/article/413892-Scientists-caught-adjusting-sea-level-data-to-create-false-impression-of-rising-oceans
No idea if it’s credible or not.
Hi Paul
Seen this madness?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7959041/Energy-regulator-Ofgem-announces-plans-10m-electric-vehicles-road-10-years.html
It won’t help in 2025 if the weather has been as recently
Paul
Brilliant letter to Greta from one Jason D. Hill, professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
https://albertapressleader.ca/professor-writes-critical-open-letter-to-teen-climate-activist-greta-thunberg/?fbclid=IwAR07bexBOlHkbR3U1oqzsaVjDpjfdiNuRMnTPimqD9X79CnVjXfI9jvisYY
I learned something today. My gas boiler is pre-condensing type and quite old, so I thought I ought to get an idea of the cost of replacement with a new condensing type before they’re banned. One of the firms I asked to quote was BG, who launched into a spiel describing how, following a change in regs, I needed other stuff besides a super-efficient boiler. Apparently I have to have at least one of four additional features. I’m afraid I lost interest as soon as “smart thermostat” was mentioned.
After I’d recovered my composure I had a look online and, sure enough, there are new regs:
https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/01/if-you-need-a-new-boiler-these-regulation-changes-will-affect-you/
The extra four features described here are:
Flue gas heat recovery systems;
Load compensating thermostat;
Weather compensating thermostat, or;
Smart thermostat.
They say that these thermostats “should only cost around £100 more than a standard thermostat, which is pretty negligible when you take account of the overall cost of a new boiler.”
That may be the case for a bells and whistles quotation from BG, but in the real world, no thanks. I think I’ll hang on for the time being unless I can find a rogue gas fitter who’ll do me a black market installation, incorporatng my existing, perfectly functional ancillaries.
Also Talk to Worcester Bosch. I have spoken to 3 plumbers who universally said they are the best currently available
Thanks. On the shortlist with Vaillant, IF I proceed.
Link to Interesting article found on guido this morning https://troymedia.com/environment/fight-climate-extremists-before-they-upend-society/
Now also picked up by GWPF in todays newsletter
It looks like wave power is over:
https://www.maritimejournal.com/latest-jobs/premium-jobs/marine-contractors-wanted?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWXpObU16bGpNbUUzWkRSayIsInQiOiI4WHo5RVwvazVsRmRUa2ZCeUxodklkSDhWc0sxRzlcL29lZU9hQ0h0UGlMeVdCUjJwSUd0VlpTd0JnVTJMNUtkZVdHM1dwMEc5TjhLaHY0TmhQbzUyZ2ZZb2RtaHFmdXpNY2lYSGtiRkRjRnFCcFphbW9xNjJOTjIrTTZDeEl6b3c2In0%3D
Nawwww!-Och it canna be -Nichles Fish wouldn’t be allowing it, man! And the Niose from BBCScotland never told us either.
Huh, it will be interesting to see how even our poor relation of STV ( Former Grampian TV ,not HDTV) responds to this niose.
And talking about green jobs, they brag about the green jobs created via the recent large offshore “investment” but don’t mention that operation and maintenance jobs have gone to China.
Dunno about Jobbies going to China: Scrap does, along with the Christmas Tatt that didn’t last and cost MORE to return than they are worth . Otherwise jobs have gone Darn Sarth, but we have found that they had gone to Pot and back, finally the Suppliers were kinda told to go to Hull with it !
AS for the Carbon Footprint, wasn’t it Lab’s Brown Gordon who taxed Concrete? Concrete was relatively cheap and allowed you to have a tidy Yard. Gravel Mix was cheap. Then the City Doughballs got their Paws on it and it’s all taxed to Bougerly. Now when cash flow is tight and more pressing expenditure is required, we work in the gutters. in 2020. We are the richest dirtiest nation in Europe, according to the Stupid Nit Party
I wonder what the carbon footprint of that is, from installation to complete removal and disposal.
Sky News strap line last night mentioned steep decline in chinstrap penguin population due, obviously, climate change. No mention of industrial scale fishing of the seas where they live.
A side issue, but is it just me who has trouble getting to the end of this thread? I use Ctrl/End when I open the page but it doesn’t work very well and even when I eventually get there, the page scrolls back up several times before it settles. Is there a way of adding a “Go to the last post” button, Paul, please?
I like this:
https://life.spectator.co.uk/articles/word-of-the-week-net-zero/
Paul, I have been unable to post anything for about a week. When I click post it just goes away.
I’ve found one in the spam box, now released, not found anything else other than “duplicates” of it.
Thank you. I went over settings and did not find anything “wrong.” I tried to post several times over 2 days. Hope it does not appear multiple times.
Orkney hydrogen
Paul, a friend of mine told me excitedly about the hydrogen scheme in Orkney and gave me the following PR link: http://www.surfnturf.org.uk/
Have you come across this?
I replied thanking him but asked if he’d got any financials that would indicate the economic performance of the scheme in total and the degree to which it is taxpayer subsidised. Figures on what is being achieved v Orkney’s total energy needs would also be a useful framework. He had none.
Clearly, the idea of using wave and, especially, wind power that would otherwise be lost (because the grid couldn’t use it) to create hydrogen from water seems quite seductive and “clean”. Indeed, at a local level (ie where you might be able to utilise renewables on an intermittent basis rather than expecting them to power a grid reliably on a national scale) it might make sense in theory. I confess, however – and call me an old cynic – but a) is there really such a thing as a free lunch? and b) the idea that you make a fuel from water using energy, only to compress and transport it (land and sea) using more energy, then use the very same electrolysis process in reverse somehow to create water and supposedly dispatchable electricity, seems to me a bit too complicated and energy-using to be efficient.
Any thoughts?
Yes, the big drawback with hydrogen is how you store and transport it
Paul
Have you seen the report just issued ‘Absolute Zero’ prepared by UK Fires for the Government. It portrays a frightening picture of what the UK will look like in 2050. But having done a quick scan of it, they seem to be in cloud cookoo land as to what and how it can be achieved.
Will you featuring a review of this piece of nonsense?
Any links?
Paul
I got it through the Twitter link on GWPF. But I have a downloaded pdf if you want a copy, but I will need an email link..
Paul
I have found the report sitting in the Climate News Network website.under the report ‘UK Airports must shut to reach 2050 Climate Target’. Three paras down there is a link to Absolute Zero pdf.
Hope this helps.
Thanks Keith
Found it – I’ll post tomorrow
Paul,
Coastal sea levels in the U.S. are rising—and at an accelerating rate, according to the latest “report card” by researchers at William & Mary’s Virginia Institute of Marine Science. The team’s annual web-based report analyzes tide-gauge records for 32 localities along the U.S. coast from Maine to Alaska …. more at https://www.turfmagazine.com/erosion-control/u-s-coastal-sea-levels-are-rising-at-an-accelerated-rate/?utm_source=delivra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=LSN%20eReport%202.18.20%20–%20Caterpillar%28SC%29%28LB%29%20–%20Kawasaki%28AB%29&utm_id=1928212&dlv-emuid=f9d7943e-075b-456b-9bbe-2f16386ed750&dlv-mlid=1928212
Well done, Paul – another honourable mention:
http://joannenova.com.au/2020/02/jan-2020-coldest-ever-day-in-greenland-65c-comes-goes-no-one-notices/
Paul,
Re log burners
See this interfering, nanny-state nonsense:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/21/coal-wood-fires-banned-fight-cut-emissions/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_At3x3fZhN4Lw
1) Don’t these people get that the people really don’t want to be dictated to in this way?
2) With all that discussion about burning different types of wood, I wonder whether the Drax process would pass muster? Of course, despite the rules of “carbon accounting” (that anyone with a brain cell larger than a particulate can see are insane) we all know that the totality of the process from forest destruction to burning is heavy “polluting”. Just looking at the final burning, however, would we as humble home-owners be allowed to burn those same pellets from now on?
Did you hear? Heathrow’s going zero carbon by 2030, but it doesn’t include all deliverers and contractors, nor the construction of Runway 3, nor aircraft emissions! A bit like my local council, who’s going zero carbon more modestly, by 2040. Again, doesn’t take account of 20000 houses or hundreds of new sheds or associated emissions. Hypocrites the lot of them.
ianprsy – would that be the same Heathrow now part-owned by private equity billionaire and avid XR doner Chris Hohn? No history of hypocrisy there, no sirree, especially as net zero pretty much necessitates the shutdown of the passenger aircraft industry thus rendering Heathrow one of Carney’s “stranded assets”.
” Heathrow now part-owned by private equity billionaire and avid XR doner Chris Hohn”
Didn’t know that – have you a link please Ian.
We could do with a database of Hypocrites & their assets/involvments.
SaveEnergy,
I don’t have a link but just google it – it’s easy to find. I believe the investment exceeded £600m.
Ian
Ian; Thanks for the Hohn heads up….& for the Tesla blonde clip.
Paul, I received this in my Mail today – may be “Off topic” but who knows that – and any relevance?
The year was 1947. Some of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, 70 years ago, numerous witnesses claim that an Unidentified Flying Object, (UFO), with five aliens aboard, crashed onto a sheep and mule ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico.
This is a well-known incident that many say has long been covered-up by the U.S. Air Force, as well as other Federal Agencies and Organizations.
However, what you may NOT know is that during the month of April, year 1948, nine months after the historic day, the following people were born:
Barrack Obama, Sr.
Albert A. Gore, Jr.
Hillary Rodham
William J. Clinton
John F. Kerry
Howard Dean
Nancy Pelosi
Dianne Feinstein
Charles E. Schumer
Barbara Boxer
Joe Biden
This is the obvious consequence of aliens breeding with sheep and jack-asses. I truly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you. It certainly did for me.
And now you can stop wondering why they so strongly support Illegal Aliens
Paul,
I am guessing that you are as mystified as the rest of us as to how the Tesla car company (despite never having made an annual profit) is now worth pretty much $1,250,000,000.
Well, the following would appear to present an indication of the intelligence level of the company’s loyal customers:
I’m sorry, that should of course have been $,1,250,000,000,000. With that mathematical ability, I’d best go and buy a Tesla.
More virtue signalling?
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/national-express-zero-emissions-diesel-fuel-environment-results-084228868.html
Paul,
It seems that pricing up green new deals is catching on. Here’s Bernie Sanders’ little contribution:
https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/climate/bernie-sanders-climate-change.amp.html
A mere $16,000,000,000,000? What’s not to like? Oh, but of course it’ll all be paid for by green new jobs and carbon taxes so nothing to worry about.
Paul – like the hypocrasy in this – BBC says streaming is damaging climate goals and then invites you to watch the report ……… on iPlayer https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-51742336/dirty-streaming-the-internet-s-big-secret?intlink_from_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fscience_and_environment&link_location=live-reporting-map
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/bushfires-in-australia-2019-2020/
Hi, Paul, I’ve been following your blog for a number of years now, having been convinced of the total nonsense of anthropogenic climate change by reading the articles written by the late Christopher Booker who, in turn, provided the link to your blog.
I imagine that you are already aware of the World Weather Attribution website which seems to have ‘signed up’ to the promotion of pseudoscience.
The above link attracted my attention following my having firstly read some comments to your blog about the Met Office jet stream rubbish and then your subsequent blog highlighting the ludicrous CSIRO report which was debunked by Matt Canavan.
As you will see there is a 46 page study which can be downloaded. I have downloaded it, but have yet to read it in full. I am also only too aware that I do not yet have sufficient knowledge to pull it apart, but suspect that you will be able to, should you decide that it a worthwhile exercise.
Keep up the splendid work!!
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=9318ba09e0&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1661353612961951296&th=170e504f0ae8ae40&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ9ucUmyfRRzsrPZrrRE3vuQA2Zy13j0AnG4ktRXaXR0eUowtmFfdEP35AYdUu3zcM4g_zbPU731Rll8YXG6xqZ8aYO86-A2qy6iJgbCCS6LfHdxjX710vQIGxo&disp=emb
Hello Paul
Can I ask if you took a copy of the oil and gas authority report (119 pages) into the safety of fracking by Cuadrilla in Lancashire. I read it from cover to cover and it contained the following information:
Tremors measured at or below 3.0 on the Richter Scale have ZERO chance of causing structural damage.
Tremors measured at or below 3.0 on the Richter Scale have 0.1 % chance of causing cosmetic damage.
In other words it is totally safe since the biggest tremor so far which could be fracking related has been 2.9 on the Richter Scale.
I have writtren to Kwasi Kwarteng about this but if he denies it I do not have a copy 😦
Sorry, no.
Thanks for the reply Paul.
http://t.email3.telegraph.co.uk/r/?id=h2a1e498c,37664bd8,36a0e656&WT.mc_id=e_DM1224886&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Tec_New_TechIntel&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_Tec_New_TechIntel20200325&utm_campaign=DM1224886&p1=%40pFm%2FjlQdTB%2Fpluqmnn40GPaJaO%2BNAiysdN0TOLfwfD4%3D
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52040822
Article on digitising rainfall data – how the public can help – refers to maybe being wetter in the past but we just don’t know………
Let’s hope that climate alarmists shun this tempting opportunity to transcribe certain figures incorrectly. And let’s hope that Ed Hawkins and his colleagues exercise due caution and ensure that the volunteers’ work is carefully checked.
My local council was due to respond to my questions on their ridiculous “Zero40/45″policy yesterday (25th). I got this instead. How convenient!
Due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19), we are currently experiencing an increased volume of customer contacts which is having an impact on our ability to respond within our usual published timescales. To support the services that need our help most, we have suspended the delivery of our Information Request service. This includes the processing of all new and existing Freedom of Information, Environmental Information Regulation and Subject Access Requests from 24 March 2020 until further notice.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/29/energy-watchdog-ordered-smart-meter-roll-continue-despite-coronavirus/
Another CV:CC comparison:
https://www.melaniephillips.com/why-experts-make-disastrous-errors/
So, smart meters may come in useful after all. I had to check the date first.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/05/thousands-to-be-paid-for-daytime-green-electricity-use-during-lockdown
OK, use more energy but don’t forget there’s still a strong fossil fuel component. As I write, wind 40%, coal 0%, gas 16%, all on a very low demand – 26GW.
Dear Paul,
You may already have seen this, but if not – it could be a lesson for the Australians, don’t you think?
>>
California to use tribal tactics to control fires
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8feaea4e-7f40-11ea-b437-a2f12268f8d1?shareToken=a9f14e88ab257aa45b1ab2bf6292fc51
<<
Cheers, and keep up the good work,
Ian
Paul,
Another contribution to the “ignore the evidence about natural cycles that is staring you in the face” meme from Matt McGrath on the BBC website:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52312260
The historic graph is illustrative of the delusion. This gem of an article, however, contains something that I haven’t seen before – an assertion that warm air temperatures cause dry soils because the water is sucked out of the soils to make the atmosphere moister (as if we could accurately measure such parameters over hundreds of years – but that’s another story). Strange – I thought soils in the tropics (where the air is decidedly humid) were often wet. Oh well! Complicated business this climate science!
Paul,
Now Shell charges into the lead in the race to the bottom of giant oil companies pretending to be green:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-shell-emissions-idUKKCN21Y0MN
Oh dear god spare us this sanctimonious and delusional nonsense! What part of “oil company” do these people not get, and what’s wrong with that anyway?
Further, why announce this stupendous initiative just when the peoples of the world are finally beginning to rethink their commitment to greenery now Covid-19 has provided lessons in what green new deals would mean in practice?
Falling power use in Western Australia, due to coronavirus, risks system overload and blackouts, experts warn:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-18/covid-led-drop-in-energy-use-risks-system-overload/12150030
Hi Paul,
I thought this might interest you. A former met man has a very cogent take on met reporting and observation.
https://xmetman.com/measuring-sunshine-accuracy-across-europe/
Paul,
A truly priceless story on a number of fronts from Sky;
http://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-hope-for-holidaymakers-as-eu-urges-smart-solutions-for-tourists-11976383
The very idea that the EU is promoting “smart solutions” is funny enough but the idea that you should sunbathe in a Perspex box on a beach takes the prize. Imagine that on some Med riviera in July – a truly instantaneous way of experiencing the greenhouse effect on steroids.
This film is getting a lot of traction on line, worth a mention for the few who’ve missed it? Some great quotes.
Paul,
As a side story to the Drax fiasco (as sadly not directly attacked on M Moore’s film), you might be interested to see this slightly technical article about what Drax’s treasury get up to re the $ exposure arising from those pellets:
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6660507307169980416/
Ignoring the guff about how carbon emissions have gone up in smoke, the article is intriguing because it shows that Drax has decided that it’s appropriate to hedge some 6 years forward – way, way beyond the budget cycles that corporates typically hedge. As banking credit considerations (especially for a highly indebted entity like Drax) preclude normal forward deals at these maturities, as a means to achieve these hedges, Drax has embarked up an active hedging programme inclusive of derivatives that is also well beyond what the great majority of corporates would even consider.
My main point, however, is not to criticise Drax’s hedging policies but to note that there is apparently no realisation that there is a serious political risk to the continuation of the environmentally ruinous Drax US-forest-to-east Yorkshire-power-station biomass process, especially over the (rolling) 6 year forward period that Drax deems it appropriate to hedge.
I may well be naïve in this but I truly believe that the penny will eventually drop with both the public and governments on the whole renewables industry farce. Further, when it does, the first area that will be axed will be precisely the sort of biomass process that Drax carries out. If the biomass burners are stopped, so will the great majority of the $ exposure and these hedges could cost countless £millions (if not £billions) to unwind thus putting Drax into insolvency.
All very odd from a financial management perspective. The US $ exchange rate is not the only risk Drax faces over the next (rolling) 6 years.
Surely there is a journalist who would take this up? If not National, what about the Yorkshire Post or regional ITV?
Sir David King, he of the fraudulent greenhouse effect “experiment”, is setting up a group to rival the SAGE Committee, as he’s concerned that the science behind the current COVID-19 policy should be open and honest. You Couldn’t Make It Up.
Surprised you haven’t picked up on this link from the GWPF site – https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18404742.mandatory-climate-change-classes-plan-scottish-leaders/
The RSGS seems to be another organisation which has succumbed to the long march through the institutions – and I speak as someone who was a long-term member (in fact treasurer of the Borders Centre for about a quarter of a century). It was noticeable that the public lectures had become increasingly preachy but the final straw for me was the awarding of an Honorary Fellowship to St Greta last year. At least they refunded my membership fee but the Chief Executive Mike Robinson (whom I know slightly) never responded to my resignation email.
A rather depressing podcast from The Spectator on Carbon Offsetting:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/carbon-offsetting-medieval-indulgence-or-the-way-to-net-zero-
The article’s paywalled and I can’t extract the audio. Somebody may be able to to do that.
A surprising comment was that planting trees isn’t going to be acceptable, notig they could catch fire or die from drought. Shell has a £300million investment in the issue. It was also noted that COVID-19 will probably delay the Net Zero project. Clearly, the impact of the virus hasn’t dimmed the enthusiasm for repeating the exercise in the name of saving the planet.
Overall, the delusion of the need to reduce the carbion dioxide contant of the atmosphere is a given. It’s all about HOW? not WHY?
The summary:
Carbon offsetting refers to the suite of schemes that compensate for the emissions we put out, by making up for them elsewhere. Included in those schemes are so-called ‘nature-based solutions’ – initiatives designed to protect and transform land, like tree planting. But with offsetting in the news for all the wrong reasons – like Harry and Meghan’s private jet-setting lifestyle – is it a medieval indulgence, allowing the rich to absolve their environmental sins; or the way to Net Zero, which the government has committed to achieve by 2050? Do nature-based solutions work, and how should their performance be measured?
Kate Andrews hosts the podcast and speaks to Tony Juniper, Head of Natural England; Robert Courts, Conservative MP for Witney; and Harvonne Yap, Global Origination Lead for Environmental Products at Shell, which is sponsoring this podcast.
Oh air pollution causes Covid19
Does it ??
A red flag is when new science goes straight media
instead of the proper process of science journal
So NYT ran a story
And Milloy has followed it up
The scientists big claim was watered down and a correction issued
but the NYT just moved on with correcting their story
“The preliminary study by researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health made a splash when the results were announced April 7 in The New York Times, prompting alarm on the left as Democrats sought to connect COVID-19 deaths to the Trump administration’s regulatory pushback.
A few weeks later, however, its researchers quietly backtracked from their finding that people who live for decades in areas with slightly more particulate matter in the air are 15% more likely to die from the coronavirus, lowering the figure to 8%. The press release was revised Monday.
Other profs had already expressed doubt
“The model has not been validated and its assumptions are unrealistic,”
“In layman’s terms, it assumes an unrealistic effect of fine particulate matter on deaths, and then with that assumption built into the model, it uses data to estimate how big that unrealistic effect is. They’re making an assumption that has no basis in reality.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/4/harvard-backtracks-air-pollution-coronavirus-death/
Paul,
Latest garbage from the ever-reliable Matt McGrath:
Climate change and Covid-19: Five charts that explain the impacts
Three things jump out of the page at me:
1) the first graph showing supposed global CO2 emissions (presumably anthropogenic only) since 1900. I’m sorry but this is pure delusional fantasy. How the hell do we know the figures for, say, 1920 or 1950 when there must be considerable doubt that we know the number to the nearest 50% in 2020? Did every country in the world keep those statistics? Hardly!
2) even if you accept that concocted graph, for context where are the associated CO2 atmospheric concentration numbers for those years? Do we, for instance, see major CO2 concentration drops during those supposed low emissions years? Judging by what is happening – or is likely to happen – with the Mauna Loa chart in 2020 (ie bugger all) I can only conclude that showing such would have spoiled the story somewhat. Convenient omission it seems.
3) a chilling statement from some expert or other: “If Covid-19 leads to a drop in emissions of around 5% in 2020, then that is the sort of reduction we need every year until net-zero emissions are reached around 2050,” said Glen Peters, also from Cicero. This man clearly likes the destruction of human quality of life as we have known it. Just how many more personal and business bankruptcies does this person want to see? Alternatively, maybe he’s just being honest and saying: “look at what net zero will actually mean to our lives.” It’s time for the Raab’s of this world to wake up and smell the coffee.
Got a link?
Further to this the equally reliable Roger Harrabin has also added a similar themed page to the BBC site today (6th May) following up on a similar corona virus/climate change pages last month (linked in the first page) . https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52547885
also provides a link to the “BBC Energy Briefing” from December 2019. 194 pages !!!! Had not seen this before, My, the BBC have been busy!! Maybe they are also bringing back Jackanory
But clearly BBC are all guns blazing on the covid/climate connection .
This is the page
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52485712
for the matt mcgrath article that Ian refers to
Noted lastest edition of “the life scientific” on BBC R4 5th May. Interviewing Jim Macdonald about Power Networks. Unfortunately he is a pro zero carbon (and £100s of billions expense for renewables) but he did address network issues although he seemed to propose smaller networks rather than a national grid – i think so that when we have power cuts (like last year) it doesnt take the whole system down, and the fault is localised. It did concern me that no question was raised about the potential increase in issues due to balancing for renewable over supply or under supply etc. So again the BBC have whitewashed the issues and not taken an “expert” to task . Worth a listen and some analysis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McDonald_(electrical_engineer)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvkp
Thursday funny – Greta v Patsy
https://twitter.com/meggiefoster/status/1258336578713387010?s=08
Re Tasteless (have you tried the product?) Quorn advertisements
Paul,
I wonder how many of your readers have been scrambling (pun intended – see below) for their remote controls over the latest batch of Quorn advertisements labelled “Take a step in the right direction”?
Examples include:
Further, the website (www.quorn.co.uk) regales us with constant virtue-signalling catchphrases like “Healthy Protein. Healthy Planet”,
Is the Quorn company quite so squeaky-clean, however that it can preach to us in this way?
Wikipedia tells us that “Quorn is a meat substitute product originating in the UK and ….. is available in 18 countries”. Hmm, no carbon foot there then. Also it turns out that the main product lines are made with egg whites. Hmm again. How many chickens does that take?
Moving on, it seems that Quorn is owned (and no doubt run) by the Philippines foods corporation Monde Nissin. Its website (www.mondenissin.com) tells that that the group exports to 40 countries around the world, including countries in Asia, Africa, Middle East, Europe, North America, Oceania, and the Pacific Islands. Many of its products, it turns out, are beef based, despite Quorn’s website telling us just how bad beef production is for the environment (see Carbon Footprint section).
OK, to be fair, there are more polluting industries and indeed food manufacturers globally. Please, however, spare us your nauseating, virtue-signalling advertisements telling us to buy your products because, by doing so, you’ll save the planet.
Isn’t the internet wonderful? From this post in WUWT about Michael Moore’s controversial film (the film that keeps on giving):
I picked up this link:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/04/30/stanford-professor-cant-muzzle-planet-of-the-humans-must-pay-defendants-legal-fees-in-slapp-suit/#6c66b364e0ac
Which led to this one:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/woodmackenzie/2020/05/08/future-energy-zero-carbon-heating/#6dc080608727
In this piece, about renewables it’s claimed that:
The big advantage is the heat pump’s exceptional energy conversion rate. A modern gas boiler has an efficiency rate of around 80%, with 20% lost in the process. Heat pumps can have 300% efficiency, generating 3 kilowatts (kw) of thermal energy for every 1kw consumed.
Is this a universal truth, ie without qualification or depending on type ODF system? How could it apply to an air-sourced system that has to be supplemented by grid energy in winter, for instance?
3 kw of energy per 1 kw consumed? Sounds like they have invented something even better than a perpetual motion machine!
Then there’s this:
OK, we’re no longer in the EU (?), but I’m sure our bureaucrats will find a way of linking us in.
“Scientists are talking about planetary limits. If we do not limit our emissions faster during the first 10 years, then we might actually go over the planetary limits,” she told Reuters of the risk of breaching the crucial 1.5 degrees boundary.
“It is political choice whether we do it or not.”
Has anybody told China and India?
Paul
I only just recently came across this article on what is happening to decommisioned wind turbine blades in the USA. So much for being enviromentally friendly.
Also I have been looking up Wind Turbine Lubrication, and again it seems it is not being reported on how much they rely on oil to keep their bearings and gearboxes lubricated.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2013/05/21/wind-turbine-lubrication-and-maintenance-protecting-investments-in-renewable-energy/
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article207921805/CO2-Preis-und-EEG-Umlage-Warum-Klimaschutz-jetzt-doppelt-kostet.html
Boss of E.on in Germany warning of huge jump in levy on green energy in Germany as corona virus hits, consumers effectively paying twice for fuel – ‘doppel kostet’.
Collins 2017: ”In this study, tornado events from 1950 to 2014, in the U.S., east of the Rocky Mountains, were investigated for seven phases of ENSO: strong, moderate, and weak El Niño/La Niña and the neutral phase. A seasonal Niño 3.4 index was used as the definition of ENSO. ENSO influences on tornado frequency, intensity, geographical distribution, and track area were tested using sophisticated mapping (i.e. GIS optimized hot spot analysis) and spatial statistics (i.e. average nearest neighbor and global Moran’s I). Results indicate that, in spring, a Weak La Niña correlates with higher tornado intensity and stronger, long-lived tornadoes that shift eastward from the central U.S. as ENSO transitions from El Niño to La Niña. Summer has high tornado frequencies that do not vary dramatically across ENSO phases, with weak, short-lived tornadoes occurring in tornado outbreaks. Fall has similar tornado frequencies across six of the seven ENSO phases, apart from largely higher annual counts during a Strong La Niña phase. Winter exhibits more tornadoes that are stronger and longer-lived during a Moderate La Niña phase, with a northward expansion in tornado hot spots as ENSO transitions from El Niño to La Niña. In general, La Niña is most conducive for higher tornado counts and stronger, longer lived tornadoes.”
”However, not all of the literature agrees with these findings. Agee and Zurn-Birkhimer (1999) suggest that the phase of ENSO does not have a role in the production of stronger or longer track tornadoes, regardless of phase. Knowles and Pielke (2005) claim that there is little difference found in total numbers between El Niño and La Niña events. They do confirm that La Niña events do tend to have longer tracked, more violent tornadoes than El Niño. Warmer than normal temperatures in the northwest pushing against colder than normal temperatures in the south during El Niño years weakens the interactions between the two air masses, decreasing the lengths of tornadoes, and the opposite is true for La Niña years (Knowles and Pielke 2005). Cook and Schaefer (2008) found that ENSO neutral years actually have the strongest correlation with an increase in tornado days (a day with 6 or more tornadoes), with respect to El Niño and La Niña. Finally, Schaefer and Tatom (1999) agree with Knowles and Pielke that the phase of ENSO does not favor tornado frequencies, and solely exhibit a shift in geographic location in the Mideastern and Northeastern United States during a La Niña phase. Their hypothesized physical explanation for this is little or no lag between warm/cold Pacific water and associated weather (Schaefer and Tatom 1998).”
Collins, Coryn Ann 2017 Impacts of ENSO on Tornado Frequency, Intensity, and Geography Across the Eastern United States Louisiana State University Master’s Thesis
https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5599&=&context=gradschool_theses&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fhl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%25252C5%2526as_ylo%253D2016%2526q%253DONI%252BENSO%252B1957%252B%252B3.4%252B%252B-moth%2526btnG%253D#search=%22ONI%20ENSO%201957%203.4%20-moth%22
Hi Paul. I have tried without success to find where to post links to articles for your attention. This one first made me laugh then up went my hackles. I have during the past 3 years written 4 times to the RSPB politely asking for information they may have on bird risk and mortality associated with wind farms. I wish to point out not one of those mails was ever replied to. I find therefore their “concern” to be ironic in the extreme!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/rspb-flooded-with-reports-of-birds-of-prey-being-killed/ar-BB1477hX?ocid=msedgntp
This is the best place to post, thanks
According to Al Jazeera, Lake Victoria’s water level is very high, thanks to serious East African flooding. It’d be interesting to get a shot of the Falls now.
I’ve been following your blog for a few months now. I have always considered myself “green” and although I still am I have become very sceptical in the last few months. Here’s my question – what do you think of this article? https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/blogs/london-co2-emissions-fallen-60-percent-lockdown
I’m a very ordinary, but keen, cycling grandmother and I have loved the quieter roads, as every other cyclist has, and I dread all the traffic coming back. But…..I am a member of Cycling UK and today they put out this claim that the article makes that London’s emissions have fallen by nearly 60% under lockdown. I have read it through carefully and think there might be things in it to dispute. Maybe if you have time you could have a look and see what you think.
Kind regards
Lizzie
Carbon Dioxide is not pollution.
There have been some conflicting reports about real air pollution, but the general impressions is that levels of NO2 may have fallen slightly, but PMs have not:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/?s=pollution
My view is that transport only accounts for a very small proportion of either. Home heating for instance contributes much more.
Thank you – I’m still trying to understand all this…
Have you seen:
https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2020/05/violent-rivers-of-meltwater-may-have-carved-greenlands-grand-canyon/
Basically a study from the university of Copenhagen which shows that there has been climate change over millions of years
Regards
Rob Harland
Paul,
Today from the “impartial BBC climate propaganda corporation.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise
Absolutely NO mention of mismanaged groundwater extraction.
No mention that some places were developed below sea level.
Absolutely NO mention of city hall engineering incompetence ….all according to these clowns is caused by sea level rise.
They are up to their usual tricks of conflating unrelated processes, mixing emotional anecdotes just for effect to sex up the supposed story with the usual partial quotes from NOAAH thrown in to add pretend authority to their sob story. This is a wilful intention to deceive but why? .
For example they say that roads are being raised to a “projected sea level height in 2065″…..no mention that this is actually to correct to raise the roads above Mean High Water Level and NOTHING to do with global warming or any of their attempts at fear mongering This has to be challenged at the highest level. This has to stop. This not a mistake. The engineering fact are clearly available for anyone who can be bothered to look. This is an intended deceit, I say again, a wilful intention to deceive for political purposes.
May I ask what right or reason does the BBC political department of pseudoscience give as justification for their fairy stories?
Worse, how did we come to a point when the BCC licence fee payer funding political activism?
Keep up the good work!
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Sorry, no idea where that “H” came from on the end of NOAA….ooops!
JS
Background info : On South African load shedding
Jan 7th WS radio had an item 3.5 mins in explaining its such a huge problem the country’s most popular app is the one that monitors when your area will get a power cut.
The UK prof made no mention being a blockage to building proper electricity infrastructure.
He went on about lack of maintenance and lack of new building.
– Even NOW under lockdown Twitter shows people complaining every few hours about loadshedding
Paul, re https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/05/09/bbc-promotes-open-letter-from-leading-firms/ . I did complain . just had response today and as you have closed comments on original post i am advising of their response here
“Thank you for getting in touch about our article UK ‘must prioritise green economic recovery’.
The article was reporting a call from the chief executives of more than 60 British organisations for the government to prioritise a green economic recovery.
The opening line referred to “bosses from leading firms” because they were amongst the signatories of an open letter which set out a range of actions they believe the government could take for “a new normal: a climate-safe, nature-rich, healthy world for all”.
As we explained in the article these signatories included household names such as Iceland Foods, The Body Shop and Ben and Jerry’s, as well as property developer and FTSE 100 company Barret Developments.
Thank you once again for getting in touch. ”
so they are being deliberately obtuse or else just don’t get it.
Oh, and the mis-spelling of Barratt is as per their email to me. I was going to make some smart remark but really it would be like kicking a puppy.
And can you re-organise this page .. It is so long it takes ages to load and get to the bottom. either break it up or put it in reverse order (newest at top)
I got exactly the same reply!
BTW- I have looked at this issue re the About page before, and there is no obvious solution. The easy way to get to the bottom is to hit CTRL END a couple of times
I think the BBC complaints dept. have developed the science of dismissing dissent to an art form. It usually goes like this. Either 1. They “forget” to reply to your letter or 2. They reply completely ignoring any questions you may have asked in an almost robotic fashion a la insurance company or government agency. 3. If you follow this up you will get a classic “So what YOU are saying is” reply again either completely ignoring your questions or points or distorting one tiny part and amplifying that. It is all a ploy to yet you to go away. I had an interesting spat with an ignoramus there when I challenged them for calling Dr. Patric Moore a Nuclear Power activist or lobbyist AND omitting the title Doctor. I asked why they omitted his correct title and any mention of his environmental work and the writer dared to gode me emphasis on calling him Mr Patric Moore and some rubbish that he had an American Qualification which people would not recognise in the UK! Not bad for someone with a PhD from a Canadian Institution! The level of confidence and arrogance that they are in the right is palpable either because they feel immune to criticism based on bravado OR word from someone on high says they are protected
Hi Paul.
Here is the BBC at their worst and that is using their position to influence and distort public thinking. I challenge them that among the other transgressions they make of wording of the BBC Charter this also is not acceptable behaviour.
This article is about air quality YET the only substance they talk about is CO2. They are in the serious business of conflation, of making links which do not exist. For example they were one of the primary media outlets pushing the window for supposed AGW back to the beginning of the industrial revolution which is baseless in science but as they are left wing arts graduate ideologs they understand the power of the repeated word. You will see them repeat that mantra every chance they get.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52793230
Keep up the good work.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul,
Just saw this….
“But it is not censorship”!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/movies/michael-moore-film-planet-of-the-humans-removed-from-youtube/ar-BB14zOSN?ocid=msedgdhp
The blatant way that those controlling the media are openly censoring anything which challenges their lies shows just how much power and money is behind the climate fraud and its consequences….. the resultant lie of unicorn renewables. They have trashed the Enlightenment, for money and power.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul,
More blatant and unacceptable political posturing by a registered British charity, the RSPB reported by the increasingly out of control BBC spouting drivel that I say they as a bird charity have no business doing. Clearly a coordinated plan by the RSPB political wing as both RSPB England and now Wales spouts forth non bird focused drivel no doubt in response to a demand by a dark and higher power desperate to keep the public attention on their climate fraud to keep the cash flowing which after all is what this is all about.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-52799589
This quote from the pointless selective none bird focussed waffle made me smile.
“It is calling for stronger laws to protect the environment, particularly sensitive habitats like woodlands, peatlands, semi-natural grasslands and seagrass meadows. The charity says extra funding should be prioritised to restore habitats like these.
In March, the charity WWF Cymru called for an “immediate, emergency response” to deal with the loss of species and habitats in Wales”
This is pretty rich from an organization which just stands by while pristine nature is defiled by wind farm infrastructure, while windmills chop up birds and force species to move and sterilized by acres of cadmium filled solar panels planted approximately 20 degrees North of their effective economic limit both pointless sources of pretend energy adversely affect the natural distribution of species but I suppose the birds do not mind losing habitat for the cause of saving the planet…oh and making the murky weasel and maggot filled end of the corporate world extremely rich.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul,
From the 21st May so you probably have seen it. It must have been a quiet day so the impartial BBC gave a minion the task of finding something Climate! The resultant PC BBC article is as long as the open letter it is referencing. For 5 people to produce together something so short and lacking in content is breath-taking. I notice it seems a trend in the science lite world of the climate circus that papers emerge with a cast of thousands on the authorship list. Perhaps this just shows how bloated and not fit for purpose the climate circus is. I was expecting something substantial and compelling but it is just a few sentences of woolly nonsense. That open letter has no data just a number of vague waffling claims and world socialism promoting nonsense, mostly along the nonsense line that people will not go back to their previous lives when lockdown is removed., The asininity of this claim we know well but for the BBC to be quoting four Australians clearly contemplating their navel fluff AND IT GETS PUBLISHED shows just how low quality output has to be for publication “as long as it sings from the climate songsheet”. The authors are preaching marxism based on nothing more than anecdotal information.
However my favourite line is from the BBC desperately trying give their support to this rubbish.
I quote. ” A drop in air pollution during lockdown has left skies clearer in some towns and cities”. Firstly which towns and which cities and which countries? See my point. This is the BBC version of an authoritative scientific observation..just anecdotes. Just take that statement in for a moment. Given that for example in the UK the lockdown has been uniform right across the country WHY has their claimed beneficial effect occurred only over “some” towns and cities? Anyone with any sense would realize that therefore more complex issues must be at play
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52754281
Paul. In case you have not seen this. It’s a paper to help people planning offshore wind farms make investment decisions, including the effects of the key parameters involved on costs, CAPEX, OPEX and LCOE. e.g. Water depth, distance to shore, plated capacity, etc. For monopiles primarily. Its about what makes money, not what they want to sell to the public who end up paying for it. If you want to contact me ask GWPF for my details. Although I don’t hide like many.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2018.1461150
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52849367
Here you go Paul.
The PC BBC daily climate disaster propaganda. When they are not obsessing over identity politics, intersectionality, sexism, racism and generally putting a neo marxist spin on everything they give us our daily climate indoctrination.
Quotes I like:
“The UK has experienced its sunniest spring since records began in 1929, the Met Office has said.
It is also set to be the driest May on record for some parts of UK, including the driest in England for 124 years”.
1. HOW can base conclusions on such shot time series? To do so is playing games not doing good science.
2. So it WAS drier 124 years ago! It is magnificent how they can declare that and not draw the obvious conclusion from it!
“Some scientists say these ‘stalled’ weather patterns are a result of climate change and the warming that is taking place in the Arctic region could lead to more extreme weather events in future,” he said”.
Some scientist say! Well some scientists say a LOT of things but that does not make them real or correct interpretations of the data and there we have it Climate Change inserted for our daily does of propaganda. Also notice the old chestnut “could” which goes along with “may” and “might”. Could means also could not. May means also may not and could means also may not. They constantly stress extreme scenarios. Why is an “impartial” media outlet doing that I wonder? The BBC are very clever at wrapping tiny pieces of fact up in their great big lie. They obviously learned that from their hero Lenin!
It is not what scientist say. That is the problem in the Climate Pantomime. It should be only about what the data says and for people who should know better and understand that this is a coupled system with multiple overprinted cycles of significantly different duration it is nothing less than egregious and a wilful intention to deceive while at the same time assuming a position of authority. Real uncontaminated “Scientists” are conservative and cautious about what they say by default. This lot appear so full of emotional outpouring one wonders if they are suffering from permanent climate PMS!
Cheers
Jon Scott
I think it’s worse Jon. People and institutions are making a lot of money from this. Some work should be being done on this topic but it has grown into an industry. Supported by the non commercial BBC!
I am puzzled by the records beginning in 1929. Presumably sunshine records, though they don’t specify? I thought there were some records much earlier than that?
Stay Alert everyone, Britain needs lerts!
An interesting piece. Substitute climate change for Covid and it still works
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52851185
More blatant propaganda from the BBC with a nasty twist they keep pushing and pushing
“Green groups have called for all bailout cash to go to firms that agree green objectives.
But the corporate leaders said: “While we can’t say no exceptions ever, green strings should be the rule, not the exception”.
I wonder WHICH corporate leaders said that exactly I wonder I wonder I wonder. Why do they not tell us?
Here we have the national broadcaster pushing neo marxism with this “conform or perish” threat. nasty desire of our green activist friends to send companies to the wall who do not “conform” : How many of those companies they list are worried and therefore have stepped in line to avoid being blacklisted I wonder?
https://www.bbc.com/weather/features/52840873
More bare faced climate porn from the “impartial” BBC.
My attention was drawn to this:
“With grass growth already 40% below the long-term average in parts of the UK, farming charity Forage Aid has already warned farmers to prepare for drought”.
Firstly where does that 40% come from? Given that cropping is setting records year on year which is NOT a long term average at all how do we have 40% less.
Also note the classic BBC mixing supposed facts which should be quantitative with qualitative assessments. That soil moisture map also shows different geological regions. The dry bit corresponds to the Cretaceous chalk for the most part. I would suggest which means there is MORE than one factor at work than precipitation alone to create a soil moisture reading but of course the BBC are not interested in truth or facts, they only want to push data which suits their brazen political narrative.
Secondly do we now have charities of dubious origin handing out instructions? That instruction based on what empirical data exactly? Are they like so many other “charities” now in the business of disseminating fear for political purposes?
The BBC hard at it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/three-pioneers-who-predicted-climate-change/p08ftt06
This cartoon whizzes by Tyndall who concluded that:
“water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small. Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth’s atmosphere warms the surface in what was later called a greenhouse effect, but he was the first to prove it. The proof was that water vapour strongly absorbed infrared radiation. Relatedly, Tyndall in 1860 was first to demonstrate and quantify that visually transparent gases are infrared emitters.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall
I wouldn’t normally cite a Wikipedia article, but this one is linked to directly from The Royal Institutes page on Tyndall…….so I presume they have actually read it.
HotScot…..FFS.
WordPress!
Paul,
Another absolute peach from the ever-reliable Harrabin:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52921479
This one is primarily a call for truckloads more cash for computers and modelling, not least because the Met Office was “astounded” and failed to predict the “unprecedented” swing from a wet winter to a hot, dry spring.
The main source for Harrabin is not the Met Office but one Professor Palmer from Oxford. It’s an interesting read because Prof Palmer basically admits they haven’t got much of a clue how to forecast these events nor can they be linked to (anthropogenic) climate change directly. The importance of this point seems completely lost on Harrabin who seems not to realise that his career gravy train is being questioned. He’s just keen to ask for more money for his cause.
Today I received my regular Blog from the Adam Smith institute the article is about the the EU deciding on labels for “non meat protein” .
However at the begining of the article is a statement which I believe to be incorrect.
“Much of this surge in meat alternatives is a result of an explosion in consumer awareness about the environment. Britons are increasingly mindful that livestock production degrades the planet. The evidence wholeheartedly agrees.”
This links to https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/664S/4690011?utm_source=RSS+Feed&utm_campaign=9670212b5c-RSS+Emails&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e33b41490e-9670212b5c-406291201
Has this not been debunked?
Hi,
BBC Radio4 today programme have just stated the following as a fact (you can hear on BBC sounds @ 0808.50 on 5jun20):
“Last month was the hottest May on record globally as well as in the uk…”
For the UK at least, I am fairly sure this is simply not true.
I heard reports that May2020 was the sunniest on record, but I didn’t hear it was ever claimed to be the hottest.
If I look at the met office data (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/historic-station-data) I can find ELEVEN Mays which have a higher average temperature than May2020…
So isn’t the truth actually that: ‘last month was the twelve hottest May on record…’
I have only used the met office data set for my region (Oxford). May20 was 13.90C average whereas hotter Mays were recorded as follows:
1868 14.10
1922 14.00
1947 14.10
1952 14.30
1964 13.95
1989 14.15
1992 14.40
1999 13.95
2008 14.10
2017 14.20
2018 14.25
To save me grabbing all the regional data to look at the UK average, does anyone already have this met office data combined for the whole UK? Does it show similar, that May2020 was NOT the hottest May on record?
Would like to get my facts straight before complaining to the BBC…
Thanks.
‘
You’re right, in the UK it was only tie 15th warmest.
There is also no global data out yet for May, so they don’t know that either.
Thanks for the top, I will see if I can find it online
I quite liked Prof Palmer. He seemed a proper scientist, questioning what is going on, developing links between various possible causes and effects and being sceptical about answers which are not fully proven.
Never picking a single hypothetical result and then looking for things to support it, like so many others.
My own take on it was “we have had an extraordinarily wet winter and a hot dry spring. If it’s more than a one off event, this change to our climate might be due to climate change”!
Prof Palmer’s conclusion was that this is not proven and definitely not proven that it’s because of man made events. I am amazed that the BBC allowed him on air!!
here is the link to BBC stating:
“Last month was the hottest May on record globally as well as in the uk…”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000jpf8
listen from 2:08:49
Thanks, just posted this:
here is the supposed source, Copernicus, the BBC use to claim that “Last month was the hottest May on record globally as well as in the uk…”
https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-bulletins
it states that Globally May20 was 0.63C warmer than the average May for (an arbitrary?) range of 1981-2010
it says nothing about the UK
and it does not say May20 was globally the warmest May on record; it uses mealy-mouth language to state that May20 was ‘the warmest May in this data record’ – that data record being the 1981-2010 they chose to select!
Paul – thanks for confirming that the UK-wide met office data puts May20 as the 15th hottest on record – I’ll fire off that complaint to the BBC now
Paul,
Some new nonsense from the Grantham Institute for (apparently stupid) Imperial College alumni to digest:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/197873/climate-change-will-bring-bigger-swings/?utm_source=alumni-bulletin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alumniebulletin
It is heartening to see that the principle of GIGO lives healthily on at Imperial. Apart from the bleedin’ obvious point that this study says you can attribute absolutely ANY weather pattern to AGW, what I love is the fact that after 150 years (or whatever) of warming they don’t/can’t point to a single piece of evidence that their theories have been becoming reality already. It’s all modelling about the future they are fantasising about.
And in a nutshell you have it Ian. Obsess over future modelled output, trash standard statistical practice by discussing only the worse extreme of one side of the probable(wrong) outcome and the money keeps flowing.
I too am concerned about the brainwashing of children in regards to climate change, so tried writing a book (with the assistance of the late Professor Bob Carter) to help redress the balance. https://www.motherowl.org/blog/677157 – if anyone is interested.
Paul, Re GCSE Climate Indoctrination:
I went to their site and could not find the above but I found this
https://geography-revision.co.uk/gcse/weather-climate/assessing-climate-change/
It starts of kind of reasonable and then the train suddenly shifts laterally and flies off into the wise blue yonder with some wild assertions…sweeping generalizations and baseless claims.
It all starts to go horribly off into lalaland from the section marked “Satellites”
This is the first section., I get angry when I see “science” twisted with words, taken out of context which is the main ploy of the climate propagandists, mixing small pieces of data with assertion. The BBC are masters of this black art
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Hi Paul.. in case you didnt see it .. Monday night (8th june) BBC4 – Ocean Autopsy.. First half is quite good and highlights valid concerns about microplastics, PCBs, heavy metals, fertilisers and even pharmaceuticals polluting the sea. But then second half is all CO2 acidification, coral reefs destroyed, warmer seas, rising sea levels, explosion in the release of methane and general global warming doom and gloom. Also it is quite easy to see where someone has decided to add video and comment to stress the global heating disaster with stock footage of polar bears, calving glaciers, floods (showing a mountain river in flood!) etc. So some good points about pollution but then as usual overkill and scaremongering about CO2 and global warming .. and had to laugh..at the end how marine wind turbines are helping biodiversity as artificial reefs … and then a picture of a baby seal. So the usual BBC propaganda and some dodgy facts ….
Paul
Good article from Michael Kelly on Capx on the approach the world should be taking to NetZero, but even the UK with all it’s fan fare about it, isn’t.
https://capx.co/until-we-get-a-proper-roadmap-net-zero-is-a-goal-without-a-plan/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=93076ee510-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_06_08_01_36_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-93076ee510-36447077&mc_cid=93076ee510&mc_eid=5f2cfb8234
As I read this it occurred to me that the first part was fairly well written in reasonable English. As it descends into conjecture, the English deteriorates.
I suspect there are more than one authors. One or more of them can’t write properly.
Paul, re Rowlatt pice about green energy. I have done some analysis you can find it here:
https://www.weather-research.com/articles/uk-electricity-generation-09jun2020
If you want the Excel data email me.
Just watched the news. After overdosing on the deadly effect of statues on the BBC and, to a lesser extent, Sky, switched to Aljazeera, to find quite a few real worldwide crises, not the least of which is news of severe flooding in S China, displacing 230000. I expect the BBC will eventually spot this as a climate-related event.
The Informed Consumer, above, linked to a very interesting article by Cap-X. The article missed off a fundamental question – is Zero50 even necessary? Am I wrong to query this starting assumption, especially if it’s practically unattanable?
Hi Paul, you might want to take a look at this:
Walking to work is WORSE for environment than car sharing because it makes you eat more leading to higher greenhouse emissions, new study finds
New research suggests walking can produce more greenhouse gas than driving
A walker needs as ‘fuel’ for the journey from food and this ups the footprint
Cycling is shown to be more energy efficient than either driving or walking
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8412477/Walking-work-BAD-environment-makes-eat-new-study-shows.html
So it’s better to let people die than save a few billionths of a degree of climate change?
Paul,
This isn’t a big story but it is symptomatic of the BBC’s problems. Chris Packham has been at it again with a deliberately misleading discussion of Cetti’s Warbler (minute 11, Springwatch, June 11
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000jyh1/springwatch-2020-episode-11 ). Noting that the bird had only been breeding in the UK since the early-70s, but is now more widespread over southern England, Packham stated: “Retrospectively we think this is due to climate change”. Note the undefined use of the “Royal We”. What he forgot to tell you included the following:
– the bird had sporadic UK sightings both in the early part of the 20th century and again in the 1960s. Breeding at some point was therefore likely;
– the distribution map for the bird shows that it is very predominantly a southern European species. Britain is thus at the northern end of its range and thus, for perfectly normal climatic reasons alone, you would expect significant waxing and waning of populations over time, losses over bad winters and so forth. Indeed, the early Kent Cetti’s colonisers died out before being replaced in later years. Furthermore, European countries – not least Germany – with latitudes (and climates) similar to southern Britain have no Cetti’s Warblers at all.
None of this lends any credence to the BBC’s latest little bit of climate brainwashing. The 60s and early-70s were not warm periods, so why did the warblers arrive? In contrast, the 1930s were warmer but no Cetti’s were recorded. Further, if it was just about climate, why haven’t the likes of Austria and Germany got Cetti’s populations?
If you are interested in the natural world, Springwatch has always been a most interesting and informative programme. It simply doesn’t need to make up stories and stoop to this type of unscientific political propaganda.
Yes you’re right. The number of road deaths is much higher per mile among cyclists and pedestrians than cars and even more than for bus or train travellers.
So there’s no way out of it other than getting a nuclear powered car but that is another can of worms!
https://link.mail.bloombergbusiness.com/click/20622665.22968/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmxvb21iZXJnLmNvbS9ncmVlbg/5b21597e954fcf5b5d604c8dB1e3a248f
Paul, I assume that you are already aware of Bloomberg’s recent entry into the list of those organisations who are intent on sowing maximum confusion on the issue of climate change. Purely in the interests of keeping abreast of all the nonsense circulating the globe, I signed up to receive emails from the Daily Bloomberg Green newsletter and a link to the latest is, hopefully, provided above.
Should you decide that it deserves commenting upon, I would be interested to find out how much derision can be heaped upon it !
Kind regards
Stephen Abrahams
Paul,
A valuable read from a Power Engineer.
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2020/06/renewables-let-s-address-reality/?fbclid=IwAR0U89cOblOryGrU5eJ102LBdthd8y0-PqGA6yfHX-oOx6XmdSXEpWm0Sao
Paul.. you are probably up to date but notice this morning the BBC are on the attack again (obviously they can see the tide turning on their Covid doom and gloom approach).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53100800 which is just a Greta brown nosing piece
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53111881 which is all about how global warming will affect sport! . typical mcgrath copying the press release and then lying. This was also early item on radio4 news this morning. It shows this as being from the https://www.rapidtransition.org/about/ who are funded by http://krfnd.org/about_the_board/
Who the hell are these people.. Are these groups that you have come across before.?
Paul Sunday Telegraph today P2 ” Global warming cause of mass extinction”
” Global warming caused by volcanic eruptions may have lead to late Ordovician extinction 450 million years ago.”
I think they have their cause and effect mixed up there somehow, but it would have spoiled a good headline.
Paul .. dont know if you ever check on Toby Young’s lockdown sceptic blog. https://lockdownsceptics.org/
this is followed by lots of folks like me who have similar scepticism to lockdown and covid as to climate change.
What i did want to draw your attention to was a piece in his blog today https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/06/21/latest-news-62
titled Why the Left Should Oppose Lockdowns
For lockdown substitute climate change and it equally applies , The guy that wrote this, Phil Shannon calls himself a green lefty.. i wonder if this then applies to his views on climate change
Here’s a taster:
The ideological failings of the left on lockdown are accompanied by a pronounced tendency to behave in politically-revealing stylistic ways, including:
* Belligerence: Converse with most lockdown leftists and you will be struck by their hostility to sceptical views and their lack of respect for the holders of those views. Calm discussion of evidentiary and political differences on lockdown has been replaced by the left’s need to beat down lockdown apostates in heated argument, not with better ideas but with belligerence. In politics, as in fashion, ‘the style is the man’ and the lockdown/woke left’s antagonistic and intimidating behaviour reflects poorly on a political grouping that claims to value liberalism, tolerance and ‘diversity’.
* Straw Men: Say that lockdown doesn’t work and is worse than the disease and the sceptic will swiftly be accused of being a callous granny-killer, a moral monster who places ‘money’ ahead of ‘lives’, and profit over people (cf. the facile “No life is worth losing to add one more point to the Dow” of Joe Biden, or the rhetorical doing whatever it takes to “save just one life” homily of New York governor, Andrew Cuomo). Setting up straw men (lockdown sceptic = murderer) to knock down is so much easier than respectfully contesting an exchange of ideas or exploring strategies such as demographically-targeting the vulnerable for protection from the virus.
* Smear by association: Oppose the lockdown? Why, says the lockdown leftist, you must be one of those kooky 5G conspiracists or whatever. Case dismissed. Yes, it is true that some strange political life-forms attach themselves to the fringes of lockdown scepticism. But neither is the left free from a history of its own unwanted and unattractive political relatives, particularly the wild and fundamentally anti-democratic anarchists, up to and including the Antifa goons and Extinction Rebellion loons. Guilt-by-association is a tawdry debating gambit whether used by left or right. Neither the left nor the right can enforce an ideological purity test to control who marches under their banner. There is not much either can do about the loose threads in the great tapestry of political life.
* Virtue-signalling: Left lockdown lovers portray themselves, overtly or by implication, as a better class of person who is superior to the lockdown sceptic – intellectually superior to those they misrepresent as ‘Deniers’ of ‘the Science’ and morally superior to those whom they caricature as being more concerned with ‘the economy’ over health. We, say the left, may have lost a democratic national referendum or an election, but we are still better than the nativists, the xenophobes, the gap-toothed, knuckle-dragging deplorables and, now, the heartless lockdown sceptics who are prepared to cruelly cull society of its old geezers.
Paul,
Off your normal topics but a good way to have a bash at the Grauniad:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/11864739/lincoln-guardian-shut-down/amp/
Apparently, the world’s greatest woke newspaper (circulation 26) was founded by a slave trader. Ooh er!
There is an online petition on this too:
http://chng.it/GZMVCxCnJp
If anyone could point me to a reliable dataset download for monthly rainfall in E&W referenced by postcode I would be very grateful. I find the ones referenced by STD telephone code are not site-specific enough for farm storage calculations
Paul, Watch out if today (WednesdayJune 24th 2020) there is claim for a temperature ‘record’ at Gatwick. There is something very, very odd on the temperatures that i have come across. Today’s rolling half hourly temperatures at Gatwick I can find on weatheronline.co.uk show 1000=25C, 1030=26C, 1100=27C, 1130=28C, 1200=34C!!, 1230=33C, 1300=29C; 1330=29C, 1400=29C, 1430=29C, 1500=31C; 1530=31C; 1600=31c. So… look at the spike at noon. The temperature had been increasing by 1c every half hour, but between 1130 and 1200 (30 minutes) supposedly increased 6c to 34C… and then it declined to 29C at 1300. Something not right! So if they claim the 34C max it would be worth checking…
Met Office twitter say the highest temp was at Heathrow 32.6C
Very good. They must have spotted something was awry with the automatic data feed from Gatwick! It occasionally happens. If I remember correctly there was a day in the winter a year or two back at one of their automatic stations that showed 30C! Clearly something wrong with the electronics.
Paul.. just come from Toby Young’s lockdown sceptic site where people are linking lockdown to climate change as part of a wider issue (and even including BLM) and obviously condemning MSM and particularly BBC.
I assume you have watched the Greta interview with Rowlatt . I say interview as that is what they call it. Pure propaganda. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000kl5h/greta-thunberg-interview
Have you also seen Rowlatt being interviewed by BBC social editor on 12/6 . “Justin Rowlatt talks with Ciara Riordan about how coronavirus could affect climate change ”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/l00295hg/justin-rowlatt-qa
They really are taking the p*ss
Paul assume you have seen this
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/forbes-censors-award-winning-environmentalists-apology-over-three-decade-climate-scare-so
By the way. a number of new converts on Lockdown Sceptics site
https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/06/29/lockdown-sceptics-3/#comments
hadnt looked at home page .. you have seen it !!
I just found that I can no longer post anything. What’s up?
Found it in the Spam box!!
Thank you. Don’t know how it got there. Tried several things, but nothing seemed to work.
BBC update. in case you missed it
Now that Covid and hence BBC covid porn is starting to quieten down, I see that BBC is now ramping up on climate again with the usual lack of impartiality
Last night .. Any Questions. Panel of 4 .
Caroline Lucas (yawn …. again)
Gerard Lyons – advertised as an economist. BBC forgot to mention but Gerard himself mentioned – economic advisor to Grantham Institute!
Jess Phillips – typical gobby labour with standard left wing climate change thoughts
Christopher pincher .. a tory non entity without an original thought
And of course, a climate question and additionally rubbish about green economies .. treated in the usual impartial way
Noted this Lyons guy also on board of Bank of China .. interesting as a chinese question also came up!
https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/record-high-world-grain-production-for-second-year-in-a-row?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b8b17c4f24-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_07_06_02_40_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-b8b17c4f24-36496749&mc_cid=b8b17c4f24&mc_eid=6e6c09ffcb
Wonder how long we will have to wait to hear this from the B(LM)BC or the Grauniad ?
keep up the good work!
Jon Scott
My scout (aka ‘re indoors) just pointed out this comment on the Shellenberger article in The Spectator:
The Löfven [Sweden] government has now decided on a national strategy to transform Sweden into a “circular economy” which is claimed to constitute a “long-term and sustainable transformation of society”. According to the government, this is “an important part for Sweden to become the world’s first fossil – free welfare state”. But critics call the plan life-threatening and an expression of megalomania.
Could this be the guinea pig that saves the UK’s bacon, when they fail totally?
Ian. The important words are “transformation of society” a marxist experiment began in Malmo without a mandate or agreement from the electorate into which they insert this final statement of intended suicide. An obvious question, what exactly is a fossil free welfare state? Certainly there will be a lot less fossils or old people because their health service will collapse without plastics and the majority of modern drugs which are benzine based! I assume they understand where they come from? This is pure revolutionary marxism and it is revealing it’s self more and more each and every day either through over confidence or crass stupidity.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53390387
This is about a flight which crashed in 1996 in the Alps from which newspapers and even jewels have been found.
The BB Bureau of political indoctrination does the opposite of censorship. They actually insert climate porn into any possible article they can, no matter how tenuous the link before approving it for publishing.
The following is inserted in the article in such a way that if this was a kids school essay (before the time of indoctrination) it would be circled in red ink as being irrelevant and of suspicious origin.
I quote:
“Rising global temperatures are causing mountain glaciers to melt and polar ice sheets to retreat. Last September, officials warned part of the Planpincieux glacier on Mont Blanc’s Grandes Jorasses peak was vulnerable to collapse”.
There is no mention where on the glacier these items were found…hey the BBC is to busy pushing propaganda to worry about actually informing (one of the tenants of it’s Charter).
Keep up the good work!
regards
Jon Scott
“Natural solutions boosted to help prevent floods” . . .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53396977
Actually I’m in favour of using natural solutions to prevent floods.
But when this objective is assigned to the wrong people, the result is what happened on the Somerset Levels a few years back.
So, if this article by Roger Harradin is correct we should be seeing a lot more “catastrophic flooding due to climate change” in a few more years . . .
Hi Paul
This is what passes for democracy in Scotland these days https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2020/07/13/letters-its-breaking-my-heart/
I gave up trying to track the Interconnectors but they certainly don’t need the energy on Shetland.
Paul. I avoid BBC news as much as possible (as it has less veracity and more bias than China Today and RT). However this morning i was listening on Sounds to last night’s Folk Show on Radio 2 and this started with the 11.00 news.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000ktt1
Lead item – a report from Justin Rowlett all about a Met Office report about the Arctic melting (record temperatures, fires etc) and specifically aligning this to man made global warming.. The usual stuff.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2020/prolonged-siberian-heat-almost-impossible-without-climate-change—attribution-study
Interesting thing was the 00.00 news report that followed the Folk Show.. Nothing mentioned at all. Not a word. This is a mystery. Are BBC deliberately targeting “folkies” (as the natural followers of green issues) who would catch the news before the programme but would have switched off by the end?
I had a quick look on BBC web to see if this was widely promoted elsewhere. Nothing on news pages but a video put up yesterday covering the same topic. Dont know about other news coverage on radio/tv
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/53418023
Full of dodgy info that you have debunked previously but probably worth debunking again
even more b*llocks from BBC today “Summers could become ‘too hot for humans'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53415298
I’m not sure why we should be fair to the BBC, but there are other ignorant reporters around. Yesterday the Telegaff had a report by their Environment Editor, no lowly reporters! The report trotted out the scientist’s press release saying that Siberian temperatures have risen by 5 degrees C. Then helpfully translates this to 41 degrees Fahrenheit!
Doubtlessly just by bunging 5 into the conversion box on google. Rather than actually having any knowledge of the subject.
BBC running with polar bear extinction again
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53474445
and featured on 6 oclock news today 20/7
https://mailchi.mp/d7c984c7dc1a/press-releasenew-model-of-predicted-polar-bear-extinction-is-simply-not-scientifically-plausible-177910?e=6e6c09ffcb
I wrote about this as part of scam recycling only a couple of days ago and here it is back again. Are they SO bereft of evidence that ALL they can do is recycle disproven garbage in the hope that the gullible and the useful idiots will forget what went before? Seems the world is in a much better place than they would like ( that is an interesting thought to consider) and that together with COVID is threatening their funding! 35 years and of squillians of dollars being wasted on models and worthless research ( I use the term in its loosest possible context) and this garbage typifies that “reserarch”.
Having just seen that the Swedish wonder girl has just donated her Gulbenkian Foundation prize to “good causes”, does the little dear have any idea of where Gulbenkian’s money came from?
Paul. She does what she is told. She is a puppet. A very interesting puppet who tells us she can see CO2. This means she possibly is an alien because she must have a retina or “seeing device” which is sensitive to electromagnetic radiation in the ultra low infra red end of the spectrum. I “believe” everything this uneducated young person says….. don’t you? After all she typifies the reason behind all the attacks in the Enlightenment and Scientific Method because just saying things is now the new Cyense…..
https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/media-releases/ridd-case-federal-court-delivers-devastating-blow-to-free-speech-in-australia?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=90f6cd5fb2-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_07_22_01_41_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-90f6cd5fb2-36496749&mc_cid=90f6cd5fb2&mc_eid=6e6c09ffcb The Enlightenment is dead. Cyense is now about feelings and politics oh and preserving the flow of cash. The very fact the maggots in James Cook use tax payers money to protect the swamp they infest should be a scandal for all of Australia. What this show is how deep and how high up the protection for such crass and ignorant behaviour is. They were caught out protecting bankrupt and corrupt practices and they have shot the messenger!
Paul, re Scientists For Future. I am not certain you have read this but it caught my eye…. this is their list of “Facts”. Seems that to these “scientists” ( are they food scientists?) Facts are, well someone’s opinion mostly. You may take issue with more than a few of their “facts”.
I am using a translator
https://www.translatoruser-int.com/translate?&from=de&to=en&csId=e599aec1-2f63-4da7-826e-d4f556fb5816&usId=1ec801dc-2bcb-4108-accf-517dee19bd0f&dl=en&ref=SERP_ct&dt=2020%2f7%2f24%2020%3a31&h=XtXHlJzcD7uU23Fo9rJFj-LAiMNJCB3X&a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.scientists4future.org%2fstellungnahme%2ffakten%2f
Here are the sources. The word “Opinion” at the top caught my eye and there are indeed a lot of opinions not empirical data being quoted.
https://www.translatetheweb.com/?from=de&to=en&ref=SERP_ct&dl=en&rr=HE&a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.scientists4future.org%2fstellungnahme%2ffacts-2019-03%2f
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Talking of science, on LBC this am, a Cambridge University bod was extolling the virtues of, in effect, trolley trucks for the slow lanes of motorways, as a means of solving the battery problems of large trucks – just run them from overhead wires. Silent on what happens at junctions and assumes they’ll have enough onboard battery power for getting to the motorway and onward journeys.
As if electrifying the railways isn’t expensive enough. Can’t find anything on line yet.
Paul,
The latest Climate Porn from the BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-53558308
No journalist’s name is associated with this piece. Does that mean it was produced by some emotional computer programme developed by the BBC to jazz up any boring text with climate porn?
For me the language used by the BBC is outrageously emotional when discussing a supposed scientist. Secondly for supposed scientist to indulge in meaningless non scientific emotional waffle I can only assume this is part of their build up for a bigger grant than last year!
I quote:
From the BBC
The emotional language is in there from the get go.
Para 1 “Scientists have discovered kelp off the coast of Scotland, Ireland and France that has survived since the last ice age, around 16,000 years ago”.
Surviving “AFTER” an ice age? This use of language is as unnecessary as it is unacceptable. They are setting up a narrative that something is wrong. Where is the much lauded BBC Impartiality in doing that exactly? Surely as the text shows it migrated North as the waters warmed so it PREFERRED to be in warmer water. The only question about “survival” will be with the onset of Ice Age Part II
Para 3 “It is hoped the discovery could help show how marine plant life survives extreme changes in climate”.
What is that word “extreme” doing in there? Where is the precedence for that. This is the problem when you have reporting not by scientists but by arts graduates who have to big things up. What exactly is “extreme climate change” when it is at home?
Para 5&6 “Dr Andrew Want collected samples from Kirkwall Bay, near his home.
The marine ecologist said the “refugee populations” managed to hang on and survive “amid dramatic changes”.
WTF???? “Refugee Populations” and “Hang on and survive”??? This is a scientist speaking or someone touting for cash? That is NOT scientific terminology but personal emotional claptrap based on whatever his personal problems are not science!
Para 12, 13 & 14
“Dr Want said the “Brittany population” is once again close to the other populations but has managed to remain distinct.
He added: “Worryingly, this unique Brittany gene pool is projected to disappear under greenhouse gas emission scenarios.
“This provides further evidence of the loss of biodiversity expected with rapidly changing marine temperatures.”.
Worryingly is not a scientific term Dr Want…whatever it is that you “want”. Notice after his handwringing we have the telling admission “projected to disappear under greenhouse gas emission scenarios”. So this whole emotional worrying session is critically underpinned by the abuse of the statistical output of wrong climate models which wrongly attribute so much to so little CO2.
WHERE is the evidence for “rapidly changing marine temperatures”? Is he talking in geological terms and is that since the end of the first part of the current ice age? I get so concerned when supposed scientists are so fast and loose with the language they use because he cannot be ignorant of scientific method or critical thinking. In this one section we got “worrying” and “disappear” and an insertion of green house gasses and rapidly changing marine temperatures.
Paras 16, 17 & 18
“Dr Joao Neiva, from Algarve’s Centre of Marine Sciences, said: “Our study shows how marine organisms adjust to shifting climates by migrating polewards and even across the Atlantic when conditions are favourable.
“These migrations provide a mechanism by which marine life buffers the effects of global climatic shifts, and how they can compensate for predictable contractions at warmer limits as the modern climatic crisis unfolds.
“While the species may not be threatened at global scales, range contractions can have very negative impacts if vanishing ranges are composed of unique and diverse populations”.
This starts of as reasonable and in line with 100 or more years of geological study! They “adjust” …as the global climate warms the climatic zones broadened and move northwards and the plant life migrates also. As it cools the reverse happens. What is unusual about that? What these clots also do not take into consideration is the Gulf Stream which exists as a fluke of plate tectonics. It is evolving and will one day stop dead!
In this section we are treated to more classic scientific terms, “crisis” threatened” as well as vanishing ranges in a final sentence which does not read as English!
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Naomi promotes the R4 smear series
and gets kicked
Paul,
More climate porn on the effects of claimed sea activity by the very confused BBC
There is NO reason to insert the words” climate change” into this piece and then not supporting it with any supposed s”study” or research They even tell you what the real problem is and never mention climate change again in the piece.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-53367000
The scene is so beautifully set……. very atmospheric….the opening lines of a disaster movie and then the words CLIMATE CHANGE are inserted to have maximum effect, never to be seen again in the piece!
I quote “Across England in the next decade, it is estimated that up to 2,000 homes could face a similar fate due to coastal erosion, which is expected to accelerate with climate change”.
Notice the “could” and “expected so they are so stupid they admit the climate change effect is a future issue not a present day problem. The problem is the mechanical properties of the London Clay and sorry to say building houses on clay cliffs NEVER has been a good idea if permanence is in mind.
Another group of people with too much time and money on their hands…now supported by Greta(Pipi) Longstockings.
Sorry something odd happened and the window was snatched away.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/thunberg-donates-100000-pounds-to-criminalize-ecocide/?utm_medium=newsmax&gdpr_consent=&gdpr=true&utm_content=fy20thunberg&utm_source=paid&utm_campaign=capitalmatters
Not sure I can get my head around this lot but the fact that year on year the world is producing more and more food during this…errr current….global…errrr climate….crisis, is that not a “good “thing or am I missing something. I had a look at this mobs website….https://www.stopecocide.earth/what-is-ecocide and they are against everything which is happening outside of a cave or mud hut so they want to drag us all back to the stone age it seem, a bit like Extinction Rebellion on Speed!
Hello,
We desperately need someone (anyone!) to look at the planned industrialisation of the Shetland islands with windfarms. The 103 turbine Viking Energy is just the beginning. Originally partly a community project SSE has now taken it over. VE failed to get a CfD bid last year but now SSE is going ahead with the project without subsidy. The entire project including subsea cable is well over £1bn and with the challenging weather conditions in winter and the depth of peat (between 4m and 8m) in most places this cost is most likely going to spiral out of control. As with most of these things much of the truth is hidden from the general public and I am at a loss as to why this project is seen as viable. Am I missing something? https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2020/06/17/viking-energy-wind-farm-set-to-go-ahead-as-sse-agrees-to-proceed-with-580m-project/ https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2020/07/17/subsea-cable-contract-awarded-to-danish-specialist-company/
Email received yesterday evening – climate woke madness spares few of us:
URGENT CALL FOR GB OLYMPIANS’ SUPPORT
As awful as the pandemic has been for so many people, as we begin to edge towards recovery there is a real opportunity to rethink how we address our biggest challenges, and I hope you will agree that the climate crisis is the biggest of them all.
I am now inviting you to join with me in supporting a small group of elite sports men and women, Champions for Earth, who are set to make an impassioned plea to the UK Government to harness this ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity to adopt a green approach post-pandemic. Please do read GB Rower Melissa Wilson’s letter below. It is due to be published in the Financial Times and explains brilliantly why they are now seeking your support – GB Olympians past and present from as many sports and as many Summer and Winter games as possible – in calling for delivery of the ultimate legacy.
If you share the view that we can no longer afford to watch this crisis unfold without action, and particularly if, like me, you have been unsure how to make a positive contribution so far, please take steps to add your name to the letter before it is published. Over forty elite athletes have done so already, including nine Olympic and Paralympic Champions.
I will be adding my name and I hope that as many of you will add yours too. If you want to do that, please either ‘Reply All’ to this email remembering to include your full name (as you wish it to appear in publication), the Game(s) you attended and the sport in which you competed. Alternatively you can respond directly to Melissa at mhcwilson@icloud.com before close of play on Wednesday 5th August. Melissa is happy to discuss any queries with you or hear about any additional support you might be able to offer and has agreed to keep us updated on her and the team’s progress in this campaign.
Kindest regards,
cid:image003.jpg@01D2D2EA.53E0D730
Jos Hoyte-Smith
Chair, GB Olympians Association
Olympians logo
———
DRAFT LETTER FOR PUBLICATION
If it were not for the COVID-19 pandemic, the world’s hearts and minds would have been captured this summer by the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games: events that have “Passing on Legacy for the Future” as part of their core mission.
Yet the years where that Legacy will unfold are under acute threat from climate change. Johan Rockström (FT, July 28th) explains clearly ‘Why we need to declare a global climate emergency now’, and he is right: “the heavy lifting needs to start now.”
In February this year, the Prime Minister confirmed that “there can be no greater responsibility than protecting our planet, and no mission that a Global Britain is prouder to serve”. With the COP26 and G7 presidencies next year, the UK has a golden opportunity to show international leadership on the most important issue facing humankind.
We can sit timidly in the pack, pretending that we have no role to play in the unfolding race. Or, like the athletes we would have watched this summer, we can race to win.
We urge the UK Government to act consistently with the Prime Minister’s recognition of the need for ‘urgent action’, by developing a truly Green approach to recovery from the pandemic. In championing this approach, the UK can take confidence from the last months, which have demonstrated the incredible capacity our society has to make huge alterations from “business as usual” in order to protect one another. The economic benefits of pursuing a Green recovery have also received emphatic endorsement from the Committee on Climate Change, the present and former Governors of the Bank of England, and research from Oxford University.
At the closing ceremony of the London Olympics 2012, Seb Coe (1980 Olympic Champion) said: “One day we will tell our children and our grandchildren, that when our time came, we did it right.”
As present and former athletes, we urge the Prime Minister and the UK Government to bring new truth to these words, leading the way out of the pandemic whilst forging the ultimate Legacy: a healthy, safe Earth for all.
Signed by Champions for Earth (Dave Hampton, Katie Rood, Etienne Stott and Melissa Wilson)
Supported by the following GB Olympians and Paralympians
Paul,
As you will have already seen, the BBC, Met Office etc have been desperate for the latest heatwave (it being August 7 today) to produce more unprecedented weather. So desperate in fact that another fake record (in this case, 17 years of Augusts) from Heathrow gets the full treatment:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53694492
The interesting point, however, is there seems to have been a subtle change in reporting from today and indeed a couple of weeks ago when the Heathrow temperature supposedly reached 37.8C. The change is that the main reporting is not of a brief spike in afternoon temperatures (which is all that has happened, even at Heathrow) but now it’s “the hottest DAY”. Is that, however, even remotely true? Are there figures available that would show the average temperature in a calendar day (so that the BBC and Met Office fibs can be exposed)?
I think we should be told and we know just the man to do it!
Just saw the post regarding all-time max temps. Two points are worth adding to your post (yes, I know it is closed): 1) Check out the length of record for the sites with records post-1960s or even 1980s and you will notice that they are nearly all sites that started recording data AFTER 1950 or even later — which means we cannot know whether they were even hotter in the 20s-30s; and 2) if you change the https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records/all/tmax to return all-time record MIN temps there are LOTS of MIN records set since 1980 (or 70s) — lots more MIN records set than MAX records set.
Scientifically what does that prove? Actually, not a lot; but it is at least as valid (more?) than their “record heat” claims.
Not sure if this was picked up. Just watching the BBC programme about Miriam Margolyes in Australia – episode 1 on catch up (from 25/7)
She is talking to a farming family in a place called Trundle which has been suffering from a drought for the last 3 years. (around 30 minutes in)
She talks to the 13 year old son “What has caused this drought”. He says “Mother nature – she has her bad days and good days- Australia has extremes . I havent been here as long as dad but if he could get through the 82 drought with his family we should get through this one”..
Miriam “Have you heard of climate change?……… I think the action of human beings has an effect. …… I want you to look into it a bit,”
Basically – this lad has a realistic view of the drought.
Miriam preaching man made climate change.. the poor lad looks at the ground thinking this woman in a nut job.
But this is the BBC .
Episode 3 – At 30 minutes includes feature on climate change with interviews of school kids participating in the friday school strikes with again glowing comments from the presenter
Also “More or Less” on Saturday …
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08n0mqb
The Antarctic is going to melt and we’ll all drown ..
Paul I have started a petition in support of coal mining in Cumbria. The council are meeting on the 20th to reconsider their original permission. Various green groups are pushing for rejection. So could you give this petition a bit more legs. http://chng.it/fPCJDPZH
Paul,
From the GWPF website
https://www.thegwpf.com/snow-falls-in-south-australia-while-tasmania-records-lowest-temperature-on-record/
Wonder if the BBC and Guardian will give it “front page billing”……
Re the Aberdeenshire train crash of this morning (August 12), I see the BBC and Sky are already desperate to pin the unfolding tragedy on the preceding bad weather – all local reporters are being grilled on this. How long will it be before they take it a stage further and blame the crash firmly on “climate change”? After all, why let a good disaster go to waste?
Call me an old cynic but…
Wow – it seems not only that Sky are ahead of me but some quango (or similar) that I’d never heard of called the Office of Road and Rail wrote about this some four weeks ago:
http://news.sky.com/story/stonehaven-crash-network-rail-was-warned-about-potential-problems-across-uk-four-weeks-before-train-derailment-12048010
Apparently, naughty Network Rail were not taking climate change seriously enough and needed to play its full part in dealing with it – read through the article, I couldn’t make this up.
The bottom line on this – yep, the crash will be blamed on climate change for sure. Of course, we’ve never had landslides on railway lines before.
It needs to be pointed out that the August 1948 floods caused widespread devastation to the rail network in south-east Scotland, with the east coast main line not reopening until November of that year and at least one line closing permanently because of the damage to bridges and embankments – an order of magnitude worse than the thunderstorms on Tuesday evening.
Yes I worked with the railways for many years and there are several things that are very difficult to prevent.
Landslides onto the tracks or which wash out the track beds, falling trees, snowdrifts and suicides are all really hard to predict. Drivers fear them above anything else. And they have occurred over the ages even before Global warming’s invention
The only way to stop accidents from the first three is visual inspection which is expensive and time consuming. The Stonehaven incident probably would have happened even if the line had been inspected as the train had turned back and the landslide which derailed it must have occurred in the time between the train passing the location on its way South and its reaching the same spot on its return.
Train travel is very safe overall which is why such accidents hit the headlines.
Quelle surprise! The Grauniad’s onto it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/12/stonehaven-tragedy-shows-rail-industry-must-adapt-to-climate-crisis
Hi Paul
Saw this in the Guardian of all places, that due to the hot spell there has not been enough wind and gas so Radcliffe coal fired power staion had to be fired up. This won’t be on the BBC news.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/12/national-grid-fires-up-coal-power-station-for-first-time-in-55-days
I see it’s the Royal Hysterical Society’s turn to lecture us like stupid schoolchildren:
https://www.rhs.org.uk/garden-inspiration/get-gardening/climate-change-garden
They start with: “What can I do about climate change in my garden?
However small or large your garden is, there’s lots you can do to help combat the causes and effects of climate breakdown”
They then give us wonderful ideas – 8 of them. Only problem – only the first one mandating us to grow more “trees and plants” could sensibly do anything to ameliorate the effects of CO2-caused climate change.
Oh well, at least they are keeping their end up in the fight against “climate breakdown”.
Very interesting that this Society, basically of very good gardeners, feels it allowable to rename Climate Change, something that’s been going on since the World began, as Climate Breakdown. What exactly is that, and how does the climate break down?
Actually it can not, it’s like saying Universe breakdown. It just changes in nature.
Woman’s Hour today:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000lnlj
At 16:34, Jenni Murray interviews Professor of Astrophysics turned climate expert Sarah Brindle, promoting her new book “Food and Climate Change – without the hot air”.
Quotes:
“A quarter of all climate change comes from food”
“If the whole world went vegan then we’d actually free up three quarters of the land currently used for producing food”
Of course fact checking and presenting a balanced view is an anathema to the BBC.
Hi Paul,I live near Stonehaven at Catterline, I have a weather station which takes readings every 10 minutes. I can send you details of the rainfall for 12/08/2020 but I cannot figure out how to upload it for you. I can also send you monthly rainfall totals since October 2017
Thanks, I’ll email you
The Greenland Ice sheet is going to melt completely………….again:-
https://www.ladbible.com/news/news-study-suggests-greenlands-ice-sheet-has-melted-beyond-return-20200815
How the A-level results algorithm was fatally flawed
Article from the New Statesman analyses what was wrong with the now abandoned algorithm that calculated 2020 A-level results:
https://tech.newstatesman.com/public-sector/how-the-a-level-results-algorithm-was-fatally-flawed
Quote: testing found the accuracy of the model to be fairly low – in the range of 50 to 60 per cent.”
Oh that this reporter could be persuaded to investigate the climate change models!
…or Covid models.
Seems that the modellers are not having a very good year.
The climate change story-twisting numpty award of the day goes to one Dominic Penna of the Telegraph for his article mainly about the struggling twinflower – “Native wildflowers in the Cairngorms will be relocated in a bid to save them amid climate fears”: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/18/native-wildflowers-cairngorms-will-relocated-bid-save-amid-climate/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_AvyYcqTTqfjh
Penna gleefully explains “Native wildflowers in the Cairngorms will be relocated in a bid to save them as conservationists say that climate change means they are too spread out to survive”. The rest of the article with reference to what conservationists really did say, reports nothing of the sort – the problem deriving from rarity, limited habitat and pollinating difficulties. Our heroic reporter further undermines his credibility by showing photographs not of any twinflowers nor of the habitat where twinflowers actually live. Quite the opposite in fact. Brilliant.
Last but not least is a quote – I think- from one Gwenda Diack of Plantlife, who is directing the plant relocation project (what could go wrong?). She is reported to have stated that “hot, dry weather has added to the environmental pressures on the plants in question”. Hmmm, well as readers of NALOPKT know only too well, if anything rainfall has increased in Scotland in recent times, not decreased. In any event, as twinflowers live around woodlands (as not shown in the photographs) is a tiny bit of excess heat any issue for plants used to dealing with 35+ C annual temperature swings?
Did he really research any of it at all or was this just another case of “so long as I put the words ‘climate change’ in an environmental article, I’ll get paid for it”. The Telegraph really should know better than to publish this utterly misleading pile of carp.
Today’s “climate change – that doesn’t add up” award of the day goes to Matt McGrath of the Telegraph for his article “Climate change: Dams played key role in limiting sea level rise”: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53836018
The idea is that a slowdown in sea level rise in the 1970s was down to global dam-building and the acceleration in rates of sea level rise (3.3mm pa or 4mm pa now as indicated in the article) has since occurred due to climate change as not ameliorated by dam-building.
It’s strange because the research that I have seen on the likes of WUWT and NALOPKT has failed to show increasing rates of such sea level rise in recent decades, nor rates of over 3mm pa, but I digress. This concept is surely absurd – he’s claiming that building a few dams (think what that means in terms of surface area % of the globe or the seas) prevented something of the order of 20% to 30% of sea level rise during the main reservoir accumulation periods. To me, that can’t add up – not even remotely close. Dams would – almost literally – amount to drops in the ocean.
If anyone better equipped than I could show some workings that would challenge my argument, please show us. Otherwise, I shall continue to regard this as yet another stupid and unresearched Telegraph climate change article.
This story has now made WUWT. One of the commenters has stated that the combined volume of all of the world’s dams is estimated at 5,440km3. Apparently, this equates to 15mm across the oceans – which seems right to me after checking.
“They also say 184mm of sea level rise 1900 – 2018 so it would have been at most 8% higher with no dams.” Well, yes and indeed that is a higher figure than I would have guessed. BUT a commenter called Serge makes two major points:
1) the world’s dams are, on average, not full. He reckons 50% but I would think it would be much higher, especially in high or low latitudes. Either way, the global dam volume needs a significant adjustment down.
2) Any holding back of water by dams needs to be offset by the extra water that has run down to the sea as a result of the lowering of water tables due to extraction and human use. Of course, some of this just flows back into the ground, some evaporates and so forth. Some, however, flows on to the sea – thereby raising sea levels.
Clearly, the groundwater extraction effect is pretty much incalculable – rendering arguments about dams futile, in my opinion. It’s not as if all dam-building occurred in the 1970s – many developed countries have been building them for the best part of 200 years and McGrath and co show no workings in terms of dam volume changes v sea level rises over this long period.
As ever with climate science – “it’s more complicated than that”. Something that the McGraths of this world just don’t understand nor do they bother to research before going to print.
I’m looking forward to your dismantling thereof, Paul:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53846338
Paul,
Another peach of an article by that ever-reliable source – Matt McGrath:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53891414
This one is about technology being developed (in cloud cuckoo-land) to remove CO2 from the air, namely BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) and the even wilder DAC (direct air capture).
MMcG, to his credit, points out some of the failings of the systems as follows:
In general: “these devices will have major impacts on energy, water and land use. By 2050, according to this new report, food crop prices could rise more than five-fold in some parts of the world.”
Re BECCS: “Critics say this idea would need the deployment of huge amounts of land which would reduce the amount of land for agriculture at a time of increasing global population.”
Re DAC: “The report says that the energy and water resources needed to drive these machines will be on a very large scale. DAC will need large amounts of heat to make the process work, say the authors. This would require energy equal to 115% of current global natural gas consumption. Water for DAC is also a significant cost by 2050, with the machines using 35% of the water currently used in global electricity production.” and “The worst affected areas would be in sub-Saharan Africa which could see prices rise by 5-600% by 2050”
Sadly, however, McG doesn’t seem to realise that these simple points render the whole idea beyond ridicule – way, way, way, beyond ridicule. Further, he fails to point out that present crop yields are rising due in no small part to the present levels of CO2. Taking CO2 out of the sky is clearly going to reduce crop yields – potentially very significantly on a local scale as the machines won’t be spread evenly around the globe. This will lead to even more food price rises leading – almost inevitably – to nutritional crises in poorer countries that, quite rightly, the poorer countries involved will expect the virtue-signalling countries of this world to bale out.
The mind boggles as to why the absurdity of all this is lost on the MMcGs of this world.
Paul
Have seen article in Spectator by Emma Bryn about the horrendous costs facing people who live in buildings with Grenville type cladding? Looks like another Government balls up.. Not seen anything about it in press so I assume it is another cover up because it is a climate issue.
More BBC hypocrisy – this time direct from Tony Hall: “What we do, as a PSB, is a force in the opposite direction. Our goal is to help strengthen society and build bridges by making sure all voices and perspectives are heard.” and so on, see –
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/08/24/bbc-can-carry-britains-voice-and-values-to-the-world-says-outgoing-chief/
Making sure all voices are heard?? That’ll be the day.
Another fairy tale:
http://t.email3.telegraph.co.uk/r/?id=h5d5f8e14,394a398c,36b8255e&WT.mc_id=e_DM1281765&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Tec_New_TechIntel&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_Tec_New_TechIntel20200901&utm_campaign=DM1281765
I’ll start to believe in the end of the automobile when they have a solution for the school run.
Drip, drip, drip ! this from –
https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/week/sheffield_united-kingdom_2638077
“City Climate – Your new companion for the hot summer days
Cities have to increasingly deal with hot summer days and tropical nights. The innovative meteoblue city climate model helps you navigate the new heat and find the best temperatures. ”
HOT SUMMER DAYS ?? TROPICAL NIGHTS ???
This year our heating has been on most of the time except in that wonderful spring !
Just listened to a Spectator podcast and could hardly believe my ears:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/road-to-net-zero-how-to-achieve-a-green-economic-recovery
No wonder Scottish Power sponsored it. Their spokesman was allowed to get away with claiming they’re 100% renewable – what happens when Hunterston closes? When the wind drops on a frosty night? Apparently offshore wind is now dirt cheap. He was asked why, when they doubled profits last year, users’ bills are up and ignored it. The future of green energy is so bright that not a penny pf government money will be needed, but we need a big green bank. And on and on.
I’m working on a transcript and will repost.
Here’s the transcript. I’ve highlighted a few passages. This is the first time I’ve used audio-to-text technology. It’s interesting how the human brain filters out waffle and stuttering. Unfortunately, technology writes what it “hears”.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/yvg5tqggv3wpod0/Transcript.docx/file
I’m next going to write to The Spectator to complain about the easy ride the experts were given.
The long march of the green blob continues apace with the first reading of the “Climate and Ecological Emergency bill” on September 2nd:
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/57374/climate-and-ecological-emergency-bill
Full text at: https://www.ceebill.uk/
A crowdfunding campaign has been setup at https://chuffed.org/project/ceebill with the intention of raising £50,000 to “allow us to pay for 2 part time Media and Campaign Support staff for a year”.Sadly this campaign has already attracted £8,347, at the time of writing.
I am reminded of the words of a German Tank Division commander in a WW2 film, where the Germans overrun a US position and discover a cake wrapped in a newspaper dated 2 days previously: “we can’t even get fuel and the Americans have a birthday cake from Iowa? The war is lost”
BBC report on appointment of Tony Abbot https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54027762
and highlighting the objections from the usual labour and other luvvies because of Abbots “past comments on women, LGBT people and climate change”
I surprised listening to Any Questions this morning that the last item on the news immediately preceding this was about Abbot .. and the newsreader ended the item by saying “he is mysoginist and homophobic………. and a climate change sceptic.
However on another BBC news item https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54034134 “Earth’s ‘lost species’ only the tip of the iceberg ” there was not a single reference to climate change – which in the past the BBC have always linked to extinctions. I note this was written by Helen Briggs, yet another environment correspondent. Is she new? Has she not read BBC environmental standing orders?
Dominic Lawson in the Daily Mail today:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8704503/DOMINIC-LAWSON-Free-speech-fake-science-fight-climate-zealots.html
“the Government legislated to make the UK ‘net zero carbon by 2050’ — admittedly 25 years later than XR’s impossible demand. But it had no idea how much this would cost, or how it would be done.
The New Zealand government did carry out such an exercise, and concluded that to achieve ‘net zero’ by 2050 would cost 16 per cent of GDP annually. This would equate to £560 billion a year if applied to the UK — equivalent to almost three-quarters of all public expenditure.
Yet this legislation was passed without even a debate, let alone a vote in the House of Commons: it was enacted through a statutory instrument. This could only happen because the overwhelming majority of MPs are too scared to be seen as so-called ‘climate change deniers’.”
A pity that this comes the day after the petition to “Hold a referendum to scrap the UK’s policy of Net Zero CO2 by 2050” closed with just 7,628 signatures.
Hello Paul,
For the Dutch audience I made a video about ‘The impossibility of Windmills’. It is translated in English and I wondered if you would be interested to give it a place on your website or place a link to it. You can view the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7PHUMd7PYA. It was intended for The Netherlands, but it addresses probably the same problems with green energy there are in your country.
Hope to hear from you.
Another way the government’s found to spend your money:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/supercharging-the-future-of-driving-this-worldevday?utm_source=0a3e7b9f-53b0-49d6-9044-5bfd0579c36b&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=daily
Including such ambitious targets of:
“… and batteries that could charge in 6 minutes could all form part of the government’s ambitious plans to accelerate electric vehicle uptake, …”
Paul…hot off the press from the hopefully soon to be less woke BBC No mention of CC in the text but the wiff of socialism AND targeting of the West is unmistakable…we have to change our diet!
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54091048
To my mind an exponential human population growth in third world countries MUST be acknowledged. To completely ignore that just consigns this one more fear mongering report to the every growing bullcrap tray. Also
“We are wrecking our world – the one place we call home – risking our health, security and survival here on Earth. Now nature is sending us a desperate SOS and time is running out.”
Oh more “time is running out”…… and “desperate” “Risking our security and survival on Earth”.
Does any of that sound familiar?
For those coded messages I read “We want more money and power of control over your lives in the West while we ignore the real elephant in the room, population explosion which is the main cause of environmental Pressure in the Third World. I think we need to point the finger at BIOFUELS here for starters. A nonstarter which was wrong from the get go!
Western Mature societies have learned to reduce our impact on ecosystems and in many cases revese decline (except of course when it comes to Gween Energy…then you can drive a bulldozer through pristine forest and unspoilt heath and moorland).
Also there is the unmistakable stench of rabid socialism or marxism in here. The Third World mostly eats hand to mouth. These are the places which need to get their house in order but when I read the text it clearly is pointed at the developed world’s supply chain!
Some numbers in here which I struggle with:
Comparisons are made to 50 years ago. Did they REALLY have such an accurate understanding WORLD WIDE back then to make such an accurate assessment?
“Wildlife populations have fallen by more than two-thirds in less than 50 years, according to a major report by the conservation group WWF”.
Oh really? MORE THANK TWO-THIRDS? Based on what? Their “endangered” icon the Polar Bear does not seem to fit the trend! If a meteorite struck the planet it probably would not remove 2 thirds!
“The report looked at thousands of different wildlife species monitored by conservation scientists in habitats across the world.
They recorded an average 68% fall in more than 20,000 populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish since 1970”.
68%?????? Where is the evidence? Is this more of the usual bullcrap where they take a patchy set of data for a whole range of species and “model” their decline to match one or two other species which are declining for a whole bunch of reasons.
“The report says the Covid-19 pandemic is a stark reminder of how nature and humans are intertwined.
Factors believed to lead to the emergence of pandemics – including habitat loss and the use and trade of wildlife – are also some of the drivers behind the decline in wildlife”.
Eh? That is a very questionable claim which has no basis in known science. Do these rent seekers include the dodgy practices in the Wuhan lab under the vast umbrella of “Factors believed to lead to the emergence of pandemics”. More BELIEF! That word has no place in any document claiming to be scientific in origin! It is a politicians weasel word.
Loss of habitat since 2000. In the year 2000 the world population is recorded as 6,143,493,823. Today it is recorded as 7,794,798,739 Source: Worldometer (www.Worldometers.info). That is a 27% increase in people with a population density increasing from 41 p/km2 to 52 p/km2 WHY then are they not acknowledging the impact that MUST have on habitat reduction?
“In 2019, an intergovernmental panel of scientists concluded that one million species (500,000 animals and plants, and 500,000 insects) are threatened with extinction, some within decades”.
Oh yet ANOTHER intergovernmental panel. I am always highly suspicious of big round numbers!
What are these numbers based on exactly and what is the error margin? New species are being discovered every day. How do they calculate exactly the extinction rate of “unknown” species? Also extinction is a NATURAL part of evolution. How much of that loss would have occurred anyway without homo sapiens?
Keep up the good work!
Paul, also from the body which should not exist!
From our dear friend Roger Harraharrabinbin that well known purveyor of balanced views and information….
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54087176
“MPs said the report offered a “unique insight”, but activists Extinction Rebellion said it didn’t go far enough”.
Which MP’s said that? Also imagine this is not climate but brain surgery we are talking about. Exactly WHAT unique ad useful insights to improve brain surgery will you get from 108 random people who are not brain surgeons? The whole concept is a crock and wide open to rabid lefty manipulation and reading the following garbage it is clear that has occurred.
“The members said it was “imperative that there is strong and clear leadership from government” to tackle climate change”.
IF there exists a man made problem then this is global. Us not being allowed to drive SuV’s in the UK…. how does that work globally as the atmosphere is shared by all? That smacks of socialism by the back door.
“A key theme of the report is education. Ibrahim, a GP from Surrey, said: “The media has to take a role – schools as well. We perhaps need to look at the curriculum”.
Oh a doctor to give authority to his words….maybe on medicine yes….Here we are… as if there is not enough propaganda out there promoting this baseless claim they want full on indoctrination in schools.
“Another central message is the need for policies to be fair. Amanda, from Kent, said: “Electric cars have to be more affordable to everybody – not just people who earn enough money.”
Why are we told Ibrahim is a doctor but nothing about Amanda? Could it be her job title does not offer a sense of assumed authority which harraharrabinbin is constantly using to manipulate the way information is percieved? So the idiots all 108 of them have bought the electric car scam clearly without any consideration for the supply chain AND future disposal issues. These are adults…right?
“They also supported higher taxes on frequent fliers, and investment in clean aviation technology.”
MORE TAXES! Who is feeding them this garbage that more taxes are good? and what is “clean aviation…..I suppose they have all been shown the BBC promoted electric aeroplane “solution”. This is pie in the sky! More socialism by the back door because we will kick you if you travel and obviously reduce the opportunities for travel.
“On the subject of what we eat and how we use the land, the assembly urged a voluntary cut of 20-40% in eating red meat”:
They must be being influenced by lefties to come up with this unsubstantiated bullcrap. There is NO scientific basis for this nonsense except that it is left wing mania for social control from the authoritarian vegetarian zealots in their ranks who want to force their twisted way of life on everyone else.
“They also said:
“Businesses should make products using less energy and materials”
The way our businesses are going they will need zero energy and materials because they are being hounded out of existence with nonsense green taxes
“People should repair goods and share more, instead of owning all their appliances”.
Repairing is fine but then point your finger at the now big Chinese suppliers of goods not us! Also “sharing appliances…… yes let us emulate Soviet Russia and the misery the State inflicted on their people! Pure marxism by the back door!
“The UK should get more power from offshore and onshore wind, and solar power”
More from the children! This is pathetic. Clearly they are ill informed and none seem capable of objective reasoning. They are just parroting MSM garbage!
“New housing developments must have good access to facilities through walking and cycling”
HOW????????? Who is going to walk and cycle to do the weekly supermarket run IN THE WINTER?????
“Most members were not very keen on nuclear – or on burning wood in power stations – and most weren’t confident in carbon capture and storage”.
Again they are clearly being either influenced by MSM OR left wing presenters. Nuclear is the only viable alternative today to creating baseload electricity on demand
“They think the government should be harnessing the Covid crisis to limit support for high-carbon industries”.
“Harnessing the Covid Crisis”?? What on earth does that mean? Harnessing economic meltdown???? Now THIS worries me. This is far left wing demand to hobble industry
“The MPs behind the assembly said the report “provides a unique insight into the thinking of an informed public to the trade-offs and changes required to help deliver on the objective that parliament has agreed”. They said: “Their work merits action.”
An “informed public”??? Deliberately misinformed you mean! “Their work merits action”???? Yes it is a lefties dream! Well done the propagandists who will have done all of the presenting.
“Crispin Truman, from the countryside charity CPRE, said it shows “public appetite to end the UK’s contribution to the climate emergency has far outstripped government action.”
Oh really? You mean based on fear mongering and indoctrination your religion has taken hold in the uneducated and ill informed masses? Oh god! I just looked at the CPRE website. “We’re a force for change:”. More leftie jargon. Why do we need change as if nothing we are doing is right. Another charity infested by lefties and politicized. They are full on pushing the baseless climate doom. They also have a statement on BLM and “Racism in the countryside”! https://www.cpre.org.uk/news/cpre-statement-against-racism-in-the-countryside/ You could not make this bullcrap up. What racism in the countryside? This is inventing problems that do not exist and then asking for money to solve them!
Paul,
An interim report on the train accident near Stonehaven
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-54099688
“Mr Haines added: “We are improving and accelerating our resilience work and will do everything we can to minimise the impact of weather on the safety and reliability of the railway as our climate continues to change.”
The twerp jobsworth Haines is STILL pushing his climate change narrative which he rolled out on day 1 with NO information to qualify and quantify that claim
BBC Scotland has it’s own Climate Czar namely Kevin Keane! I hope of the duplicate none jobs the new DG of the BBC wants rid off!
“Today’s report rightly points out that the infrastructure is 150 years old and rebuilding it to modern standards that are ‘climate resilient’ would be prohibitively expensive”.
This was not about a bridge failing or the track. This was the slope above the track and sorry deluded BBC climate propagandist but where you have weather and slopes then gravity WILL cause the slopes to erode and mass transport of material away from the slope. THIS IS called a physical Earth process!
“So you can add climate change to the list of potential reasons for your train being delayed.”
Hahahahaha! Substantiate that claim! This is the BBC at it’s worst. It creates and populates narratives with off the cuff remarks. One of the clearest is the way they have sowed the seed of the idea that climate change started with the industrial revolution which is a totally baseless claim originating in activism and not science.
Steady on old bean. I know Andrew Haines and he is no Jobsworth. I would suggest you write to him. I expect him to have stats showing increasing landslides onto or from beneath the tracks. You could ask him if they are happening because the cuttings and embankments are old or madern trains give them a tougher time and if not, what evidence is there that changes to the climate are having any effect.
Peter, in what appears to have been his first interview post the accident he inserted the Climate Change narrative. He has a clear reason for introducing it as joker to pull out if needed. There is a wider issue here not being considered which is that much occurs outside of the physical jurisdiction of Network rail which can affect slope integrity. No slope of any kind is truly stable. Introduce cuttings or embankments and stability will diminish over time and yes a lot of our cuttings are getting on in years. Give an unlimited length of time, all material at the top of a slope even one below the critical angle of repose for the material in question will find it’s way to the bottom. Water table movement can contribute to slope failure by altering this angle. Many factors including those you mention can of course contribute but quite often it can be changes of land use or just a naturally developing problem over time which can cause slope failure well outside of the physical limits of Network Rails property and be projected into or onto the property.
Sorry Peter, I pressed send just when I missed a point which was that he left the CAA with a reputation for cost cutting which only impressed the minister and did not go down at all well with a fair number of the technical staff. We can only hope that he did not over indulge himself in this dubious spreadsheet art art a-la Sir John Brown at BP. Perhaps he was just laying down that joker to play in the event that some chickens look like coming home to roost.
International EV Day today. A good day for a blast across the Pennines to distribute some essential plant food.
Paul – get your knives sharpened. As you will be aware the Attenborough documentary is on tonight. He has a book to sell. And this has generated an extract in the Mail on Sunday https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8726155/SIR-DAVID-ATTENBOROUGH-reveals-born-today-witness-sixth-mass-extinction.html
Whilst it makes valid points about over exploitation of the planet, loss of forests, plastics and other pollutions, it unfortunately keeps returning to global warming scaremongering and the usual catastrophe rubbish
2030s – no arctic ice in summer and lots of dead polar bears
2040s – permafrost melts – more CO2 and walruses throwing themselves off cliffs
2050s – acid oceans, no coral reefs, no commercial fishing
2080s (dont know what happened to 60s and 70s) global food crisis, changes weather patterns . and hey, lets throw another pandemic in there
2100 total collapse of the living world
This man is become extremely senile and is good candidate for the Corona Virus.
Your last paragraph could be considered hateful and tends to negate your whole argument. Not clever
Peter,
Attenborough is 94, therefore he IS good candidate for the Corona Virus.
Senile definition is – of, relating to, exhibiting, or characteristic of old age;
So, not hateful, not clever… but accurate.
my mother is 93 and is senile (and has dementia), and also a good candidate for the covid virus, Fortunately my stepfather managed to get her out of the nursing home at the start of the year otherwise she would have been murdered by the government’s policies
And at least she does not purport to lecture us all by telling lies.
and i have now watched the programme. It is full of important information and spends a lot of time referring to land use, hunting and trafficking chemicals etc which are all very important.. But it does it in a sensationalising way with many inaccuracies. However it also makes many references to climate change (although less than expected) but using the usual inaccurate tropes. global warming – show lots of forest fires and koalas getting singed.
I am sure others can do a better job of debunking some of the misinformation
I find the whole thing with Attenborough peculiar in the extreme. He like myself has a degree in geology for heavens sake so he should have a sense of history and not indulge in short term conclusion drawing. I really do not understand how he lost “the long view”.
He does in his defence make comments about population growth which is the whole herd of elephants in the room no one talks about, the fact that only since the turn of the century, over 20 years only there has been a 27% increase in world population, of course in all the places least able to cope with this increase. That 27% MUST have an effect and must in part be due to an increase in food supply caused by increased fertility from extra CO2.
The CBI leader has the injection: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/14/uk-must-become-global-leader-in-tackling-climate-crisis-says-cbi-carolyn-fairbairn-covid-19
It really is so sad to see such an intelligent and wordly person join the climate virtue-signalling club. This is such a huge issue economically and she is supposed to be supporting the interests of British businesses – why didn’t she do her research first before issuing forth such drivel?
Another “EVs don’t really work” story inadvertently reported by the BBC. This time about a lorry:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54161343
Why wouldn’t you invest in this project? What could go wrong?
I haven’t seen any comment on this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8689833/Bering-Sea-ice-time-5-500-years.html. Is it therefore accepted or is there another explanation?
Paul, do we detect any reduction at all in climate alarmism or wokeism from the BBC since they got a new DG?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54183485
A BBC article about Sandy and the inevitable Climate Change Ref:
“Is climate change causing the storm’s slow pace?
John De Block, at the National Weather Service in Birmingham, Alabama, told the New York Times that Sally was drifting “at the speed of a child in a candy shop”.
Sally’s pace may be linked to climate change, according to experts. A 2018 study in Nature magazine found that the speed at which hurricanes and tropical storms move over an area had decreased by 10% between 1949 and 2016, a drop that was linked to an increase in total rainfall”.
Does this 2018 article in Nature stack up or is it the usual abuse of the scientific method and cherry picking that those in the pay of the Climate Industry have become so adept?
Even IF this is correct even Blind Frieddie can see that does not mean a conclusion that man is responsible except among the soft brained believers. Indeed even IF there is an influence of man these charlies need to demonstrate what % of this 4.5 billion year old continuous process is currently attributable to man, when that influence started and how it has increased year on year to whatever they claim it is today. I have yet to see any clear definition of what constitutes a unit of climate change and critically what are the units of rate of change except for the woolly apparently arbitrary 30 year statement from that well known peerless scientific body, the IPCC which they reduced from a previously equally arbitrary 50 year period.
Regards
Jon Scott
Sound interesting. Would there be any surplus rock for building the Severn barrages?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/09/17/lithium-explorer-makes-globally-significant-discovery-cornwall/
Just in case you haven’t seen this Paul:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/19/critics-smart-meters-right-along2/
The author still doesn’t get it, though.
Attenborough has another excerpt from his book in the Mail on Sunday
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8750911/SIR-DAVID-ATTENBOROUGH-sets-mankind-pull-miracle-save-planet.html
some interesting points but usual inaccuracies about and contradictions
Usual carbon crusade. talks about ditching fossil fuels, lauds Paraguay Albania and Iceland for “100% renewable electricity” and a number of countries for <10% . All very well if you have geo thermal or lots of hydro. Not very realistic for UK.
Also he talks about raising third world people out of poverty . i dont think he realises that this needs energy from cheap portable fuel.
The whole things smacks of a "what i did on my holidays" type of essay done by a schoolboy
Hello Paul,
For the Dutch audience I made a video about ‘The impossibility of Windmills’. It is translated in English and I wondered if you would be interested to give it a place on your website or place a link to it. You can view the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7PHUMd7PYA. It was intended for The Netherlands, but it addresses probably the same problems with green energy there are in your country.
RecentIy I made a new video in which I shine a light on the dark side of ‘green’ technologies such as biomass, windturbines and solarpanels. I wondered if you would be interested to give it a place on your website or place a link to it. You can view the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fcUt5_sN6A.
Hope to hear from you, sincerely, Jan Smelik.
Hi Paul, Re your recent posts on Smart meters. I have in the last few days had a run in with my supplier Utility Warehouse who have tried to coerce me into having a SM. After booking an appointment for me without my knowledge, which I promptly requested cancellation of, they then tried to tell me my old meter was about to expire and was inaccurate. They then added that failure to replace an expired meter was a form of tampering and would result in a warrant to fit a new meter. Well that did not go down too well so I replied asking for various evidence etc. To cut the story short after my email I got an immediate reply cancelling the appointment and wishing me a good day. They did say that OFGEM can deem a meter as expired, I don’t know if thats true – perhaps i may find out if they pass my details over !!!
Keep up the good work and if you wish to see the email they sent me then just let me know.
This should be interesting:
http://t.email3.telegraph.co.uk/r/?id=h650627c1,3982f042,36bae858&WT.mc_id=e_DM1288625&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Tec_New_TechIntel&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_Tec_New_TechIntel20200922&utm_campaign=DM1288625&p1=%409A%2Ffj4D4XewK7D9C3xZbHGiQ8R%2BDElr1YWnHRq6Rd4w%3D
Paul – as an aside, this thread is so long now that I have to fight my PC to get to the end of it. Would it be feasible to have archives of, say, a year’s entries to keep the live one fresh? Thanks.
All I do :
CTRL END (Twice)
Thanks Paul. Yes, I do that, but the RHS bar keeps drifting back up. May be my browser (Opera).
Paul,
Interesting article in the Telegraph today about how a “1 in a 100 year climate anomaly” caused relentless rain during World War I, which in turn led to misery and death for the soldiers in the trenches and may ultimately have contributed to the death toll by Spanish Flu:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/24/unfortunate-climate-anomaly-first-world-war-revealed/
Isn’t it interesting how professionally – and without hyperbole – this is reported given that there can be no attribution to CO2? Imagine the reporting if this multi-year anomaly occurred today? Inter alia, Boris’s advisors would be producing hysterical and scientifically impossible graphs and, for example, we’d be banned from driving our cars immediately. We’d also be told to stay indoors, not travel or work, not meet our families … Oh hang on…
Yes. I read this and agree with you. There’s another similar “climate anomaly”, discovered recently and reported in a normal way.
It is the very cold Antarctic summer followed by an early onset of winter in 1911/12 which contributed to the failure of Scott’s team to return from the South Pole. I seem to recall it described as a once in 40 years event, and really just bad luck. Anything like that in 2011 would be blamed on Climate Change with no proper perspective.
A further irony of course is that Scott’s scientific measurements taken in those years are now used to back up the Climate Change claims. Yet the measurements taken were themselves anomalous!
Some weeks ago, in view of the launch of their zero carbon policy, I asked my council whether they had any investments in fossil fuels in their pension scheme. I had to resort to the Information Commissioner to get a response, which I now havem, and it’s “No.” They included links to a vehicle used by them and other LAs:
https://www.bordertocoast.org.uk/sustainability/
There are links to, among other things, voting records. The two samples I looked at showed about 15-20% “against,” some of the reasons being interesting:
Click to access Border-to-Coast-Emerging-Markets-Equity-Fund-Summary-Voting-Report-2020Q2.pdf
I wonder if the pensioners will be pleased when the wheels fall off the subsidy gravy train.
New today
Boris Johnson wants UK to be ‘Saudi Arabia of wind power’ what a load of bollox
Well he’s got the Saudi similarities right. Curfews, lockdowns, face coverings , no freedoms army on the street, politicisation of the police , general totalitarianism . .
Paul,
just out today, more evangelical climate porn from the BBC. I noticed they have been a little subdued since the appointment of the new DG….like all good cowards…..but then like the bullies and zealots they are they cannot resist pushing the religion.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200923-could-geoengineering-save-the-arctic-sea-ice
“Desperate” is in there to get the heart fluttering!
“This July, ice cover was as low as it had ever been at that time of the year”. Clever usage of words there but is it correct?
“to scatter a thin layer of reflective glass powder over parts of the Arctic, in an effort to protect it from the Sun’s rays and help ice grow back. “We’re trying to break [that] feedback loop and start rebuilding,” So this latest bunch of FUNDED nut jobs want to hasten the return of the ice age and all the fun that that will entail for humanity?????
“The melting of the sea ice has impacts far beyond the Arctic and its inhabitants. It will contribute to rising sea levels, and some say it’s already disrupting weather patterns around the globe” Really? Where is the data to support that I wonder? And look at the weasel words…… “Some say”. This is classic BBC propaganda straight from the Kremlin….mix pseudo science and opinions or feeling to give wait to baseless opinions.
“If we lose our protective white shield entirely – which some reckon could happen just decades from now – it could have the same warming effect as another 25 years of fossil fuel emissions at current rates, which would mean more intense droughts, flooding and heat waves”.
“Protective white shield”? So an environment which is totally to alien to humans, one that has not existed for most of geological history is “protecting us”…and look at the conflation here….and contradictions….intense droughts AND flooding! In my job I look at marginal reservoirs and one of the tools used is to understand the sedimentation cycles. Warm means more sediment because it is wetter. Cold means less sediment because it is dryer but these charlatans claim there will be both when it is warmer. Again they are clever because climate is a local phenomenon not a global one YET they give the impression with clever words that it is global.
“By rebuilding sea ice, Field hopes her approach will also restore its ancient function as a planetary air-conditioner and help counteract the effects of global warming. (Read more about how ice loss in the Arctic affects the rest of the world”
What is wrong exactly with MORE of the planet being habitable not less and MORE food being produced? Their religion dictates that cold and famine are good!
“Many scientists frown upon such technological interventions in Earth’s planetary system, known broadly as “geoengineering”, arguing that fiddling with nature might cause further damage. However, “the utter lack of progress on climate mitigation is really opening up a space for all of these [geoengineering] things to be discussed,” says Emily Cox, who studies climate policy and public attitudes towards geoengineering at the University of Cardiff. That said, the urgency does not erase the uncertainty. “What do you do if something goes wrong… especially in the Arctic, which is already a fairly fragile ecosystem?”
She is a zealot pure and simple….. She would have made a good substitute for Stalin! She studied climate policy and public attitudes at Cardiff! This is a lot of the problem. Worthless uncritical and scholarship free courses abound like this which are how to force their unsubstantiated theory onto the masses….more marxism!
“Field launched the Arctic Ice Project — formerly known as ICE911 — in 2008, soon after watching the climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which convinced her of the urgency of doing something about the melting sea ice. In particular, it’s the fate of old, thick sea ice that worries her the most – the kind that lasts multiple years. This mature ice, dazzlingly white, has a high albedo, meaning it’s extremely good at reflecting sunlight – much more so than the thinner and darker young ice that forms each polar winter only to melt again during the summer. Yet over the past 33 years, that ice has dwindled by a staggering 95%”.
So after watching Al Gore lying and ignoring the court case which followed and upheld instructions to make public all aware of the falsehoods contained in it…..”she saw the light
“Sea ice has dwindled by 95% in the past 33 years”? WHAT? Based on measurement or feelings? You mean it has “dwindled” to the same level it was to enable Amunsden to sail the Northwest Passage in a wooden boat 1903-1906?
I gave up at that point. They take at best what is just distorted baseless opinion and build a castle of their bullshit on top of it.
Jonathan Scott
There’s going to be trouble:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/25/uks-first-deep-coal-mine-30-years-should-go-ahead-council-says/
“The report, from think tank Green Alliance, disputed claims that the mine would reduce carbon emissions by 5.3 million tonnes over its lifetime by replacing energy intensive imports of steel.
“The authors say the calculations ignore emissions from extraction and processing of the coal.”
Of course, renewables don’t generate such pollution!
Text from a post on Spiked by a Covid denier. Sounds familiar?
We know that the pictures we saw on our televisions were highly selected, in the way that disaster reporting usually is. We know that the extreme predictions of disaster that did so much to frighten people in March were based on catastrophist extrapolations of models with biologically naive assumptions, models that have been shown to be wrong many times before.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/25/the-making-of-britains-covid-catastrophe/
Confusing, or what?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/27/boris-johnson-commits-restoring-nature-30-per-cent-britain-2030/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/27/tory-heartlands-will-have-find-space-15m-new-homes/
Here we go again:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/30/hydrogen-powered-trains-could-carrying-uk-passengers-2023/
Paul,
We know the at the BBC is the gift that keeps on giving but, really, this latest article from Justin Rowlatt, “Chief environment correspondent” entitled “Has the world started to take climate change fight seriously?” is an absolute peach:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54347878
Inter alia, he rambles on and on about tired memes such as China’s new-found environmentalism (ROTFLMAO), EV popularity (ROTFLMAO), Todd Stern, you name it.
He moves, however, into the financial sphere with this grossly misleading statement: “Meanwhile, the share price of Exxon – once the world’s most valuable company of any kind – fell so far that it just got booted out of the Dow Jones Industrial Average of major US corporations.” As an aside, the company is actually Exxon Mobil Corp but let’s not get picky. More importantly, didn’t anyone ever tell him that the Dow Jones IA is a share price only index not – as the FTSE100 and S&P 500 are – a (far more important) market capitalisation index? Did he notice that, under the curious share price restrictions of the Dow Jones, Amazon and Alphabet (Google) aren’t in the Dow Jones either and GE also got axed a while back? Now, it is true that Exxon Mobil’s market capitalisation is a paltry $150,000,000,000 or so as investors prefer sexier stocks like Tesla and Amazon. Nevertheless, at $150bn (and that is a depressed price) it remains an extremely significant global corporation, despite what eco-zealots like Rowlatt may wish.
Paul,
I happened upon the Wikipedia link for the Little Iceage. There is a graphic there which looks very “Mannipulated” indeed. Without them labelling the Medieval Warm Period you would be mistaken for not knowing it is there. Also the Roman warm is missing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age.
If this is indeed the product of Mann’s shocking and discredited school science project then they need to be told to take it down.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Very well spotted Jonathan. Yes, the graph – and associated text – is a complete fake and the text clearly implies that the MWP was very localised (a theory that has been debunked many times and, of course, made no sense in the first place). It’s a real shame that such a very useful resource as Wikipedia can be so easily corrupted in this way. That graph has about as much scientific and statistical integrity as that recently presented by our medical heroes Tweedledee and Tweedledum showing exponential growth of Covid to hysterical panic levels.
Ian and Paul will be glad to know that the BBC has opened a misinformation correction unit, so we can look forward to some real reporting on climate change. Can we?
ROTFLMAO
Some light holiday reading, Paul:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/10/05/households-face-45m-bill-collapse-solarplicity2/
Interesting point in comments about Shetland.
Then there’s this:
https://thegwpf.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=e684c6aba0&e=6384b6057a
The writer spoils it by suggesting it’ll all be alright because …
Enjoy the rest of your break.
Pathetic! https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/approval-of-woodhouse-colliery-delayed-by-whitehall-czf5xq6lr?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=66f6ee34b3-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_10_05_11_10_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-66f6ee34b3-36527490&mc_cid=66f6ee34b3&mc_eid=6384b6057a
Covid must be a really mind-altering infection:
http://t.email3.telegraph.co.uk/r/?id=h69ff1ff3,39a89a18,36bce0a0&WT.mc_id=e_DM1293484&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FrB_New&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_FrB_New20201006&utm_campaign=DM1293484
If he isn’t challenged on this, we’re all doomed.
Well, thats why the Northumbrian coal mine was pu on hold. Fortunately, an antidote’s been administered by GWPF.
Hi Paul, maybe this will be of interest. Local council (Cheshire East ) Carbon Neutral Plan.
It looks horrifying (eg page 60) and was approved in May i believe, although i have asked the council if this has all been given the green light since it looks beyond belief!! Similar goings on in Cheshire West also – probably elsewhere too – worth an article?
Click to access Carbon%20Neutral%20Action%20Plan%20-%20appendix.pdf
Paul,
Intellectual, intensively researched and clearly unbiased article in the Telegraph today:
“Is this finally a watershed moment for Britain’s ‘net zero’ ambition?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/10/11/finally-watershed-moment-britains-net-zero-ambition/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_AwDwbRJGYqN0
It eulogises in depth about the wonders of offshore wind and completely goes against the information that I have from industry insiders that offshore wind – save for a near-impossible explosion of the cost of other energy sources – can never be economically viable without significant government (i.e. taxpayer) guarantees and subsidies.
So, who this independent arbiter of the industry that Boris is so clearly in love with? Step forward one Alistair Phillips-Davies, Chief Executive of SSE. No further comment necessary,
Paul,
In a brief article with no further comment or analysis, the Telegraph today (page 9 – can’t seem to find the article on the app) reports that “Insurance for electric cars costs drivers up to 62% more”. The research appears to have been carried out by GoCompare using directly comparable ICE and BEV models.
So, we are left to ponder the reasons. Could it be that the insurance industry has worked out the significant cost of replacement EV batteries and has started factoring those costs into premia? Or are they perhaps seeing other risks higher than for ICE vehicles? Yes, I have heard that EV batteries may be subject to separate insurance policies but is that the norm and what are the combined policy costs compared to ICEs?
I’m betting that this is the start of a story will run and run. Large SUV EV batteries can cost a staggering £20,000+ to replace in full. OK, so EV batteries are modular and, in many cases, whole batteries do not need to be replaced when it is only individual cells that are faulty, Nevertheless, full batteries will need replacing on occasion and insurance cover for that will be needed. Further, it seems inevitable that BEVs will be written-off at a younger age on average than equivalent ICEs. Given that we haven’t even been through a single product life-cycle of a BEV , it is too early for the relevant industries to be able accurately to work out such things as insurance premia and the depreciation schedules pivotal to lease pricing. I will speculate that BEV insurance premia and lease costs will be much greater so the cost disadvantages of BEVs, when compared to ICEs, will only go in one direction from here.
Since writing this I have spoken to a manager at a car major main dealership. With regard to replacing cells, he tells me that:
– there may be 50 or more cells in a large EV battery pack. Each cell contains a multitude of smaller batteries but, if something goes wrong, the whole cell will have to be replaced;
– the cells should only cost in the region of £500 to £1,000. However, replacing a cell is a non-standard job requiring special equipment, skills and testing. The labour alone could amount to £1,000.
Hmmm. So much for the “don’t worry, if the battery goes wrong you only need to replace a cell” argument. Clearly, replacing a cell could leave you (or your insurers) with a bill for £2,000. Compare that with going down to Halfords (other retailers are available) and buying a battery for £50 which takes two minutes to fit.
Yep, must rush out and buy a BEV!
This is going to be nothing compared with the cost of a Hydrogen vehicle in a big motorway pile up when the resulting explosion and fire destroys all the people and cargo of all the vehicles in a 100 m radius! Nobody seems to remember the Hindenburg… yet
Any Insurance underwriters watching? Remember the Hindenburg. That’s right, filled with Hydrogen, the wonder fuel which will be the natural replacement for the combustion engine!
The explosion and fire in a multiple car pile up will kill or seriously injure anyone within about 50 meters. What will be the premium for such a vehicle?
Peter we both know the main people pushing these ideas are not engineers but bought scientists at best. The critical engineering step is being deliberately ignored….a bit like an architect designing a mad building and no building engineers getting involved before the building contractor sets to work building it. Maybe that is why so many of their mad cap “saving the planet” ideas just come and go ( after crazy amounts of money have been wasted on them) because in the Climate Fiction Factory the engineering is no longer important, neither is the cost or the reality….I think we need to call this crapola Climate Hollywood.
BBC lefties slowly raising their heads again a couple of weeks after the new DG took over. This is like a broken record, regurgitated climate porn.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54533971
SOMETHING must be getting better when the seas get warmer….why not do real science and discuss everything not only the doom claims?
Pay attention to the ambiguity in the B LM BC piece they gave top billing to.
“Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has lost more than half of its corals since 1995 due to warmer seas driven by climate change, a study has found”.
“Scientists found all types of corals had suffered a decline across the world’s largest reef system”.
“They found populations had dropped by more than 50% in all coral sizes and species, but especially in branching and table-shaped corals”.
How can they claim it is due to warmer seas when the same species are doing infinitely better in warmer seas in Indonesia? I know what they want the dull witted to think they mean but is it a reduction in species OR area? Smaller size can mean NEW GROWTH
What GLOBAL work was done in 1995 to provide the basis for this claim and what has been done since then GLOBALLY? Don’t tell me lots of meetings and conferences and….more modelling?
Either bad science or deliberate mis interpretation by the “impartial” BBC:
“Bleaching occurs when corals under stress drive out the algae – known as zooxanthellae – that give them colour”.
Yes that is technically correct but there cam be SEVERAL different causes not only their favourite “temperature” which they have written the piece deliberately to infer. It is repeatedly shown by real scientists like Dr Peter Ridd that the SAME coral species live and indeed are doing better in 5 degree warmer water in Indonesia, with the cavate that he considers the Barrier Reef Environment temperature wise to be sub ideal. With hard evidence like this …similar to the Polar Bear BS how come fact does not have serious ramifications for the “scientists” peddling this rubbish?
A MAJOR cause of bleaching is subaerial exposure, exposure above sea level. Corals grow up towards the sun. Sea level goes up and down so very often they are in a situation where they are exposed to the air with consequent heat and UV exposure as well in extremes of desiccation. Also storms and ..predators . HOW COME suddenly none of those scientists seem to notice those EVEN to say they are not important anymore?
Why are they quoting SINGLE causes when there are a multitude of possible causes?
Am I the only one who sees baseless claims picked up and carried by the gullible masses herded by activists and then …real data comes out and they go quiet for a while…regrouping and then after a reasonable time when they think that the gullible masses have forgotten that their claim has been debunked…out it comes again sexed up with even more sensational claims and all the “impartial” media run with it.
Paul, This is a follow on to my post above from the GWPF. Strangely I received it in my email but there is no link to the web page and when I go to the GWPF site I cannot find it.
Press Release
15 October 2020
Claims of dramatic loss of Great Barrier Reef corals are false
Corals expert (Dr Peter Ridd) hits out at media reports
“Claims that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has lost half of its coral cover between 1995 and 2017 have received global media coverage.
The stories were based on a new paper co-authored by controversial Australian researcher, Professor Terry Hughes of James Cook University.
But according to Professor Peter Ridd, a leading authority on the Great Barrier Reef, these claims are false.
This is not the first time that Professor Hughes has made such claims about coral loss. His previous study was strongly criticised by the AIMS scientists responsible for collecting and publishing the coral data”.
The part which made me look three not two times was the following:
“Moreover, Professor Hughes has refused to make public the raw data upon which he made this claim, despite repeated requests”. What?
Is not divulging data a FUNDAMENTAL part of the Peer Review process? How can he get away with this? “He is saying “it is true because I say so!” Now, where have we heard that before Michel Mann…..Is this the standard of “science” being used to wreck Western Economies and frighten young children to death?
If this is true this shines a million watt light on just how corrupt the Climate Industry is by undermining a fundamental tenant of the scientific method. Why, well of course I am speculating but no one hides credible data and the fact that this practice is accepted within the Climate Industry make suspect claims right across the board.
Ah, but if you get an activist academic to make such a claim it can then be reported as if fact by the BBC in the usual “scientists report” manner , without balance or even the point he won’t provide any evidence to support his claim, andsuch events from cyclones are not unusual anyway. That’s how propaganda works.
Paul I tried to put this information on Twitter but it was instantly blocked, I post here to see if you are able (and willing) to use it:
Cuadrilla (of whom more later) was taken over early this year by an Australian Mining company called A J Lucas, this followed the UK government issuing a moratorium on all UK fracking. There have been a number of investors since the company was formed including BP and a US company called Riverstone Holdings. Riverstone was the last (having invested but no longer seeing a return anytime soon) and it was the sale of their share that gave full control to A.J.Lucas.
In its early days Cuadrilla was mostly owned by Lucas so the new situation did not look so bad, however the ownership of Lucas has changed over the years. Today a company called Kerogen (registered in Hong Kong) has a controlling interest but Kerogen itself is now totally owned and controlled by The Chinese National Offshore Oil Company which is Chinese government owned and controlled. A.J. Lucas has said that the UK government will lift the moratorium in 2021 (how do they know?).
Cuadrilla (as I am sure you know) was investigating The Bowland Shale deposits in the North West of England (and some other areas), what they found was never really made public.
I have followed shale gas for many years from the start in the USA up to the present and was truly unhappy when the government issued its moratorium so I investigated. The reason for the block on fracking was given as the danger of fracking related seismic activity. In particular UKGOV were worried that a quake at level 4 would happen and that this would cause a great deal of damage (to the well itself and to structures above ground).
Fortunately for me the UKGOV do not seem to read even the reports they post on their own website. On the OGA website I found a 2014 650 page British Geological Survey report on fracking in the Bowland shale. The report gave the following information;
A graphic representation of the Preston well shows that the deposits of gas/oil bearing rocks (Upper Bowland, Lower Bowland and Hodder Mudrock) are between 8000 feet and 9000 feet thick. The largest deposit in the USA is 1000 feet thick and most are between 200 and 600 feet.
The BGS report states that up to 2012 in the whole world there were only 3 shale related seismic events registering more than 2.0. The highest was 3.8 Canada (no damage recorded).The report now sitting on the OGA website (WP2 – Impacts of Seismicity:
Transmission to People, Property and Well Integrity) claims that because models can not predict that a more powerful earthquake will NOT happen then we dare not take the risk, this is madness.
Paul I tried to put this information on Twitter but it was instantly blocked, I post here to see if you are able (and willing) to use it:
Cuadrilla (of whom more later) was taken over early this year by an Australian Mining company called A J Lucas, this followed the UK government issuing a moratorium on all UK fracking. There have been a number of investors since the company was formed including BP and a US company called Riverstone Holdings. Riverstone was the last (having invested but no longer seeing a return anytime soon) and it was the sale of their share that gave full control to A.J.Lucas.
In its early days Cuadrilla was mostly owned by Lucas so the new situation did not look so bad, however the ownership of Lucas has changed over the years. Today a company called Kerogen (registered in Hong Kong) has a controlling interest but Kerogen itself is now totally owned and controlled by The Chinese National Offshore Oil Company which is Chinese government owned and controlled. A.J. Lucas has said that the UK government will lift the moratorium in 2021 (how do they know?).
Cuadrilla (as I am sure you know) was investigating The Bowland Shale deposits in the North West of England (and some other areas), what they found was never really made public.
I have followed shale gas for many years from the start in the USA up to the present and was truly unhappy when the government issued its moratorium so I investigated. The reason for the block on fracking was given as the danger of fracking related seismic activity. In particular UKGOV were worried that a quake at level 4 would happen and that this would cause a great deal of damage (to the well itself and to structures above ground).
Fortunately for me the UKGOV do not seem to read even the reports they post on their own website. On the OGA website I found a 2014 650 page British Geological Survey report on fracking in the Bowland shale. The report gave the following information;
A graphic representation of the Preston well shows that the deposits of gas/oil bearing rocks (Upper Bowland, Lower Bowland and Hodder Mudrock) are between 8000 feet and 9000 feet thick. The largest deposit in the USA is 1000 feet thick and most are between 200 and 600 feet.
The BGS report states that up to 2012 in the whole world there were only 3 shale related seismic events registering more than 2.0. The highest was 3.8 Canada (no damage recorded).The report now sitting on the OGA website (WP2 – Impacts of Seismicity:
Transmission to People, Property and Well Integrity) claims that because models can not predict that a more powerful earthquake will NOT happen then we dare not take the risk, this is madness.
We use gas all the time and since Boris has plans to turn DRAX into Europe’s biggest CCGT station we are going to need a lot more. We are already regularly importing over 10% of our electricity and 12% of our gas from other countries and DRAX will push that higher. Even those who believe CO2 is a problem must see high energy imports as damaging to our economy and so doing nothing about our enormous shale gas reserves should not be an option.
Sorry to bring up BBC bias again but a programme this morning was so hypocritical and it was supposed to be discussing impartiality. If you have time https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000nmcm scroll in to 8.36. It does wander off into Brexit and other things.
The idea that the BBC is impartial is a laugh!
Mr Homewood, I think this is a study you may find interesting if you are not already aware of it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378020307676?dgcid=author
Best regards and keep up the good work.
Looking at this site and scrolling down a bit you get the following.
https://planningportal.us14.list-manage.com/track/click?u=225ef92d1ef81a08db304a46b&id=607ee6c046&e=4b2fd172d4
30GW of onshore wind pipeline by 2030
Research suggests that the capacity of onshore wind could grow to 30 gigawatts (GW) by 2030 – more than double the UK’s current operational capacity.
RenewableUK’s Onshore Wind Project Intelligence report finds that new onshore wind capacity will increase over this decade, as technology costs fall and the resumption from next year of auctions for contracts to generate power.
Reaching 30GW is contingent on all projects being built. This would power more than 19.5 million homes in the UK a year.
The total project pipeline includes UK onshore wind projects that are operational, under construction, consented, submitted into the planning system or being developed for submission into planning.
As I write this, wind at 4.8%, gas 49.1%, coal 1,.9% of grid output and high pressure will be with us for a while.
Paul,
Are you aware of this disparity in reported data?
https://xmetman.com/september-global-temperatures-why-is-the-hadcrut-series-lagging-behind-gistemp/
Paul,
further to: “Forest of Dean Council To Save The World!!”, here is their instruction to the proletariat entitled “30 Top Tips to Lower Your Carbon Footprint”:
Click to access carbon-neutral-district.pdf
Observant readers will note that numbers 1 – 20 appear to be missing. No doubt they are the ones written in chalk on the wall of the council offices, the ones that end: “All citizens are equal but Green councillors are more equal than others”
Great news for Croydon residents – the borough’s bankruptcy means no more frivolous “investments” like a climate emergency policy.
Received this in my inbox this morning…
You recently signed the petition “Hold a referendum to scrap the UK’s policy of Net Zero CO2 by 2050”:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300316
MPs from six select committees of the House of Commons joined together to set up a citizens’ assembly on climate change to look at how the UK should reach its commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The Climate Assembly UK brought together 108 people from across the UK. Together they were representative of the wider UK population in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, where in the UK they live, whether they live in an urban or rural area, and how concerned they are about climate change.
They worked together to create recommendations to Government.
How can you help?
MPs want to know what you and your communities think about the recommendations made by the assembly.
Discuss these questions with your school, workplace, family or community group and submit a joint response. It’s a great opportunity to hear others’ views on these issues and to share the outcomes of your discussions with MPs.
Share your answers via this online survey: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/A464RU/
Please return your responses by Friday 20th November 2020.
Read more about the Assembly and its recommendations: https://www.ukparliamentweek.org/en/blog/tell-the-climate-assembly-what-your-group-thinks-about-their-recommendations/
Information provided in the survey will be used to inform the select committees’ ongoing work on net zero greenhouse gas emissions.
What is a Select Committee?
Select Committees are cross-party groups of MPs. They are independent of the Government.
Find out how Select Committees work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_2RDuDs44c
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
Just got this email. Is there any point in responding, given that our legislators never listen?
Dear ,
You recently signed the petition “Hold a referendum to scrap the UK’s policy of Net Zero CO2 by 2050”:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300316
MPs from six select committees of the House of Commons joined together to set up a citizens’ assembly on climate change to look at how the UK should reach its commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The Climate Assembly UK brought together 108 people from across the UK. Together they were representative of the wider UK population in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, where in the UK they live, whether they live in an urban or rural area, and how concerned they are about climate change.
They worked together to create recommendations to Government.
How can you help?
MPs want to know what you and your communities think about the recommendations made by the assembly.
Discuss these questions with your school, workplace, family or community group and submit a joint response. It’s a great opportunity to hear others’ views on these issues and to share the outcomes of your discussions with MPs.
Share your answers via this online survey: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/A464RU/
Please return your responses by Friday 20th November 2020.
Read more about the Assembly and its recommendations: https://www.ukparliamentweek.org/en/blog/tell-the-climate-assembly-what-your-group-thinks-about-their-recommendations/
Information provided in the survey will be used to inform the select committees’ ongoing work on net zero greenhouse gas emissions.
I also received this, I think we need to respond to counter the green blob and we should promote it to increase the resistance to the Green propaganda.
Hello Paul: Faith and Thought, the operating name of The Victoria Institute/ Philosophical Society of Great Britain ( President Professor Sir Colin J. Humpries CBE, BSc, MA, PhD) was established in 1865 and was prominent in criticising Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. The October issue of Faith and Thought contains a paper by Andy Lester, Chartered Environmentalist, Conservation Director for A Rocha, UK: “An update on the current state of the planet and predicted impacts”. The paper is alarmist. The majority of the members are influential academic theologians and not scientists. The Honorary Secretary is Dr P. Kerry, admin@faithandthought.org. I would need his permission to send you a copy for a rejoinder should you possibly wish to follow it up.
I wonder where these idiots think raw materials for their electric car batteries come from:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/14/chinese-wallpaper-ivory-carvings-national-trust-properties-symbols/
The Law of Unintended Consequences in action?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8951969/Rishi-Sunak-considers-plan-charge-motorists-mile-drive-Britains-roads.html
I’ve been sent these pics. Is this the sort of thing the censorship proposals are are going to suppress?
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=9318ba09e0&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1683560063259808606&th=175d34f528a2935e&view=att&disp=safe
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=9318ba09e0&attid=0.5&permmsgid=msg-f:1683560063259808606&th=175d34f528a2935e&view=att&disp=safe
A bit disturbed by this publication!
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3725919
Paul
Have you picked up on this yet?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-54994865
Another major environmental disaster in the name of saving the planet!
I may have missed sonething, but the talk about no petrol/Diesel mfr after 2030 seems to be in a UK vacuum. What’s going to happen if export market countries don’t follow the UK line? Are countries we import from going to play along?
You impute to this topic what all this nonsense of energy and climate change overtly lacks, joined up quantified thinking. There is none in political ejaculations, caused by delusional thought masturbation, or in Bo Jos case, under the new regime, stimulated by Carrie. No rational thought was involved.
Radio-Canada journalist violated corporate standards for accuracy by incorrectly reporting increasing extreme rainfall trends. The Ombudsman finds reporting so flawed it may be not be possible to fix – here is a link to the scathing report: https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/fr/ombudsman/revisions/2020-11-19 (see “REVIEW IN ENGLISH” link at the top of the page)
Excellent editorial in this week’s Spectator, “The wrong reset “. Spot on.
Paul
Brilliant report on sky news australia today about how global warming is getting on.
I really could not believe BBC news at 10 today 23 Nov concerning an apparent rise in CO2. They used photos of well recognised landmarks shown in clear conditions and with smog.
Interesting now that we can clearly see carbon dioxide!
Gathering evidence of a grand plan or a coincidence?
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/lockdown-is-part-of-the-grand-green-global-design/
Paul,I came across this article which may be of interest
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/11/6000-years-arrows-emerge-melting-norway-ice-patch/
This is HARD data about significant natural climate variation in Norway and timings so why is it not used in that context? . Also, is it just me or is the term Ice Patch asinine?
Anyway they totally manage to either not get the significance or deliberately avoid it. The fact that they observe the oldest artifacts being fragmented and apparently exposed to the elements and then do not go on to the next obvious conclusion which is that after period X the ice melted then remelted again…climate change!
Also the lack of specific detail does not make it clear if the arrows fell originally onto snow or onto rock. Certainly if you are a hunter and you need to sit down do you go and do that on snow or on rock? The lichen grows on rock so exposed patches of rock so the hunted animals I would think would be congregating around “rock patches” not snow patches.
In the third paragraph from the end the person quoted is still allowed to get in a stupid statement which goes with the narrative:
“I’ve been studying Norwegian glaciers for the last 40 years. It’s a lot of change,” says Nesje. “It’s quite scary to see how fast the ice patches can melt away, from one day to another.”
Studying? In what capacity? Why are we constantly bombarded with emotion in supposed scientific reporting? There you are. 40 years and it is “scary” to this supposed scientist. Why today are we being exposed to the language of emotion from “scientists” the supposedly least emotional people of all? To my mind either the person is either not a scientist or the journo put the word “scary” into his mouth.
Keep up the good work, you are appreciated!
Regards
Jon Scott
Is anyone able to explain this?
The petition to the UK parliament to hold a referendum to debate zero carbon 2050 (No. 300316) attracted only 7628 signatures.
A petition to prevent any restrictions on those who refuse to have a Covid Vaccine (No. 323442) has attracted over 250,000 signatures and will be debated in parliament, even though government has said it has no plans for such restrictions.
How is it that the sheeple can get excited about the perceived tyranny of being sanctioned for not doing something, yet can’t get excited about the tyranny the climatists have in store for us?
Yes, it proves the effectiveness of propaganda (or in the bird world…proper-gander !! ).
Encourage an irrational fear, make it personal, show you are dealing with it; the sheeple will love you & not notice all the underhanded tricks going on in the background…classic misdirection, just like a stage magician .
Joseph Goebbels would be proud !
Hi Paul – thought you might be interested in this comment from Luke Pollard who is the Labour Party shadow spokesman for the Environment. It was received in a reply to a mail I sent him that included links to this site over false claims made by the alarmists.
“I’ve looked at the links and think this is poor quality and, I believe, not helpful. I am concerned about the high levels of fake news about climate science and I worry that good people are falling for things that are false. There is over-whelming evidence for the climate emergency and I would encourage you to get your news from reputable and evidence-led sites.”
It would seem that I have struck a nerve.
Hi Eddie,
I see from Wiki that Luke Pollard MP is well placed to understand science and scientific arguments:
“Pollard was educated at Tavistock College and Christleton High School before studying politics at the University of Exeter, graduating with first-class honours in 2001. He specialised in the politics of the European Union and international terrorism. He was elected as the campaigns officer for the students’ union in 2000 and then as president of the students’ union (called the Guild of Students at Exeter) in 2001.
“He worked as an advisor to the Labour politicians David Jamieson and George Foulkes before becoming account director at public relations and marketing firm Edelman. After that he was the head of public affairs for the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) from 2009 to 2013, a role which included lobbying on aspects of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011 related to the travel industry, then head of European development for ABTA until 2014”
So a politics student who probably got excited by Sixth Form debating society. Then a PR man and lobbyist.
Perhaps you might write back and ask him what qualifications he has to label science “fake news” without any basis at all. I would.
Reading actual evidence rather than “evidence led” opinion would be closer to science , Pollard should look at the actual observational evidence, of which there is a lot from ice cores and recently from satellites since 1979, which cover the controlling oceans completely, not possible before. This this the comarison of actual data with IPCC modellers predictions by the head of climate science ex NSA at the UNiversity of Alabama, who report this for the US government.
The ice cores from multiple locations show current warming change is similar but overall cooler than the last Mediaeval warming, which was cooler than the Roman warming, and that was cooler than the Minoan warming, declining for the last 8,000 years in science fact. Alley’s GISP2 data is plotted directly in Excel. Reference on the Graph
Current warming has also been at the same rate over the same period of the cycle as in historical warmings, so there is no detectable anomaly from natural change. No human caused effect. On the actual evidence, not modellers guesses, that are not evidence based and whose predictions are wrong, disproved by the actual observations of the natural cycles from proxies in the past and the best recent direct readings. THis evidence disproves the deceit created by the UN IPCC as to any significant effect on surface temperatures from changing CO2 levels. This has not and is not happening at any discernible level. Facts of evidence, not assertions of prediction.. CEng, CPhys.
PS Greenland NGRIP shows the 8Ka decline much better: Reference on the GRaph. https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjbq7c2909aulvy/NGRIP%2010Ka%20Graph.jpg?dl=0
Rare media accountability: Radio-Canada Ombudsman’s SCATHING review of flawed article claiming extreme rain increases causes the national broadcaster to DELETE the whole article – with so many violations of the Journalist Standards and Practices for accuracy, Ombudsman even suggests it was intentional. Ombudsman Guy Gendron writes:
– “It would be difficult to qualify all these errors, omissions, imprecisions and inaccuracies as having occurred merely by chance.”
– “Given the scope of the observed failures, I doubt it is possible to correct an article that is so flawed through and through. If Radio Canada International decides to amend it, I strongly recommend that the task be assigned to another journalist, preferably someone who has demonstrated their ability to cover environmental topics.”
– “The article’s errors, omissions, imprecisions and inaccuracies are so numerous that I believe it is an aggravated case of failure to comply with the JSP (CBC’s Journalistic Standard Practices).”
– “This is also an issue of inadequate editorial oversight.”
Kudos to Radio-Canada’s independent review process that can identify and correct journalists who are ‘repeat offenders’ when it comes to accurate reporting, instead of distorting, the facts on extreme rainfall trends.
This was all in response to my complaint that simply pointed out the facts: Canada’s official Engineering Climate Datasets show no change in extreme rainfall that cannot be explained by chance. And model projections are not the same as actual observations. Radio-Canada’s journalist got that basic fact wrong, thinking model simulations ‘confirm’ what is really happening.
I have put more highlights of the Ombudsman’s review on my blog, including links to the full 11 page review, and the original Radio-Canada article text (now deleted online):
https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2020/11/radio-canada-ombudsman-finds-standards.html
We need more of this type of objective review, and adherence to standards for reporting accuracy!
Some interesting pieces in the GWPF bulletin, including this one:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/30/european-states-ordered-respond-youth-activists-climate-lawsuit?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=bdcbe3941e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_11_30_01_04_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-bdcbe3941e-36527490&mc_cid=bdcbe3941e&mc_eid=6384b6057a
“… governments are moving too slowly to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are destabilising the climate.” Governments have made a rod for their o wn backs by not challenging the basic principle.
And this is a brillant state if the union piece:
https://the-pipeline.org/cracks-appear-in-the-climate-consensus/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=bdcbe3941e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_11_30_01_04_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-bdcbe3941e-36527490&mc_cid=bdcbe3941e&mc_eid=6384b6057a
Hi Paul,
Still battling away at my local council’s Zero40 policy. In a recent response, an official cited this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/12/reaching-uk-net-zero-target-cheaper-than-we-thought-says-climate-adviser
It’s something I think you may have commented on but can’t find anything specific. If you have, please point me to it.
Thanks
“There was a really interesting article in the FT yesterday where some of the big energy companies are pushing the Govt for a 2035 date for a low carbon national grid .”
This was fired at me by my LA official pal. I replied that, of course they are – they want certainty and don’t care about the mix because we’re paying.
Hi Paul, You probably have seen this among all the “shocking” information about coral reefs. What I find “shocking” is what they are talking about I knew 36 years ago when I was in University. Corals grow upwards towards the light and there is a game played between coral growing and sea level oscillation. The coral tries to get as close to sea level as it can but very often it gets burned ( literally) when there is a negative oscillation which exposes the coral sub aerially and it gets sunburn and bleaches ( Yes THIS is the main cause of bleaching that the “scientists” ignore, something not ignored by the great Dr Peter Ridd a real scientist.
Anyway Coral shenanigans aside, I wish to draw your attention to the latest from the great Mannipulator of data himself et al. I am busy trying to wade through the paper but the intro from GWPF is pretty much on the ball,
Manns paper is here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=243f45e04f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_12_02_01_36_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-243f45e04f-36496749&mc_cid=243f45e04f&mc_eid=6e6c09ffcb
Personally I want to know what is going on in respect of peer reviewing in Nature?
https://www.thegwpf.com/refutation-of-michael-manns-latest-statistical-shenanigans/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=243f45e04f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_12_02_01_36_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-243f45e04f-36496749&mc_cid=243f45e04f&mc_eid=6e6c09ffcb
Regards
Jon Scott
Strap line on Al Jazeera this morning (Thursday 3.12.20): “Conservationists: Great Barrier Reef In Critical Condition.” Somebody’s lying!
This in today’s Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/05/farmer-bulldozed-beauty-spot-protect-homes-floods/
Why is written by the Crime Correspondent?
Paul,
So we are back to “snow may be a thing of the past to upset children” ploy from the usual suspects.
Personally HOW do these people get so obsessed with their narrative that they think sub zero temperatures are an “ideal” and somehow not having them is bad?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55179603
So here we have it. The sum total of what is left in the science free climate doom mongers empty sack of goodies…..recycling disaster and doom which ( notice the usual weasel language ) “Could” become a thing of the past. This is simply dishonest presentation of MODELS. “Could” means also “Could NOT”. This is the deliberately and wilfully disingenuous BBC at its worst!
If I counted correctly the word COULD appears eight times in this piece. This is about the product of models which intern have inputs based on assumptions, some very big assumptions. The output from those models covers a range of possibilities covering what they are pushing which are the “Coulds” but there will be an equal output on the other side which covers what the BBC are deliberately ignoring which are the “could nots”.
This is wilful and disingenuous reporting of badly presented ( once again) data by the Met office who see them selves no longer as the disseminators of information but the official sanctioned purveyors of the climate “oh no it is worse than we thought” narrative. The Met Office has no business indulging in the fabrication of narratives and the BBC as our national public subscription news broadcaster has no business pushing a distorted opinion
Notice it is ALL based on NOT DATA but on “Global Emissions” projections. Now, there is NO empirical data which proves the link the want the gullible to believe only models which have no basis in reality
“It could mean the end of sledging, snowmen and snowball fights, says Dr Lizzie Kendon, a senior Met Office scientist who worked on the climate projections”.
Oh how nice. The classic BBC ploy of using a supposed scientist to give authority to the abuse of childrens hopes. This is emotional blackmail of the worst kind and as a scientist “Dr Lizzie” should know better and qualify that statement but of course she does not or is not invited to.
“If emissions continue to accelerate, leading to a global temperature rise of 4C, then the average coldest day in the UK would remain above 0 Celsius across most of the country throughout winter”.!
WHAT?????????????????
“”The rate and nature of the climate change that we’re seeing is unprecedented,” says Dr Mark McCarthy of the Met Office’s National Climate Information Centre”.
Based on what exactly? This rate of change argument is being pushed very hard but what evidence is there for that AND a supposed scientist once again indulging in emotional language. “Unprecedented” as compared to what?
“That high-emissions scenario shows peak summer temperatures could rise by between 3.7 C and 6.8 C by the 2070s, compared with the period 1981 to 2000.”
Again they are NOT using empirical data but model based projections assuming an unproven relationship between emissions and global temperature excluding all other possible naturally occurring factors.
Regards¨
Jonathan Scott
Xmetman has a commentary about the new ‘How will the climate change near me tool’ dreamed up by the Met Office and made available for all to try on the BBC website,
on his excellent blog site ( https://xmetman.com/what-will-climate-change-look-like-near-me/ ), it’s well worth subscribing to.
My thoughts when I looked at our area (Cumbria) were 1) They can’t tell the weather for next week!! How can we believe anything they say??
2) If this is CAGW then bring it on!! We would have at least one warm summer’s day for a change!!
oops , just polished my glasses and spotted a typo… intern indeed!
Paul,
Excellent site and visit it often.
I don’t know if you ever read The MasterInvetor magazine, on line, but you might like to critique an article by Victor Hill, dated 3rd Nov, but in today’s magazine. “Only capitalism will save the planet.” Sounds fine but it does seem to have a few contentious points……. I think you are eminently qualified to perhaps put hm right…..!
Best wishes nd many thanks.
…..Investor, not Invetor!
Paul. Not sure if you are aware of comedian Andrew Lawrence’s spoof videos. Mainly covid related but this one is climate related – he does some good Prince Harry environment stuff.
Paul, Not “news” but an interesting article from 2010 from of all places the BBC!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/12/global_warming_and_the_snowfal.html
It is by Andrew Neil, not a man to be blinded by bs. What is fascinating is that objectivity existed back then and correctly he points out the contradictions in the “certain predictions” of the climatistas. What he omits however is to point out the damage that such clearly false claims are making to the minds of impressionable people and that the purveyors of this unsubstantiated pap should be brought to book and grilled for what are clearly examples of “shooting from the hip” for reason X, Y or Z but not science unless it is also a self declaration of incompetence.
What is needed is a well publicised list of wrong historical claims by supposed “scientists” if only to make them more cautious about showing how little they actually know in the future. The masses pay attention when these charlatans pontificate and rags like the BBC and Guardian know this which in it’s self is unforgivable.
Keep up the good work!
Not wanting to be left out, the Telegraph tell us “Snow days >>could<< disappear by 2100 Met Office report warns"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/07/snow-days-could-disappear-2100-due-climate-change-met-office/
"The findings of the Met Office report should serve as a "wake up call" one scientist said
Paul, do you like me get a little testy when reading yet one more cliche from an "unnamed scientist"? "Tipping points", "unprecedented", "accelerating" "scary" and "wake up calls". The increasingly emotional language we are being bombarded by from supposed scientists. But wait, WHY are unnamed scientists being quoted? Indeed why are they unnamed and why are their qualifications not declared also? These could be the pronouncements of a food scientist or a political scientist. The term "scientist or expert" is used deliberately to sprinkle holy water on unsubstantiated claims to influence the Great Unwashed.
Also the charlatans are now predicting 80 years into the future when they can hardly get it right tomorrow? Pushing the date of Armageddon ever forward appears to be part of the toolkit for the dissemination of disinformation by the climate industrial complex.
It is time these practices were exposed for what they are.
Sorry Paul,
a small but important point I missed regarding the above Telegraph article. I am pointing to the language, “Met office warns” . Surely it should say “Met Office Model suggests”? My point is do you WARN about snow or warn about a lack of snow? People die when there is snow, not from a lack of it. Surely for the good or mankind and safety you only “Warn” about snow not the lack of snow!
The language is corrupt and is turning the world and reality on it’s head. Cold is good warm is bad. Snow and ice are good basking in Mediterranean climate is bad. Narrowing of climatic regions, increasing the area of uninhabitable continental area is good, broadening of climatic regions increasing the area of inhabitable continental area is bad. Record food production is bad….I can go on. I am sure you see the pattern. This is the language of zealots and atavists not scientist in any shape or form.
And finally! I promise this is my last contribution today.
Tongue in cheek and from the “Oh no it is worse than we thought” BBC. After telling us that snow will be a thing of the past as a negative:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55188928
Now we are told: “Met Office meteorologist Aidan McGivern described early Friday as being an “awkward mixture of cold rain, sleet and falling snow” for many areas.
I am sorry but is not this variability not simply a function of the position on a given weather front and elevation at a given time? If snow will be a thing of the past then that mix will logically be “less awkward”!
Jonathan Scott
Paul, have you seen this – Kathryn Porter’s forensic take apart of National Grid’s 2020 Future Energy Scenarios (“FES-2020”)
See also –
Prof Gordon Hughes showing the costs of wind generation are actually rising and not falling…
Click to access performance-wind-power-uk.pdf
Both are well worth reading.
Paul
From the ever so impartial BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000q5zz/panorama-britains-wild-weather?xtor=CS8-1000-%5BPromo_Box%5D-%5BNews_Promo%5D-%5BNews_Promo%5D-%5BPS_IPLAYER~N~m000q5zz~P_PanoramaBritainsWildWeather%5D
2020 Year of “Extreme” weather. Have I been asleep or were the “extremes” to extremely far away for me to see? For the first point they repeatedly focus on individual events as “evidence” of a phenomenon which is raised or lowered averages. Secondly Are those claims in their outrageous preamble correct?
The good old warn out “it is bad and going to get a lot worse ( might, could, possibly)
“The UK’s weather is getting wilder. This year has been a record breaker, with unprecedented rainfall, sunshine and sustained high temperatures. It’s a sign that climate change is already happening in the UK – and it’s going to get worse. Justin Rowlatt visits communities around Britain battered by this year’s extreme weather to find out how they have coped. With access to Met Office data and experts explaining how hot and wet every part of the UK could become, he discovers a future of more heatwaves, intense storms and little snow for most of us, and asks whether we are ready for the even wilder weather that is coming”
Wilder weather?. 2020 record breaker? unprecedented rainfall? sunshine and high temperatures? Really?
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Oh dear:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1371014/highgate-cemetery-george-michael-karl-marx-climate-change-evg
“Beer and crisps used to help tackle climate change”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55207597
Paul possibly because it is Christmas, the time for fairy stories and also pantomime without pantomimes) I draw your attention to this piece from the genie of the lamp Roger Harraharrabinbin because most of what he says seems to require magic to happen.
The confidence with which the BBC acts and feels that it is within their remit to actively promote the climate cause incessantly to keep it in the public mind regardless of how absurd their writing is, is a great concern and totally contrary to the wording of their Charter which demands impartiality. Someone must be telling Harrabin to do this….”if there is no weather/eco disaster to exploit then keep lowering the bar until you find something”. The level now is so absurdly low that ANY issue can have “climate change” inserted into it.
This reminds me of listening to Irish music or country music. So many times I have listened and thought if you take out the penny whistle or the slidy guitar then it could be any music of any genre. So it is with the way the term “climate change” is inserted into stories. This is a purely political act.
I wonder how much of the licence fee payers money is wasted on climate propaganda. How does the BBC the use of licence fee payers money that way?
Keep up the good work
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Just watching the Energy Statement in the HoC. Generally a meeting of the gullible and the greedy. A welcome exception was Sammy Wilson. The Secretary failed to answer his question and I’ll be following up.
Paul,
Maths and physics fantasies promoted as facts by this socialist organisation pretending to offer objectivity when in reality they are propagandists for the cause.
I am very disturbed by this collusion between rabid left wingers and a shady part of capitalism which needs more exposure because this is the dark secret which is hidden in the green scam.
The other thing they ommit and which totally discredits their claim is the throttling of fossil fuel based supply both by ever increasing tax burden and also political machinations. This is not a level playing field.
The claim is outrageous and simply a lie because as usual 1. They project nonsense.
http://www.fi-powerweb.com/Renewable-Energy.html the total 2019 projected “capacity” for 2019 was supposed to be 1300GW and yet they project adding another 1000GW capacity online in 4 years?
Also they continue with the charade of comparing guaranteed supply 27/4 from conventional sources to “capacity” and we all know what the reality will be
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/iea-wind-solar-gas-coal-oil-renewables-climate-change-environment?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social_scheduler&utm_term=Decarbonizing+Energy&utm_content=12/12/2020+06:00&fbclid=IwAR0KLIub_0GdCWAnSpt9mFWeV05bcBbAAcOlj_4SGCGCSuB463JAjGph_Jk
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul Your typo “Stephen Glover *hots* the nail on the head!”
There must be a Freudian slip in there somewhere, but I have not got a clue what it is!
an unexpected argument:
https://unherd.com/2020/12/stop-planting-more-trees/
More hand-wringing but no sign of the real reason:
https://www.bigissue.com/latest/600000-people-have-fallen-into-fuel-poverty-during-the-pandemic/
Paul. this from the high priests of climate doom at the BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201117-clean-shipping-the-carbon-negative-cargo-boats-made-of-wood?ocid=fbfut&fbclid=IwAR26g3ZILEHb4WbWps41gepKEK8NUwsYw4h8_s7XLAcynuBEeLHEN-s_fb0
The BBC not content with Carbon Neutral asininity are now promoting “carbon negative”.
Has Virtue Signalling reached its zenith?
This the latest asininity the BBC are promoting with their usual desperate enthusiasm straight from the lala and of make believe where an unquestioning childlike belief is required.
First point. IF this were forced into being, what would the impact be on our tree stocks? Only certain woods can be suitable. Have they forgotten about the denuding of the English countryside during Tudor times due to the demand for oaks to build galleons? There is already pressure on world tree stocks. What would be the impact of this if ALL ships were forced to be wooden?
A couple of quotes:
“The system also has the means to capture energy from underwater propellers as well as solar power, so electricity will be available for the engine when needed. “Really, the only restrictions on how long she can stay at sea is water and food on board for the crew.”
Capturing energy from underwater propellers? But but but. Are we in the realms of perpetual motion madness here? I assume they mean when the ship is under sail that penny packets of electricity can be created from drag inducing propellers under water. To get the kind of electricity needed to obtain anything meaningful in respect of power to drive the “largest marine electric engines of their kind in the world” the drag I would suggest will be more than the power of the wind in the sails.
Secondly. What happens to the solar panels efficiency when the sails are unfurled? Surely they will block sunlight? Also how does all this work during the long winter months?
I smiled when I saw the comment above about time at sea limited by food and water for the crew. I see this non problem today WILL become a problem if this madness became enforced because ships currently at sea for days or weeks will be at sea for months with this arm waving madness!
“construction has been going on for nearly two years. The team is installing Ceiba’s first stern half frame – a complicated manoeuvre to complete without the use of cranes or other equipment. Despite some hold-ups due to the global pandemic, the team hopes to get her on the water by the end of 2021 ”
THREE year construction without cranes! These people want us to go back to the Stone Age in their religious mania.
“Sailcargo also plans to explore the use of more modern sail technology, she adds, such as that used in yachts, in its future boats”.
THOSE sails are all made from hydrocarbon derivatives!
Also wood preservatives are ALL hydrocarbon derivative based.
“For her builders, one of the ship’s main attractions is to provide a much-needed burst of (clean) energy in an industry long dragging its heels on climate. The global shipping sector emitted just over a billion tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2018, equivalent to around 3% of global emissions – a level that exceeds the climate impact of Germany’s entire economy.”
Some interesting weasel language here. 1 FEEDING the world contributes ONLY 3% of the total gaseous contribution to the as yet UNPROVEN greenhouse effect! My observation is that this is a price worth paying totally invalidating this boat virtue signalling!
2 notice how they dance from greenhouse gases to climate change, again there is no proof of any of this. 3. How glaringly small is Germany’s contribution to this global racket!
“Others have more ambitious goals. “There’s actually loads of really great innovations happening that could transform [shipping emissions],” says Lucy Gilliam, shipping campaigner at non-profit Transport and Environment. “It’s not that we don’t have great ideas. The problem that we have is that fossil fuels are still too damn cheap. And we don’t have the rules to force people to take up the new technology. We need caps on emissions and polluter pays schemes so that the clean technologies can outcompete fossil fuels.”
>>Fossil fuels are TO DAMN CHEAP<> FORCE people to take up new technology<>Ceiba is small for a cargo ship – tiny in fact. She will carry around nine standard shipping containers. The largest conventional container ships today carry more than 20,000 containers.<>fossil-free sailing cargo vessel <>Indeed, some commercial cargo ships are already fitting rotor sails and rigid-wing technology for an added boost. And, notably, a further fuel-efficiency measure for conventional ships is to reduce their speed – which in turn makes slower ships like Ceiba more competitive.<>Sailcargo has pledged that 10% of its profits will go to back to the planet<<
Have we now reached to limit for the ever inflating language of climate piety?
The government has a long way to go to get the message over:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/sales-log-burners-booming-can-still-eco-friendly/
For £3K you can buy a particulate filter for your flue, or you could just spend 2/3 of that on a gas boiler!
What a waste of effort:
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/the-new-years-resolutions-that-could-save-the-planet-123018988.html
Doesn’t the writer realise that 99% of resolutions don’t last past the end of January?
Paul
Couple of interesting articles, one on the replacement implications of wind farms over the coming generations:
https://colin-megson.medium.com/john-pettigrews-national-grid-wants-83-gw-of-offshore-wind-farms-by-2050-9a2c7f7970ab
The other points out a really interesting problem. What happens to all the petrol/diesel still necessarily refined by the Oil industry if EV’s are mandated.
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/one-little-problem-all-electric-auto-fleet-what-do-we-do-all-waste-gasoline?fbclid=IwAR0YG5XzmO9hdXNFN-s1-lljBHV1o_Y8naaJVoFNo9MLbvMcb1laQNVQJjU
Yes indeed the question of all those products from the refining process.
Of course some can be cracked again and split into chemical constituents but like so much in the climate industry, it does not stand up to scrutiny and indeed only survives and mutates as it does into more and more stupidity because it is not subject to the normal checks and balances which exist throughout the rest of the “normal world” .
It is clear that virtue signalling with other people’s money is a main driver and the shear lack of focus reinforces my observation that so much of this is being made up as they go along. If any of this was founded on solid science then so much of what we see in respect of wind farms and even more absurd solar farms would not exist
Universities have been quick to realize that they can turn any hairbrained idea by any department into cash because the climate industry is so desperate for ideas, any idea. Once upon a time it was engineers who came up with ideas and implemented them after much experimentation and testing. Now “scientists” have a three beer idea and it has cash thrown at it and is implemented with the usual expected outcome.
Never do you hear criticism or a reality check … at best you hear some wishywashy platitudes and comments like. ” Ah well at least they tried (to save the planet) as more millions are thrown away.
I have thought countless times when I read about some new daft project and wondered out loud “if there were any adults in the room when this nonsense was proposed and approved”?
The lack of due diligence and any credible real world financial constraint reveals the scientifically baseless nature of their claims and degree of corruption associated with this ideology
Hi Paul, small donation made, let me know if it doesn’t come through. Keep up the great work. Best wishes, Steve
A couple of articles linked to Lockdown Sceptics site, but which have significance for the much longer-running climate “debate”:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/02/in-defence-of-karol-sikora/
https://lockdownsceptics.org/moral-truth-and-the-failed-strategy-of-lockdown-sceptics/
Paul!
Happy New Year!
You never have to worry about difficult questions, rather only enthusiastic promotion from the BBC when you are in the business of killing birds for money!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55509225
Mr Clark is part of the disinformation department in Ørestad, a company I have crossed swords with for outrageous and inaccurate claims regarding climate behind which they hide for their eye wateringly expensive part time power providing non- recycleable bird killers. I have no direct proof but immediately after I took apart one more appalling propaganda piece from Ørestad line by line my Linkedin account was first blocked then deleted when I tried to get information for Linkedin as to why.
“Duncan Clark from developers Orsted said: “Climate change remains a very serious threat to our environment and habitats and there is an ever-pressing need to act.
Hornsea Three could provide clean power to over two million UK homes and offset over 128.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over its lifetime.”
Notice Mr Clark is a climate change expert without of course offering more than hyperbole.
Notice also the weasel claim about Hornsea “could” provide….to an impressive no of homes ok but HOW MANY BUSINSES which drive the economy??? How much steel can you guarrantee Mr Clark? Also He knows the wind does not blow optimally 24/7 and his 2 mill I bet is based on maximum output 24/7 which if it is is the usual crapola I was challenging Ørestad for peddling when my Linkedin account was strangely blocked.
“The RSPB says computer modelling suggests the huge turbines, stretching over 200 metres, will cause the deaths of 73 kittiwakes a year”.
Computer modelling???????? What about collecting hard data? The RSPB MUST have a lot of hard data or if they do not then they can be accused of dereliction of duty. WHY do they need to use computer models and WHY do they not mention all of the species in the area and based on what fiddle factor do they come up with the number of 73, not 72 or 74 Kittyhawks which have to die in the happy knowledge they are saving the planet?
“Mr Clark said that the firm would offset the projected deaths by building four artificial kittiwake nest towers on land, which should prompt an equal number of the birds to be born”.
So they acknowledge for the first time the bird killing qualities of windmills.
We have heard from the Ørestad Climate Change expert and now onto the RSPB climate change expert
“The RSPB’s Andrew Dodd told BBC News: “We have no idea whether this plan will work or not. We don’t know how many birds are being killed in the first place and we certainly don’t know how many of them may be encouraged by breeding towers.
He said kittiwakes had been struggling for three decades – partly because climate change is altering fish patterns and partly because of over-fishing of slim fish called sand eels, which are ground into fishmeal for salmon and pigs”.
How do they know climate change has ANYTHING to do with this? The clear and obvious culprit is overfishing YET that major cause is added AFTER climate change
“Energy Secretary Alok Sharma acknowledged in his ruling on the development that wildlife would be harmed by Hornsea Three, but he granted consent on the balance of benefits”.
BALANCE OF BENEFITS TO WHO EXACTLY?
“Mr Dodd said: “The government has to lead on this. We clearly need loads more offshore wind, and the RSPB supports that. But the North Sea is filling up with turbines and we have to avoid development in the most sensitive areas. We need much better knowledge.”
CLEARLY based on what empirical data based evidence climate expert Dodd?
I gave up after that but there is the predictable cry from another mouth in the troff Melanie Omm wanting more funding for more worthless “experts” to speculate and pontificate on the public purse.
Regards
Jon Scott
Hi Paul
Less than three weeks to doom…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736
Regards
David
Why don’t you make a section – a directory of subject articles?
You can use the “Tag Cloud” for this. That is the section on the right hand side, below the list of recent posts and recent comments, Lesley
Oh dear:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9116659/Steam-trains-stop-running-plans-new-coal-blocked.html
They’ll have to electrify them.
Perhaps this one will help? A ray of ood news anyway
https://www.ft.com/content/5b04e813-6bdb-476a-9f4a-137432a7b314?mc_cid=3231bff1ad&mc_eid=47e0e272f5
“Environmental campaigners have attacked a UK government decision to permit the country’s first new deep coal mine for 30 years, despite its pledge to eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050.
The pit in Cumbria, north-west England, would create 500 jobs in an area reliant on the nuclear industry and seasonal tourism.
But the decision by housing secretary Robert Jenrick to leave the local council to grant the approval, rather than assess the plan himself, is seen by environmentalists as a sign that the Conservative party will prioritise economic growth over climate change as it seeks to cement its electoral gains in former industrial areas of England.”
Paul… re “A Perfect Planet”, BBC/Attenboroughs latest offering to their climate change ouevre. Having watched the first episode live, i have gone ahead as the entire series is on iPlayer. The first couple of episodes are good. usual stunning photography and wildlife. Only the occasional hint of climate change disaster.
Episode 3 – Weather was always going to be different. First 40 minutes is fine, showing how wildlife responds to weather cycles etc.
Then it starts . .The Amazon floods more frequently (drowning baby turtles), Africa in big drought (cue Victoria falls at trickle, hippos in mud) wildlife not coping..
Then the standby claims – worst drought for 100 years record high temps, low rainfalls, unprecedented more frequent wildfires, “our once stable climate is changing” “weather less reliable and more extreme” (all to mournful background singing) storms are more ferocious. “All due to a rise in temperature of 1C…. but if change continues we may see 5C rise by end of century. ”
the usual scaremongering ….
on to episode 4 next – Oceans (will this mention rising sea levels and disappearing coral) and then episode 5 – Humans . mmmmmm wonder where that will go,
Interesting to see this is a co-production between Open University and BBC – using OU advisors and apparently linking to a couple of degree courses
forgot ou link
https://ounews.co/around-ou/tv-radio/a-perfect-planet-far-reaching-series-set-to-air-in-new-year/
finally watched the last two episodes .. the one on the sea was ok but managed to get a bit in about disappearing ice.
final episode . Humans. . started with a baby elephant dying of thirst because of african droughts due to global warming. then talking heads spouting usual about losing species etc . then more orphaned elephants. (no mention of poaching – its all droughts?) . References to past mass extinctions and CO2
more extreme weather.. climate refugees (hundreds of millions)
then a bit about foresting the sahel. – the green wall (CO2 will be good for that) – photogenic african child..
deforestation – this is valid point . but then focusing on carbon storage in the forest.
then oceans… acidification destroying reefs and killing phytoplankton. again comparison with 200 million years old mass extinction
Overfishing – again a valid point. protect more oceans .. sure .. but again linking it to absorbing CO2
ocean currents – to end because of ice melt …. cue videos of glaciers calving.
and fossil fuels. bad … sun and wind are free . cue icelandic thermals, more about extinctions .
and the kids protesting
last 5 minutes made me throw up.
As scientific as the RI christmas lectures ..
This needs taking apart forensically .
Picked up from the GWPF newsletter:
https://thegwpf.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=f2b608c0f3&e=6384b6057a
Never heard of this one:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/smart-meters-alternative-millions-radio-signal-turns/
Yes, I saw that. I had assumed that Economy 7 meters would have an internal clock.
Of course, there is an alternative to smart meters – cancel Economy 7 (which usually works out dearer anyway) and go back to a normal tariff!
Here more propaganda received courtesy of The Weather Channel… presumably a late response to the late Arctic freeze?
Arctic’s ‘Last Ice Area’ Is in Trouble
https://www.weather.com/science/environment/video/troubling-signs-in-arctics-last-ice-area?pl=pl-the-latest
From The Weather Channel iPhone App
Paul, New from the BBC today.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55632791
where they are claiming that -25degC recorded in Molina de Aragón is a record?. What confuses me is HOW did they miss the -34.1degC reported in Filomena on the 6th January?
Is this an example of “damage limitation” by the BBC to plant a less “antiwarming” temperature in people’s minds? I just do not see how they cannot know about that -34.1 degree temperature, 14 degrees colder than what they are reporting now as a record.
I have checked the Met Office site and strangely they only mention high temperatures in Spain, not low ones. I wonder why?
I am confused and also sceptical about anything reported by the BBC as I look for a reason always .
Matt McGrath at it again:
Climate change: ‘Exceptionally hot’ 2020 concludes warmest decade
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55663544
As an example of not understanding the basic physics, this is hard to beat:
“The cars that we drive produce a lot of what’s called NOx, nitrogen oxides. And those went down pretty much everywhere, where we had restrictions,” said Dr Schmidt.
“And what that has done is it has removed a little bit of that reflective air pollution. Our calculations and (those of) others suggest that that may have warmed the climate just a little bit over the last year.”
NOx are gasses that absorb radiated heat. Reducing them means more heat escaping to space and by implication, lower temperatures. If you can’t tell a gas from an aerosol then how did you get a PhD, Dr Schmidt?
Or has McGrath done a typical journalist job and rewritten what you actually said to suit the story?
Just on my local bbc news (south west) – electric 4×4 off road race series going to promote climate change in areas affected by it.
Questions: How are they going to charge them in the Arctic, desert etc. Bet they have rather large diesel generators?
How are they transporting the electric vehicles to the races venues – big diesel trucks?
All this to say “aren’t electric cars green”?
In this week’s Spectator magazine, in the Books section, is a piece about this book:
Islands of Abandonment: Life in the Post-Human Landscape, by Cal Flyn
It contains these sentences:
“In 1954, at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific, the American military detonated a nuclear bomb 7,000 times as powerful as the one that flattened Hiroshima. The result was so shocking that atmospheric testing was banned. Yet a half-century later, scientists visited the atoll to find that in the toxic waters had grown up one of the most impressive coral reefs on the planet.”
Funny how corals can survive nuclear explosions but not slight warming of sea water.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/paradise-regained-how-the-world-s-wastelands-are-regenerating
.#hypocrisy – Saving the Planet, rich-people-style:
Lewis Hamilton: Formula 1 world champion to launch Extreme E team – BBC Sport
Six-time Formula 1 world champion Lewis Hamilton will enter a team in the new Extreme E racing series.
Briton Hamilton, 35, said the new climate-aware sport, which is scheduled to begin in January 2021, appealed “because of its environmental focus”.
His X44 team will race electric SUVs at five remote locations to “highlight subjects vital to the world”.
There will be five races, each across two days, in Senegal, Saudi Arabia, Nepal, Greenland and Brazil.
Scientists specialising in certain forms of environmental impact will travel alongside the Extreme E teams, documenting what is found in each location and implementing legacy plans.
“I am looking forward to building my team around important values such as sustainability and equality,” said Hamilton.
“None of us are perfect and we all have improvements to make, but I am excited to use our platform to highlight the most serious issues facing our planet and the solutions we can all be part of.”
I wonder how they’ll get there and back and how they’ll charge the batteries:
Transportation of people and equipment to each region will be via an ex-Royal Mail cargo ship – the RMS St Helena – which has been modified to act as a “floating paddock”.
There are also plans to ensure the series leaves a lasting legacy in each of the areas it heads to, including tree-planting, clean-up operations and solar-power initiatives.
That should work!
You had a post recently about electrolysis and steam generation hydrogen but I cannot find it. Any hints?
Interesting investor view on the hydrogen economy. I think I’ll stick to less adventurous opportunities for now:
https://www.trustnet.com/news/5253369/why-everyones-talking-about-hydrogen
A pity the protesters couldn’t find any Great Crested Newts!
https://thegwpf.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=956b5540d5&e=22e19d6eb9
Paul, I could not get the link for the full paper for the Davis Coe post to work. Do you have another link please? Could you email it?
Thanks
Paul, my little book of climate scepticism (Denierland) is finally available. I would be delighted to send you a copy.
I had to laugh, watching the Planet Earth series last night on BBC America. The promo bit they do between show segments has all these scenes from “nature”, with a voice over that says, “One thing you can count on in nature is there will always be change.” Makes me laugh and wonder, “does that include Climate? I mean, aren’t they the ones that don’t want any change in the climate?”
Did you see this Paul? Particularly the throw away comment about climate change? Unbelievable.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-55341779
Dear Paul,
My new FREE book is out: “The Rational Climate e-Book”
This book addresses all aspects of climate and paleo-climates, from atmospheric physics, to astronomical influences and geological and geochemical drivers. It covers the computer models claiming to simulate the climate and the policies that are projected from them. You can get the pdf for free here:
https://patricepoyet.org/
or here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347150306_The_Rational_Climate_e-Book
I had a review by Andy May for “What’s up with that” that pushed very well the dissemination of my work (more than 7,000 download so far) and I am grateful to them for that. Perhaps could you be interested in making a post on your website ? I would of course very much welcome it.
If you like, recommend and make it known to others. Share as much as you can.
Let’s make science prevail.
Best regards.
Patrice.
To cite: Poyet, P., 2020. The Rational Climate e-Book: Cooler is Riskier. The Sorry State of Climate Science and Policies. December 22nd, 114 Figures, 176 Equations, 430 pp., e-ISBN 978-99957-1-929-6
Patrice, just downloaded, looks good & comprehensive, well done. only got to pg 17 so far.
You mention Arrhenius (1896) & rightfully demolish it;
but surprisingly not his later one Arrhenius (1906) Världarnas utveckling (Worlds in the Making: The Evolution of the Universe),
where he states he (1896) was wrong & lowers his original claims; it makes interesting reading.
See original – https://archive.org/details/worldsinmakingev00arrhrich/page/70/mode/2up
& reprint – https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf.
I will add a link to your book to my site – https://www.use-due-diligence-on-climate.org/
Not sure this is the place, but if you want some amusement – depression, as this is our challenge:
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-crisis-is-worse-than-you-can-imagine-heres-what-happens-if-you-try?src=longreads&mc_cid=3feafcd9e8&mc_eid=6ecd1874f5
Peter Kalmus is a real person, I understand. An excerpt:
They stopped using the gas dryer. They stopped shitting in the flush toilet and started practicing “humanure,” composting their own crap. Sharon had lived with an outhouse in Mongolia, “so that was something I was used to,” she said. Plus, to be honest, she liked the local, organic anti-capitalist politics of it. “Marx writes about this in ‘Capital, Volume 1’ that one of the reasons Europeans started to use chemical fertilizers is because people started to move into the cities and off of the land, … and people stopped pooping out in the countryside, so it became less fertile.” The main problem, for Sharon, was that their bathroom was small and the composting toilet was inside. They used eucalyptus leaves to try to cover up the smell, but then little bits of leaves got all over the bathroom, too. After a while Peter moved the composting toilet outdoors. He also built an outdoor shower that Sharon found quite lovely, “rustic and California.”
“The world is on fire, the arctic is melting” NO, but there is sea-ice in Shetland
https://xmetman.com/sea-ice-in-shetland/
I don’t Tweet (yet) but was sent a tweet from the National Grid warning of problems tomorrow due to below seasonal average temperatures! It’s dated 3.16 today (31st) and is on News here https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news . Can’t say I’m surprised as it’s been freezing cold for days and hardly any, in fact often none, wind where I live which is supposed to be windy.
Wow, I just opened up the link to find the top item on the page is a puff (pun intended) about how the National Grid “keep the lights on around the clock “. Oh Irony…..
I cant find the info you and Peter Owen are quoting . As would like to see it .. keep trying the link
Here we go again:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/31/englands-last-surviving-mountain-hares-risk-global-warming/
“Mountain hares, a sister species to the Arctic hare, had died out in England during the last ice age yet survived in Scotland.
“Landowners in the 1870s attempted to reintroduce them to England yet were mostly unsuccessful.”
So not a robust native, then? And what about the number of times the Snake Pass is impassable due to snow?
Now and then: Iceland’s vanishing glaciers
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55346329
Paul, not sure if you have seen this. Here is the BBC at their absolute worst playing (they think) their clever game of verbal “sleight of hand” to make something seem what it isn’t and also using as supposed authority figure to give weight to the piece.
Also no author is give for the piece. This is not acceptable.
1. Glaciers are frozen rivers. Output is dictated by input. A glacier can receed for several reasons including lack of input as well as warming. Where is the simple explanation of this from the “impartial guardians of the news at the BBC?
Also the scientific evidence is significant to support the claim that the Earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age so why do we need the BBC to tell us what we already know? I say that knowing exactly what their game is and that is of course to blame man for this when there never ever is any evidence put forward which clearly shows that warming is not natural and is instead caused soley by man and given that they are using a mans experience of 30 years..
2. And I quote from Wiki “. In the Middle Ages there were a number of large farms in this area, but they were abandoned after two volcanic eruptions and the ensuing glacier runs”. Why does the BBC not tell us this? I found it as the first entry when I googled the glacier. Which suggests that this glacier is around 700 yeard old.
The BBC tell us glaciers can be just a few centuries old ( like this one!!!!) or hundreds of thousands of years old ( never saw one) but WHY do they not tell us how old this glacier is? Could it be deliberate because if they do there will be no story?
3. “The demise of glaciers around the world serves as a double whammy. Not only are regions losing vital sources of drinking water, and irrigation for agriculture, but the world is losing forever a valuable scientific history of the planet’s climates”.
I do not know about a double whammy but this is a double rubbish statement! This is DELIBERATELY to make the reader think this never happened before, that what is occurring now is in someway inprecidented. We are told glaciers are sources of water…..but surely when there is no longer frozen water that does not mean liquid water is not flowing! They are trying to make a totally unscientific suggestions in this case that when there are no glaciers there is no water…OH NO!
4. We are introduced from the stary to a cretin with a PhD in some nonsense called Dr. Kieran Baxter I am sure like me you will wonder about his relevence expecting it to be that he is a Geomorphologist or a Glaciologist: Indeed when I saw that he is quoted saying:
“It is personally devastating to see them change so drastically in the past few decades”.
“On surface appearances, the extent of the climate crisis often remains largely invisible but here we can see clearly the gravity of the situation that is affecting the entire globe,” Dr Baxter observed.
“Personally devistating”. “Climate Crisis”??? I started to get suspicious so went to the look to see who and what our much quoted expert PhD is about and what do I find?
https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/en/persons/kieran-baxter
His PhD is in communication design, whatever the heck that is!
WHY does the BBC not tell us this? Almost everyone will “assume” he is an authority in glaciers and I would suggest that is the intention. It is completely disingenuous of the BBC not to give this critical information. All he is doing is showing what is happening in his life time and that has no bearing on cause!
He is no more qualified to spout than the average man walking in the street. He is certainly NOT qualified in anyway to make such statements and should NOT be promoted as an authority figure by the BBC but they do that with the deliberate intention of influencing people.
This is the BBC deliberately cooking up a story from nothing ans using a faux authority figure to support their climate emergency narrative.
Hi Paul, interesting article on Apple news this morning – it is even sourced from CNN!
Tesla ‘profits’ not from selling cars….
https://apple.news/A-jG3gIIQQQO1S7HHrvxuOQ
So much for green jobs:
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/siemens-slashes-7800-jobs-as-green-energy-changes-course-for-company-084551054.html
It would be nice if the transition could e a bit more seamless (or should that be siemless?)
Ian, it’s not ‘green jobs’ … from the story –
“Siemens Energy (ENR.DE) announced plans to cut 7,800 jobs in its gas and power segment
Around three-quarters of the job cuts will be made in management, administration and sales
it will no longer bid on contracts for new coal-fired power plants.
However, orders were at €7.4bn, substantially below the high basis of comparison in the first quarter of the prior year, driven by a sharp decline at Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy.”
Like always, they are subsidy farming.
Paul, This popped up on my MSN news Feed which I have been trying without success to block. It claims to be from the Evening Standard.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/watch-symbolic-section-of-white-cliffs-of-dover-crumble-into-the-sea/ar-BB1dmA5S?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds
I quote the following what is news to me! :
“The iconic White Cliffs of Dover have been eroding 10 times faster in the last 150 years than they did over the previous 7,000 years, researchers say”.
Which researchers? No names or organisations provided. This is not acceptable. I have NEVER heard this or read this anywhere!
“For millennia, wide beaches helped slow down erosion, but over the past 150 years, the beach that protected the White Cliffs of Dover has disappeared”.
Millennia? That means for thousands of years! So for them to stay EXACTLY the same for thousands of years sea level had to stay the same. That is utter bollox!
Keep up the good work!
Jonathan Scott
Jonathan,
It’s a recycling of this 2016 Research Article
https://www.pnas.org/content/113/47/13336
It begins with –
“Our results provide evidence for accelerated erosion in recent centuries, which we suggest is driven by reduced sediment supply and thinning of beaches in the face of environmental and anthropogenic changes.”
& ends with –
“Our methods do not allow us to attribute the recent acceleration in cliff retreat rates in East Sussex to anthropogenic activity” (although I bet they’d like to)
Paul,
The BBC are failing: no mention of ‘Global Warming’ in their article, just posted, about electricity prices going up soon, by £96……. Funnily enough, no quantification of the amount of green levies included, either.
Worth a comment?
Best wishes,
Paul.
Hi Paul, you may not have seen this, the freezing over of the sea is apparently caused by global warming – https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2021/01/30/voe-ice-breaker/
Hi Paul,
Have you seen this report on Electric Cars and Radiators Push Norway Power Use to Record High?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-05/electric-cars-and-radiators-push-norway-power-use-to-record-high?sref=RJ2RlMrh
No mention of climate change (yet).
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1394593/Himalayan-glacier-India-apocalyptic-flood-Uttarakhand-Chamoli-latest-news-vn
Just in case you haven’t picked it up:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/02/07/britains-energy-future-lies-little-box-tricks/
Sounds interesting especially if they can replace windmills?
Spiked has a good go:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/05/why-greens-love-lockdown/
including reference to another one-sided BBC debate:
https://www.spiked-online.com/video/we-dont-need-a-climate-lockdow
You’ll have seen the Daily Express’ ludicrous green “initiative”, backed by Dale Vince of Ecotricity. In previous interviews, Mike Graham of Talk Radio’s given Vince a relatively easy ride, so I was not particularly looking forward to today’s PR stunt by Vince. I needn’t have worried. Mike made him look silly. I hope the segment appears on the Talk Radio YouTube channel later.
Dale Vince At 1:35:00 in
TalkRadio adverts started today
In his urgent authoritative new book : How To Avoid a Climate Disaster, Bill Gates sets out a practical plan for how the world can get to zero greenhouse gas emissions.
BG “to avoid a climate disaster, we have to get to zero.
We need to deploy the tools we already have faster and smarter.
And we need to create and rollout of breakthrough technologies that will take us the rest of the way.
This book is about what it will take and why I think we can do it.”
How To Avoid a Climate Disaster by Bill Gates is available now now in hardback and audiobook.
How To Avoid a Climate Disaster by Bill Gates is available now now in hardback and audiobook.
radio 4 serialising it each day this week .. it is primary school level tosh
This you have to see. Another rare species sacrificed on the altar of environmentalism. https://www.change.org/p/scottish-government-save-the-scottish-wildcat-by-protecting-clashindarroch-forest/u/28525109?cs_tk=AmvqiYB1bTdmATO-J2AAAXicyyvNyQEABF8BvCIzobRo7fWhfs-lD7ZDK-8%3D&utm_campaign=26cebd30158c4d49ac03d6038b4e2b7a&utm_content=initial_v0_4_0&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_term=cs
Paul!
Oh Dear!
In pictures: Greece’s Acropolis blanketed in snow
From the BBC : https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56089815
It is quite interesting to see the BBC tell the bare minimum of facts when it comes to unexpected cold weather events. No mention of “number of years since that last happened” or mentioning of its place in the record books in respect of “coldest ever” days.
They very surprisingly tell us there were three deaths associated with it.
Also refreshingly no “experts” wheeled in to be unscientific as possible and pour emotion all over it…nothing…just the facts …snow…Greece…Acropolis….there you have it!
Regards
Jonathan Scott
I’m all in favour of a drop in VAT for property work:
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/vat-cuts-green-businesses-uk-government-report-000147725.html
But how’s this supposed to work? If it sounds good, that’s all they seem to worry about.
“Following on from the government’s introduction of Green Home Grants last year, the EAC recommends that the government should introduce embodied carbon targets for the construction of new homes, so as to increase demand for low carbon materials. This would stimulate growth in low-emission manufacturing of traditional, local materials and promoting the use of new low carbon materials, it says.”
Some very high charge costs here (unless I haven’t been taking notice). Dale Vince’s Ecotricity ranks last. I hope Mike Graham of Talk Radio reads the story (he gives DV air time and generally an easy ride):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/article-9269563/The-electric-car-public-charging-lottery-revealed.html
It’s interesting – most on the list are around the 30p mark, which I wrote about a few weeks ago.
The only really high one is Ionity at 69p, but this is a 350Kw charger, which gas really high capaital costs.
Some at the bottom of the list are at 16p which can only cover the electricity cost, so cannot be viable
What’s never mentioned is that the batteries have to be enormous to cater for some of the 300-500HP cars they power (or is it the other way round?). If there was tax break limit on power, the power station emissions arising out of charging would be lower. Perhaps insignificant now, but if all cars were electric?
It doesn’t take long – alarmist tripe followed by dismantling:
There’s a different assessment by Gordon Brown in the Guardian (where else):
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/17/how-to-avoid-a-climate-disaster-by-bill-gates-review-why-science-isnt-enough
Of course, he’s partly responsible for the situation we’re in.
The FTSE closed down almost 100 points today. The top story below the chart was:
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/greta-thunberg-standard-chartered-coal-financing-fridays-for-the-future-bill-winters-121924328.html
Isn’t it time the banks (what’s the plural for) grew a pair?
Then again, if they’re planning to make money out of the climate gravy train …
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2021/02/18/retired-raf-pilot-wins-legal-challenge-government-approval-norfolk/
Paul,
From the excruciatingly impartial BBC today
Climate Change: How much did it cost the US economy in 2020?
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-56107358
I was very surprised to see the claims made. Of course the old standby,Wildfires is in there inspite of the clear evidence of what is causing them.
Interesting that they field this now. Have their “political commisars ” demanded they put something out to deflect attention from what has been happening in Texas? Some pretty tall claims. They insert the ever popular emotional segments rather than sticking to facts. The only thing which comes close to discussing anything tangible is the chart which claims to show that the number of billion dollor weather events has increased by almost 5 x since the 1980s. Maybe I have been asleep. Is it possible that the metric has changed?
Cheers
Jon Scott
Hi Paul, I see you are interested in CET and I am in contact with the Met Office about UHI. I have written a report on it which I could send you, if you email me at the address which goes with this comment.
Prince Charles in trouble fir pulling rank to see his dad in hospital. The other irony is him turning up in a Tesla, followed by protection officers in (at least one) Range Rover. Shades of Cameron cycling to work on his bike. Hypocrites both.
This Facebook censoring
the “German Solar Panel covered with snow” stories
Facebook stamps “False Information”
quoting
https://factcheck.afp.com/german-solar-wind-power-did-not-fail-cold-weather
I never read the initial story
cos to me there isn’t much difference between a German solar panel covered in snow
and a regular German solar panel in winter
neither generate much power.
I’ve posted on Pierre’s blog since he’s the best German Climate blog
I have published a book – POLAR BEARS IN THE HOT TUB – which concludes CO2 and GHG cannot cause global warming; now I have a 1,000 word sequel identifying the source of the temporary warming period 1980 to 2015. Paul are you interested in receiving a copy? Let me know. If it passes your criteria you might post it.
Paul, It is now coming up to 5 years since
you raised this statement of doom from 2008 giving us 100 months to g sort ourselves out “or else”:
We now appear to be at +150 months. Maybe it is time for not only a revisit of ths classic piece of disingenuous fear mongering but to pen a note to Mr Simms at his new no doubt public fund sucking entity called “The New Weather Institute” and ask for an “update”.
My son’s renovating a house he’s just bought and came across this:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/6ll9da0bpnqqr5z/IMG_5874.jpg/file
Sorry, forgot to add the date – some time in 1958.
Looking at Gridwatch today (2 March 2021) for the UK, there has been a complete collapse of windpower – Since 1310 hrs wind has been contributing less than 2% of electricity production. at 1730 hrs it’s as low as 1.16 per cent!!!!!
Hi Paul,
Your many articles on extreme rainfall have highlighted the lack of evidence for any long term trend. Recently Gavin Schmidt on twitter claimed that this study indicates an increase
extreme rainfall globally based on hourly data:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL090317
Can you do your usual deconstruction job to highlight in simple terms what the truth is?
Kind regards,
John
Anything worth understanding better here and perhaps critiquing: “I study how climate change affects the timing of seasonal events in the life cycles of plants, birds and insects in Massachusetts, so I know that species have evolved here to handle New England’s famously changeable weather. But a warming climate is disrupting weather patterns and testing the abilities of many species to adapt.”
And, “In coming decades, many cold-loving tree species such as spruces and firs will become less abundant when they are not able to handle new challenges associated with a warmer climate. In the Northeast U.S., native species such as sugar maple and beech will be gradually replaced by native species from farther south, such as oaks and hickories. And nonnative species, such as Norway maples, are taking advantage of these disruptions to disperse into forests from roadsides and neighborhoods.
“Similar shifts are happening in many places as climate change alters the signals plants rely on to mark the changing seasons.”
From “January warm spells, March freezes: How plants manage the shift from winter to spring” March 4, 2021: https://theconversation.com/january-warm-spells-march-freezes-how-plants-manage-the-shift-from-winter-to-spring-155343
As a humanities academic and not a scientist, what little I know about climate history makes me as (as some more sensationally titled books have), When has climate NOT been changing on this wonderful earth?
Just for laughs (or is it masochism?) I signed up for news from Clean Energy Wire:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/
Their latest newsletter includes this piece:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/largest-german-ship-engine-manufacturer-pushes-climate-neutral-fuels?pk_campaign=weekly_newsletter_2021-03-05&pk_keyword=largest-german-ship-engine-manufacturer-pushes-climate-neutral-fuels&pk_source=newsletter&pk_medium=email&pk_content=title
Without a trace of irony:
MAN is considering e-methane as a replacement for liquefied natural gas (LNG), the company’s chief engineer Gunnar Stiesch told Handelsblatt. E-methane is obtained from CO2 waste gas from power plants or cement kilns by synthesising it with energy-rich hydrogen. Other alternatives include ammonia, biofuel, such as used cooking oil, or pure hydrogen, Handelsblatt writes. The alternative fuels each require different size tanks, which can lead to problems when different ports need to have the necessary infrastructure ready for the respective biofuel, engineer Stiesch explained. “The necessary investments in port infrastructure are significantly greater than in engine technology,” Stiesch told Handelsblatt. The engineer said that the switch to climate-neutral fuels will not happen as long as marine diesel remains as cheap as it is today. “We therefore have to price CO2 emissions, and do so globally,” Stiesch said.
It looks as if chip shops are going to make more money from selling waste oil than from selling food!
So theoretically any Arab desiring a Net Zero certificate
could burn their own oil as normal
.. same for other oil users
Then in the UK a farmer could convert his crops to bio-fuel
pump it deep underground..never to be used ..And thus generate the Net Zero certificate to sell the Arab
Paul, Saturday morning bollox from the BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56225862
They start off with the usual emotional hook with the “before and after” photo. This is meaningless except to say that precipitation fluctuates, so what? Indeed the piece is full of “Olympic” emotional twaddle. They then try to blame the consequences of what appears to be bad engineering/ and or engineering maintenance on climate change managing to again push the narrative that climate change BAD.
We are then treated to a meaningless map which has no time reference or description of what it means associated with it.
Just to whet your appetite I quote one or two lines:
“”There is strong evidence from climate models and centuries of tree ring data that suggest about one-third to one-half of the severity of the current drought can be attributed to climate change,” observed Benjamin Cook, a climate scientist from Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York”.
Here we go again. Models producing data!
Also quantifying severity in terms of climate change. WHAT?
next and there are plenty to chew on:
“The United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) said that the “frequency and intensity of droughts, storms and extreme weather events are increasingly likely above 1.5C (above pre-industrial levels)”.
So we now have Environment Programs making statements! Clever program” Did you read that cleverly worded sentence. That is a statement about the future not a statement of fact. Where is the empirical data to tie more droughts, storms and extreme weather to temps ABOVE 1.5deg?
Notice AGAIN the BBC pushed the meaningless “pre industrial” reference to keep pushing the idea into vulnerable minds that industry..BAD.
Oh and a final promotion of the worthless Paris accords.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Yet again, I am unable to post a comment under the NASA greening article. Please fix. Thank you.
Sorted!
Paul,
Rather concerning.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/03/08/the-dangerous-rise-of-climate-censorship/?fbclid=IwAR1JoG0CulY4W8q5_64GKAjGqbR4q8l1rSJD9SJjZ3urbHWlceM2tYBEbsg
see how Harra and Newsnight spun J Kerry’s words
Asked during the interview whether the UK should be planning a controversial new coal mine in Cumbria, he replied: “The marketplace has made a decision that coal is not the future.
FALSE
that cut makes it sound like he’s talking about that specifica mine
Harra has cut off the “GENERALLY speaking” at the beginning and “FUEL”
at the end
R4 Tuesday 16th two Eco activist progs
4pm Law prog eco-law special
3:30pm Dr Seuss eco special
\\ Radio4 ‘s weekly Green Activist show
“Michael Rosen celebrates 50 years of Dr Seuss’s environmental fable, The Lorax
It’s a fable of needless consumerism and environmental ruin,
The ‘shortish, brownish, oldish and mossy’ character who ‘speaks for the trees’ increasingly features on placards at demos.
Radio4 lefty Michael Rosen looks at the book’s influence on the modern environmental movement
and charts its journey from ignored to censored, embraced by the mainstream
and inevitably turned into a Hollywood movie and used to sell SUVs. //
With Children’s Laureate Cressida Cowell,
*George Monbiot*
Economist Kate Raworth,
Playwright David Greig,
Advertising ‘guru’ Rory Sutherland,
Ben Stewart from *Greenpeace*
Steve Brezzo, Josh Golin, Terri Birkett and more
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000t49h
4pm Can the law fight climate change?
\\ Around the world people are taking governments and companies to court to fight climate change.
Could “ecocide” become a crime?
How is the law evolving? With Joshua Rozenberg
– a Peruvian farmer has filed a case in a German court against a German electricity company for what he claims is its role in warming up the climate enough for him to be threatened by flooding as a nearby Andean glacier melts.
– In Poland activist shareholders sued the board of their utility company to stop the development of a new coal mine, claiming an “indefensible” financial risk, due to rising carbon costs and falling renewables prices.//
full blurb is bigger
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000t4v8
I’m trying to get my local councillors to push the litter issue and have sent them this in desperation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-56322369
All it needs is a voice-over by Saint David and the kiddies will be onboard and, through them, their parents, surely?
MInd you, I’m so suspicious about anything BBC that I would put it past them to have posed the litter.
FYI. I meet with Kwasi Kwarteng occasionally since he was my MP, and will meet again after Easter since he became Sec of State at the BEIS, having been Energy Minister. This is just FYI as regards how policy is decided.
I explained the physics of how nuclear was the only answer if CO2 was a real problem in 2012, wrote him then a 2 page summary which pointed out the £Billions in pointless subsidies building totems that we already wasted, could never replace dispatchable intense generation and make an insignificant difference to CO2 emissions. We met recently and I again explained the problem with renewables and storage, with simple graphed data, and also using my own paper that quantifies the true cost of stand alone renewables at £1.2 Triilion in batteries every 4 years for a weeks back up of 7TWh, e.g if all supply was from renewables with battery backup. I also introduced the UN role and Agenda 21
The £1.2T figure is for the battery backup alone, not the generation subsidies which add more. The batteries are lead acid deep discharge BTW, which are also closed cycle recyclable. Mosty unrecyclable and very nasty Li-Ion cost twice the price per unit energy and claims twice the life, 8 years for cars, so it came out the same – and they have gone back up in price recently.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6m662wc311ojopn/IET%20Submission%20BRL%20Catt.pdf?dl=0
This also pushes unit cost to £1/KWh from 15p, assuming no profit on the added cost to the grid (because it’s not justified for the same energy delivered to customers), based on 330TWh pa again.
His answer was “did I know what the UK’s GDP was?”. “Yes, £2.8T pa.” (I also tutor economics) “So we can easily spread it over a few years”. Gobsmacked pause from me…. “Yes but what about the other useful progressive things we could have done with £350Billion pa if we build nuclear rather than renewables that don’t carry this cost. Or pay down the debt we have all been impoverished by in the name of “austeriiy”. No answer. No concept of opportunity cost in his head. etc.
THis is really In case you think government MInisters don’t get told this stuff…. I am sure others have. But it doesn’t matter as science reality and electrical engineering, the numbers, play no part in energy policy making.
His basic position is, as Secretary of STate, he is required to implement government policy, not what works best in oractice to do the job claimed for it, but to subsidise the political choice to whatever degree of waste that requires (e.g. what Dom/Carrie believes), he doesn’t create policy. That way he also stays up the greasy pole. Don’t confuse him with facts.. *I’m not good with numbers”. His last real job was in Banking.
CEng, CPhys, MBA
Annotated Data provided and explained to Kwasi , from the real costs and climate effects of renewables through to Agenda 21.: https://www.dropbox.com/s/puefqe57vc0xbzu/Kwasi%20Data%20Scans.pdf?dl=0
2 page qualitative summary of the issues involved: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0vp340p4vepyer9/Kwasis%20Notes%20Feb%202020.pdf?dl=0
I have a new question for when green PR people
make out UK fossil fuels are subsidised
“just name 3 or 4 big fossil fuel corps
that took more OUT from taxpayers
.. than they paid IN to taxpayers”
They can’t
but it easy to identify wind /solar orgs that have
==========================================
SUBSIDIES everyone knows what they really are
That in a market sellers X, Y, Z are are given some special advantage
that is not available to competitors
eg1 direct government grant
eg2 a special guaranteed price like solar/wind get
eg3 priority market access and banning of competitors
eg4 free infrastructure, like the way National Grid is made to build long connections from windfarm zones to customer zones.
Yet green PR tricksters are able to play word redefining games
eg the EU report that argues that UK fuels are subsidised
cos electricity made from them is sold with VAT at 5% rate not the goods rate of 20%
that’s rubbish cos their competitors solar wind are subject to the same VAT regime
and even worse are given the privilege of paying zero mining tax
Of course some other countries do actually directly subsidise them
by setting up grants which pay corps the difference
between what what oil costs to produce
and what the government set the sales price at.
Buried in this article:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/03/11/avoid-ideological-battles-do-workstees-valley-mayor-tells-tories/
is this section:
“Last year, amid state investment to clean-up the South Tees, a consortium of international energy firms – including BP, Shell and Total – announced the creation of the world’s largest carbon capture plant on Teesside.
Some 6m tonnes of CO2 emissions will be stored annually under the North Sea, equivalent to the energy use of two million UK homes. Firms building factories in the South Tees zone can then engage in energy-intensive industry – including steel-making – in a carbon-neutral manner.
(diagram)
““If young people want to fight climate change, helping the UK meet its 2050 target,” says Houchen, “then look at our huge ‘net zero’ project and a career on Teesside – which, by the way, is a fantastic place to live.””
I suppose Teesside is a logical place to build such a white elephant. Not clear, though, how carbon-neutral steelmaking can work, not least because even today’s energy costs are putting the industry at risk in the UK. Reading Mr Catt’s post above, I can see that it doesn’t matter.
Hi Paul
Did you know that the Natwest Bank have teamed up with Octopus Energy? As a user of Natwest I have forwarded your article about Octopus to my Business Manager at the bank for an answer.
Hope that’s ok?
Only 4 years old:
https://www.barnsleychronicle.com/article/20496/turbine-failure-sees-wind-farm-shut-down
Note – lucky it was facing the way it was when the blade failed.
Installed as a profit-share with the local community. I wonder how this will affect earnings.
The Monday activist climate propaganda from the BBC
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210312-covid-19-paused-climate-emissions-but-theyre-rising-again
Piers Forster
From just one of an increasing number of people who’s job title says scientist but who do not behave or write at all scientifically. Where is his reference to the temperature control knob calculation that he throws out as if this is known to everyone?
Where does his “data” come from well look no further than “These findings were later backed up by more complex model simulations.”. So they run 1000 models and ONE matches without uniqueness some averaging of temperature. This is garbage masquerading as science.
I also cannot work out if his claim of “emissions rising” again is based on actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 or the perfect models?
he manages to get in the socialist weasel word “equity” and finishes with:
“Unfortunately, green investment is not being made at anything like the level needed. However, many more investments will be made over the next few months. It’s essential that strong climate action is integrated into future investments”.
Strong climate action…no doubt from XR and the like!
Glad to see he understands where science stops and OPINION starts!
Scroll down and you will find Katarina Zimmer romanticising sadly about the loss of freezing environments which humans can ONLY inhabit with the aid of fossil fuels!
Where does the BBC find these unhinged people? The warmer the planet the more of it we can live on!
Dear God!
keep up the good work
Jonathan Scott
Sorry Paul, forgot to add. The elephant in the room in the piece by “scientist” Forster is his avoidance of the question of reduction in CO2 emissions vs REAL recorded reduction in temperature increase. IF he was a real scientist not contaminated by his 5 minutes of media fame and feeling virtuous he would ask the question because IF the curves go in opposite directions, ie CO2 emissions go down but temperature continues to rise at the same speed then CO2 cannot possibly be the control knob…..as any objective scientist would conclude. Having said that. We had the “Pause” and they just changed the “crisis” from Global Warming to Climate Change so we know who and what we are dealing with.
All that being said the unacceptable politicising and distorting of covid data beggars belief. Are you aware for example that the UK definition from Covid is ONLY that a person dies within 28 days of a positive test regardless of the actual cause of death! What value has that except to prolong this nonsense?
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul, Last year but has me shaking my head. The lemmings are lining up to jump!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/27/climate-apocalypse-fears-stopping-people-having-children-study?mc_cid=62ebd5710e&mc_eid=6e6c09ffcb
Climate apocalypse indeed! Tell me, what happened in the past to ensure that people’s genes survived? Because of high mortality, they had many children!
This lot have the World and 700 million years of evolution upside down!
Complete climate derangement syndrome. Virtue signalling with their future children’s lives. How truly arrogant and misguided is that? I know the revolutionary marxists want the indigenous population to “disappear” so their preferred victim groups can take over and inhabit our green and pleasant land but this has me shaking my head in disbelief as to how utterly pathetic and asinine these people are. Have none of them even bothered to look at the breeding which is going on in Third World countries like it is on steroids? A 27% increase in the World Population since the Millennium and these narcissistic and intellectually bankrupt people have no wish to be part of the future gene pool. How well their marxist indoctrinators have done their job.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Sorry Paul I misst puttine GWPF as the source of the above…….news?
Oh no!
https://news.sky.com/story/the-daily-climate-show-sky-news-launches-prime-time-programme-dedicated-to-global-crisis-12252536
Propaganda overload.
Don’t know if you’ve seen this Paul
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/bills/article-9397955/Suppliers-charged-14p-day-rent-smart-meters.html
Paul, there are truly mind boggling amounts of money sloshing around, even in the UK for the ” cost” of getting to nett zero. I was always taught that ” if you want to find the truth, follow the money” To your knowledge has anyone done any forensic acct to find out the beneficiaries of the scam?
https://expronews.com/gg-community/denmark-saving-the-world/#more
From Last year but more pious pap from people who should know better…of course promoted also by the usual suspects in the ever so impartial BBC. What this article shows clearly that none of these gestures CAN have any effect even if there were a problem ( which there is not). What I object to is granstanding politicians virtue signalling with the economy of their countries. Their job is to do the best by the Danish people, not the worst!
Paul,
Perhaps the following mind crushingly bland reply to my question about the false claims in a Daily Mail piece about Cocoa production can be of interest to you. Notice the reply ONLY deals with one part of my complaint. This annoys but is standard practice. Answer the easy question, ignore the rest. I have already challenged the reply on two counts. Like the BBC they seem to think they can hide behind the “oh we did not write this” or “The data is not ours”. My view is that if they promote something which is an OPINION then it is a taken that they agree with it so it is unacceptable that they then try to hide behind the “it is not ours” plea. The clear fact that Sam Merriman did not check the source but pushed it out because it says the magic words “Climate Change” is evident.
As for Mr Kennedy……” ‘Britain’s leading chocolate expert’ and the ‘world’s leading chocolate taster’. clearly I have to understand that also makes him an expert on climate change! I hope his chocolate tasting abilities are better than his ability to read cocoa production statistics!
The rest of the reply is for me to educate myself. Interesting how all these organizations are also climate experts….amazing!
Regards
Jonathan Scott
FW: [CONTACT] Factual Inaccuracies | FAO; Mr Jonathan Scott
Contact photo
From TMOS Corrections on 2021-04-02 13:19
Details Plain text
Dear Mr Scott
Thank you for your recent email below, which has been passed to The Mail on Sunday because the article to which you refer was published in this newspaper.
The expert to whom the article refers – and whom we name later in the article – is Mr Angus Kennedy, editor of the Kennedy’s Confection journal, owner of Kennedy’s Publications UK, founder of the London Chocolate Forum and widely known as ‘Britain’s leading chocolate expert’ and the ‘world’s leading chocolate taster’.
More information about Mr Kennedy and his work can be found here: https://theanguskennedy.co.uk/.
I also attach below some examples of studies looking at the impact of climate change on cocoa production.
https://digital.hbs.edu/platform-rctom/submission/no-more-chocolate-for-you-global-warming-and-cacao-trees/
https://www.cocoalife.org/the-program/climate-change
https://www.worldcocoafoundation.org/initiative/climate-smart-cocoa/
https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/article/preparing-cocoa-farmers-for-climate-change
We appreciate all feedback and are grateful to you for taking the time to get in touch to share your own viewpoint on this subject matter with us.
With best regards, Lucy
From: MailOnline
Sent: Monday, 22 March 2021 3:15 AM
To: Editorial Dailymailonline
Subject: [CONTACT] Factual Inaccuracies
Factual Inaccuracies
User query:
Your name: Jonathan Scott
Your email: jscott@europeanresource.com
Link to article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9384983/Easter-egg-favourites-hit-10-shrinkflation.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field
Details: I am writing about yet one more egregious attempt to put fear into people¿s minds regarding climate change, that 4.5 BILLION year old continuous process which is now one of the playthings of the dangerous left. Are you a mouth piece for them for DM? I quote” Experts say the phenomenon is being driven by soaring demand for cocoa alongside reduced yields because of climate change”. Firstly, have the decency to name “experts” otherwise those who can think can suspect you are making claims up. Secondly CHECK what those ¿experts¿ tell you. Thirdly please explain which data substantiates the claim regarding climate change? Records for cocoa production are being broken yearly. Production has more than doubled since 1970 so how can SAM MERRIMAN claim ANY cause by climate change? Here is what the UN Food and agriculture organization says. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize Toggle on “item” to select Cocoa. Then look at ALL other food stuff. Records!Records!
Disclaimer
This e-mail and any attached files are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information, which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system. Associated Newspapers Ltd. Registered Office: Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, Kensington, London, W8 5TT. Registered No 84121 England.
Very useful article in today’s Telegraph;
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/04/home-radiators-will-have-ten-degrees-cooler-britain-reach-net/
Just what my local council needs to hear about. Slowly,, admittedly, daylight is dawning. GWPF’s warning about Big Brother forced compliance is looking more likely by the day.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2273355-sydneys-inland-suburbs-are-10c-warmer-than-the-coast-in-heat-waves/
New scientist reports 10 degree difference in temp in Sydney due to factors including pollution and heat island effect……
Did you know about this, Paul:
Barnsley is on the end of a proposed hydrogen spur from the Humber.
Paul,
THAT ABOUT WRAPS IT UP FOR THE DEMONIZING OF CO2 CLAIMING THAT IT IS THE CAUSE OF CLIMATE WOTSISNAME – ARMAGEDDON/DOOM/DISASTER
A rather interesting paper which is at my end of the world and POSITION OF argument. from 2017.
The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years by W. Jackson Davis Climate 2017, 5(4), 76; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli5040076
This link to a download works
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76
If I may quote from the abstract:
“This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate”.
I am sure that is written slightly tongue in cheek because as far as I know the same physics has applied throughout geological history up to and including today.
I know the progressive barnpots want rid of science and mathematics because they keep interfering with their Marxism but anyway there it is.
This also only confirms what a combination of the work by Scotese and Berner 2001 profoundly points out.
The multi trillion USD tissue of lies hangs on the gambit that atmospheric CO2 concentration is the control knob for atmospheric temperature and even more magical climate change.
Remember, to have a “proven effect” Climate Change there must be a proven cause. Without their cause celebre they cannot have an effect of that cause.
This paper, reinforcing the earlier work demonstrates that whatever the cause is…it ain’t CO2 something those knowledgeable of physics confirmed by geological history have known for years.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul ….
Some little while ago you had a piece on the projected infrastructure costs in the UK for digging up the streets and changes to house wiring (including meters ?) to enhance the electricity distribution networks at a local level for all the new electric car charging points and heat pumps which will be needed.
I can’t locate this and would like to refer to it in a local planning issue we have, please can you let me havbe the URL for it.
Was it this?
There’s also this one:
https://www.thegwpf.org/net-zero-every-urban-street-and-front-drive-will-be-dug-up/
Hi Paul …
They’re the ones, many thanks
Cheers
Andy
Hi Paul,
Have you looked at Sky’s Climate Debate Show?
They are showing a template that they claim “puts Data at the heart of the show”
Have you checked out their “Global warming since 1880”
It keeps going up by the second, but global temperatures are falling at the moment.
I think it is a forecast based on climate models, but certainly not real time data data
Neil
Paul,
I am not sure how to comment except say what nasty mean people there are who bedeck themselves with the colour green and once that has happened that can be as nasty and mean spirited as they like because as they keep telling us all who cannot think for ourselves, “it is for our own good”.
What is striking about this travesty is what she is using as her excuse. It is not climate change but rather “exhaustible natural resources” which can only refer to oil! Is she is trying to use a fatuous claim regarding a need to ration oil as her excuse? What a very odd line of excuse making. What is clear is that the veil has come completely off and their real colour ( marxist red) revealed.
What planet is this person on to set limiting the goals and aspirations of children as something good and to brag about? Send them to the fields! Straight out of the Khmer Rouge playbook.
I had to laugh at the last paragraph. How utterly intellectually bankrupt and juvenile these people are that should anyone criticise them then they are labeled as “right wing extremists”. In this case a network of right wing extremists. Of course the off the cuff remark comes without any offer of proof which is par for the insult wielding far left.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/leslie-shaw-5ab2b217_apr%C3%A8s-la-mosqu%C3%A9e-de-strasbourg-la-majorit%C3%A9-activity-6785128009969078272-gNHq
“Léonore Moncond’huy EELV (EuroGreen) mayor of Poitiers in the west of France, has terminated public funding of the city’s two aeroclubs and other clubs associated with flight, including gliding and model aircraft, claiming that it is “indecent” to allow children to have an interest in flying. “We believe that public funds should no longer finance sports based on the consumption of exhaustible natural resources.”
She has also called into question the existence of Poitiers airport.
EELV topped the polls in the 2020 municipal elections in Marseille, Bordeaux, Lyon, Strasbourg, Besançon, Strasbourg, Tours and Poitiers and are already showing their true totalitarian colours.
Green issues are highly popular among millenials and the ideology-driven initiatives of this newly-elected Green Guard are reminiscent of the 1960s Cultural Revolution in China.
In reaction to criticism of the decision, EELV National Secretary Julien Bayou blamed a “network of right-wing extremists” for attacking the mayor”.
Paul,
the daily dose of climate propaganda from the BBC
This is where it gets silly
They are promoting this guy as an authority figure, but what is his authority? If you read his CV it is none! Why do they not provide his credentials? We both know the answer to that because they think saying Professor means “shut up and listen”.
I wonder how many scientists of any credit are on this “panel”
https://sussex.academia.edu/PeterNewell/CurriculumVitae
He is a professor of his own opinion, nothing more!
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56723560
He is attacking the wealthy but wait…do they not include the people who are funding this crapola? Is he including for example IF those wealthy people own factories? I cannot see where his numbers from the UN for the top 1% producing as much of the gas of life as the poorest 50%. He is saying that what is likely less than 1 million people produce the same CO2 emissions as several billion! You can only drive one car. Of course he comes from the Humanities so maths clearly is not his strong point.
Quote
““We have got to cut over-consumption and the best place to start is over-consumption among the polluting elites who contribute by far more than their share of carbon emissions”.
WHO decides what is “over consumption”? A panel of nasty people driven by envy? This is when the marxism shows itself. This is social engineering Khmer Rouge style!
They really have flying in their crosshairs but is flying REALLY that important or is it more likely a visible target of envy by just one more bunch of raving lefties?
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul,
The lunatics are in charge of the NZ asylum and of course we can rely on the BBC to promote it.
“NZ to launch world-first climate change rules”
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56728381
Are they “Climate Change Rules or Global Warming Rules” There IS a difference but they would not know that bless them! It will be interesting to see if they even bother to define anything and provide any attempt at a scientific justification.
What are these laws based on? Certainly not science but rather arbitrary BS to suit the political party in charge.
Politicians in temporary charge of the country virtue signalling with the lives of others which can only have a profound and negative impact on the ability of companies to do their business, increasing costs, increasing worthless bureaucracy and impoverishing the nation.
Once we called people traitors who premeditatedly and wilfully do harm to their own country.
They really do have our worst interests in mind. You can see them justifying it all after the economy craters and nothing has happened climate wise “Oh we were acting in your best interests based on the knowlede at the time”. There is NO knowledge of any scientific origin which supports this action. There is however clear and well funded extreme left wing politics pushing for it.
The BBC are excelling themselves today!
Wales’ woodlands ‘facing catastrophe
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-56733801
More from the “we can never get the funding we want so we have to jazz it up with Climate BS” department.
Here we go again with “urgent action needed”
Have you any links to any research which questions this tree planting obsession? Trees ONLY photosynthesis for half of the year. What about the other 6 months? The grass they are replacing photosynthesises all year ( albeit slowly in the winter). Has there EVER been any scientific basis for this simple minded panic initiative?
What caught my attention was the quote from some nameless report by yet one more charity headed up by a Natalie Butriss Director of Wales at The Woodland Trust/Coed Cadw
You can see her Linkedin CV here. She has a BA in Field Of StudySport and Recreation!
Not a scientific qualification in sight which is now par for the course among charities and government quangos when you are going to spout on scientific issues. This repeated appointing of inappropriately qualified people is now right across the spectrum of charities and quangos. I observe also that they are almost exclusively women. Just random or is “a woman” appropriate for any quango job now regardless of her qualifications. She says she can do the job and her politics are suitable so she gets the job. I wonder, if a show of hands were requested as to which way they ALL vote what would be revealed? I think we can take a very good guess.
Anyway back to the quote. “Natalie Buttriss, director of Coed Cadw, or the Woodland Trust in Wales, said the situation in Wales was “sobering” and urgent action was needed to protect green spaces.
“Planting and protecting woods and trees here in Wales is essential,” she said.
According to the charity, more than 99% of woodland in Wales now exceeds nitrogen pollution levels, damaging wildlife.
Nitrogen, 78% of the air we breathe is NOW a pollutant? It is clear the ignoramus who wrote this is also a humanities graduate just parroting what they are told. It is like using “Carbon” to mean CO2 but the real intention is to demonize anything containing “Carbon atoms” so they have more ammunition in their complaints draw. Here now the word Nitrogen is used deliberately when referring to nitrous oxide (N2O) and the nitrogen oxide (NOx). How long before we have “Oxygen pollution” because there are oxygen atoms attached to both of those. This wilfully disingenuous dumbing down of precise language of science is deliberate so as to be used to influence people who do not understand.
Is she not aware that “all those essential trees will produce millions of litres of the main greenhouse gas …water vapour? The pathetic level of understanding or more likely ignoring cause and effect beggars belief. Call me a cynic but this lot would say anything to earn money and I despise the lot of them for their “flexible” belief systems.
So what does 99% of woodland exceeding nitrogen pollution levels mean? What levels and by how much are they exceeded? Again the BBC who have a duty to inform deliberately underperform when it comes to supplying critical information,
The point is that man has denuded the forests for his use, the vast majority before the country became industrialized. This is a complex issue and certainly not the crushingly simple problem that just needs money that these gimboids pretend.
.
Also Paul, how do I send an image?
I cannot figure it out. I have a screengrab which may interest you. My Facebook account was suspended at the weekend and they sent me the reason. Incredibly it was because I sent a link to the peer reviewed CO2vs Temp paper by W. Jackson DavisI sent you last week, to a Norwegian mob making money out of the CO2 sequestration scam.. My account was suspended for disseminating ….Spam! So sharing science is now considered spam by Facebook should it not come from the alarmist hymn book!
Doom Goblin Greta Thunberg’s TV Show Is a Massive Ratings Flop
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/04/14/delingpole-doom-goblin-greta-thunbergs-tv-show-is-a-massive-ratings-flop/
Now they are coming for our coffee…………….again:-
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rediscovery-of-holy-grail-coffee-bean-climate-change-makes-hard-grind-worth-it-xbrkrkbxm
Paul
Remember that Iceberg that was threatening to engulf South Georgia and grind it to pulp?
Surprise, surprise, it’s broken up into bits too small to track.
https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/end-of-giant-iceberg-a-68/
Paul, as a long-time campaigner against climate alarmism and a fervent admirer of all your superb work (and also an occasional contributor of sadly only very modest funds to notalotofpeopleknowthat, ) I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how/where to find long-term (say 50 to 100 years) monthly and/or annual rainfall statistics for East Anglia. If more specific locality info is available e.g. for Norwich, Cromer, Holt that would be great too.
Very many thanks in advance
Gillespie Robertson
It’s all here:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-and-regional-series
Very many thanks
Read your request for Paul for information about rainfall data. There are plenty of data in the library section of the Met office website. If you click on online library you can click on ‘ten year books’ and this has monthly rainfall data for individual stations in all counties up to 1960. For monthly and daily rainfall totals there is now public access to data for Met office stations from 1960 on MIDAS – the ‘open’ MIDAS data set. Finally and also on the Met office library you can find the official Monthly Weather Report and British Rainfall publications that provide data until the 1990s, when they ceased publication. Finally monthly data are also available for selected stations on the main Met office website under the heading ‘historic station data’
You may find useful stuff at –
https://xmetman.com/
You have to love the BBC avoiding using the word “cold” in a headline! “March temperature highest for 53 years” but “April set to be frostiest in UK for 60 years”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56579679 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56903882
Published
1 day ago
Worse still, the “warmest march” only refers to a single day, not the whole month!
I came across this article which I thought might be of interest for one of your articles.
‘1 in 5 electric vehicle owners in California switched back to gas because charging their cars is a hassle, new research shows’
https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-car-owners-switching-gas-charging-a-hassle-study-2021-4?r=US&IR=T
https://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-blocks-australian-mp-for-repeatedly-peddling-pandemic-misinformation-380475
Paul, the above from April 26th is about Facebook blocking Australian MP Craig Kelly who has been a thorn in the side of both the Covid and the Climate Orthodoxy. Interesting also that it is personal opinion, people who ask questions of those in authority and quoting scientific literature which contradict the Orthadoxy which causes people to be cancelled.
It is interesting also that the “justification” given is no justification at all. It all depends on what the individual is being warned about. Just sending warnings to people does not automatically mean they have done anything wrong. I had my account suspended as you probably remember for sending references to peer reviewed papers to some weasels looking to cash in on that most egregious waste of time and money, CO2 sequestration.
Concerning to see Farcebook now see themselves as the arbiters of truth….but who’s truth is that exactly?
Paul,
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-56985594
More egregious selective use of opinions of “experts” from the BBC to pretend this is a climate story regardless of the real cause of the loss of the reefs.
The BBC are becoming very sly in the way they present “bad nature” because they just show “bad” without explaining a cause expecting the public to jump to the conclusion…dead reef…climate change. This is insidious because after so much propaganda they are now telling “stories” to make use of the public assumption that the cause must be climate, even though the interviewed good doctor in the piece only mentions it once and does not explain the problem OR any explanation has been edited out.
I watched the video and when I saw the video footage of the dead reef I thought “hmmmmmm”…. That is not a “dead reef, that is a damaged reef. First we can no longer trust the BBC when they show footage with a news article so we do not know that the footage is from the reef (s) in question. However. Nothing about cause is mentioned …until we get clearly “activist” Marine Scientist Dr. Heather Koldeway who talks about the climate crisis.
First red flag.
I thought, hang on, if this has been caused by the climate crisis then how are new corals growing?
Two main causes of physical reef loss are 1. The reef growing too close to the sea surface and as a consequence being susceptible to storm damage. 2. destructive fishing practices.
I spent all of 2 mins looking up on the interweb and found what I suspected. It is destructive fishing practices and poisons ( I suspect raw sewage)
http://www.globalcoral.org/_oldgcra/Restoring%20Indonesia%27s%20Coral%20Reef%20Fisheries.htm
WHY no mention of this in this piece which leaves the viewer in no doubt that climate change must be the culprit?
We are familiar with much of the propaganda pumped out about the poster child the Great Barrier Reef and that it is dying because of warming seas and acidification. Firstly the very same species of coral grow in Indonesia in 4-5 degree warmer sees and clearly prefer warmer water! Secondly acidification. Any 14 year old should know an alkali cannot be made acidic. It just becomes less alkali. Most important of all however is the fact that never ever in Geological History have the Oceans ever been acidic, even during the Cambrian when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was around 7000ppm.
Regards
Jon Scott
ooopshow did I miss that! SEAS not sees…ooof!
Paul, further to my comments immediately above about the BBC pretending that this issue is caused by their religion, climate change I found the following paper from 1998:
Reef Degradation and Coral Biodiversity in Indonesia. Effects of Land-based Pollution, Destructive Fishing Practices and Changes Over Time
EVAN N. EDINGER et al
The paper can be found here:
Click to access Edinger_etal_MPB_1998.pdf
From a time before any academic seeking cash for his/her/its next reasearch felt the need to insert hyperventilation about climate change to guarrantee easy funding.
The conclusions are pretty much as one would expect given the location which does not have mature European standards. No mention of BS climate change anywhere!
Conclusions
1. Stresses from land-based sources of pollution are
associated with 40-70% reductions in coral species
diversity at all depths, with greater impact at 10 m
depth than at 3 m depth.
2. Mechanical damage to coral reefs is generally associated with up to 50% reduced coral species diversity in
shallow water (3 m), with relatively minor effects at
10 m depth. The reduced diversity in 3 m is approximately equivalent to the reductions associated with
natural mechanical damage such as storms or growth
on an unstable bottom, but these natural forms of
mechanical damage also reduce diversity at 10m
depth.
3. Coral species diversity and live coral cover are
positively correlated. Diversity and cover are both
reduced most on reefs subject to cembined sewage and
siltation, while reefs subject to mechanical damage
show more variation.
4. Efforts at coral reef and marine biodiversity
conservation that do not include controlling land-based
pollution sources will fail to address the major threats
to Indonesian coral reefs.
Strange how the ever so “impartial” BBC missed ALL of that.
I can’t find a link to send articles for consideration, so I hope it’s OK to post this here.
Key experiments which concluded that “ocean acidification” causes behaviour changes in fish have been shown to be so badly flawed and irreproducible that they’re now under investigation for deliberate scientific fraud.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/does-ocean-acidification-alter-fish-behavior-fraud-allegations-create-sea-doubt
Hi, I was sent this link which I would guess we should all be familiar with:-
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wind-turbine-blades-landfills/
Somewhere else I read that 90% of a wind turbine is recyclable but it didn’t say whether that was by weight or what.
Just because it ‘could be recycled’, doesn’t make it economically viable to do so; that’s why they leave 1,000-1,500 tones of reinforced concrete foundation in the ground.
The Vestas V90 nacelle alone weighs 75 tonne, the blade assembly 40T, and the tower 152T, total 267 tons (~ 230 tones can be recycled 86% ) BUT if you include foundation, total say 1,700 tonne then only 13% is recycled !
Video of construction – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vE6QkvcV-s (turn the sound off).
All that brilliant engineering for … bugger all use … madness.
Interesting article in this saturdays telegraph money section about a poor woman who had her house insulated with foam and can no longer get a mortgage on the house. Apparently there is a risk of damp, so they won’t cover the risk.
Paul, I am on the Opera North emailing list. The latest email is not about their latest opera production, oh no, it’s about cutting your carbon footprint. They are (quote and sic) “… proud to be the first opera company with all staff fully carbon literate” and they go on to open up this (quote) ” great opportunity” to anyone to sign up for a £25 course and you will get a ‘Carbon Literacy Certificate’. Where to begin! Isn’t this just like the medieval ‘papal indulgences’ that you bought to redeem your sins. And isn’t this yet another example of the parasitic, one grabbing that the climate change industry now is. If you send me an email I could forward the whole email to you
Chris. I just took a look at their website. They are now it seems just one more of a long list of publicly funded bodies infected by lefty activists, pumping out political propaganda using the funding of the body which I would suggest strongly is neither allowed or acceptable. This is exactly how a virus works on a cell., infecting the cell and using it and its systems to further its own ends.
https://www.operanorth.co.uk/news/music-works-for-the-environment/
Their climate shaman appears to be one Jamie Saye a lighting technician who’s grasp of the physics of the Earth and the place of CO2 in it, is to say the least, wanting. His version of practicing the religion appears to be by saving electricity as the way to “fight” climate change using LEDs ( made in China) and also using solar panels ( In Leeds? Also made in China). He also like his fellow believers makes baseless sweeping statements revealing his grasp of nothing more than sound bytes taken from activist slogans.
I wonder what we get for our £25 worth of “Carbon Literacy Training” from someone who appears profoundly scientifically “illiterate”?
He says and I quote ““In our bid to reduce our carbon footprint as much as possible, as fast as possible, we’ve removed gas entirely from the new bar and restaurant being built on New Briggate. This recognises the fact that the combusting of natural gas is a major contributor to global climate change”. Really? Where is evidence to support that pronouncement?
Even more asinine, Opera North has declared a climate emergency. So who needs science anymore when we have operatic performers and theatre technicians pronouncing on the climate? I wonder if they have any time to briefly perform any opera? Maybe Mr Saye also has an opinion on how to perform brain surgery and also to design vaccines?
I quote!
“The organisation has also declared a climate emergency as part of the Music Declares movement”.
I could conclude by calling them incredibly arrogant and self obsessed people. However I think this is not correct because what is on display is just one more organization which has been infiltrated by the dark forces of hard left wing political activism. As I mentioned earlier what I find totally distasteful is that they are misappropriating public funding to promote the religion hiding their political intentions, something it was never intended for. That cannot be legal.
I wonder how good the opera is but then I suppose that no longer matters and you are not allowed to complain if it is rubbish anyway because they are too occupied saving the planet….
More virtue signalling?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ambitious-carbon-project-could-transform-the-road-marking-sector?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_source=2a7ce60e-7d41-4c24-a44a-c5125068a7c8&utm_content=daily
I wonder f they’re a monopoly supplier.
Paul, have any knowledge of and comment upon the development of a hydrogen cartridge called PowerPaste that has been produced by the Fraunhofer Institute in Dresden? It’s being hailed as a saviour for personal transport in the current edition of Car magazine.
I’ve not come across it
Paul, many thanks for all you are doing to try to bring some sense into this “debate”.
I expect you have seen the Joe Shute article in the weather column of yesterday’s Telegraph, discussing the effect of digitising millions of historic rainfall records. I had hoped to find his email address to send him my reaction. It took some believing that a “senior feature writer” (not noticeably a meteorologist or scientist?) would have both the following statements in the same column:
“As … record levels of drought and rainfall become more common due to climate change”;
“British weather works in mysterious ways….it has always been thus”.
If he thinks the latter, why has he swallowed whole the popular myth concerning climate change? According to him, it’s just “mysterious weather”!
Any link?
Paul – in case you are more sensible than me and don’t listen to The World Tonight on BBC I thought you’d like to know that from last night every night we are being treated to a few minutes discussion on that very important issue – Climate Change. It was towards the end of the programme which incidentally claims “intelligent analysis”. That would be a first.
Logic check:
Logistics unit, 30,000sqm, 300t/y CO2 output, so 0.01t/y CO2/sqm.
Average house CO2 output 3t/y
Planning application for 100,000sqm commercial, 1,000 houses, so CO2 output:
100,000×0.01 + 1,000×3 = 4,000t/y CO2
Council spent £5million on a project that offset 500t/y CO2, so cost of CO2 offset was:
£5,000,000/500 = £10,000/t/y
So cost of offsetting CO2 on proposed development is:
4,000x£10,000 = £40,000,000
Obviously the specifics will dictate how closely the figures translate from one example to another, but is the basic logic sound?
Thanks
Have you read this yikes .https://theconversation.com/climate-change-how-bad-could-the-future-be-if-we-do-nothing-159665?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2XOQzRGOU2GsqZzkQgfVZZMM0r8BMYJOZxMUKGKMuVOlUj-IBBV3lpjVI#Echobox=1621754781
It’s click-bate for a book launch
Don’t read THAT, read THIS:
State of Fear by Michael Chriton ^.^
Damn that should be Crichton
This from the following WUWTpiece:
Human activities, including building renewable energy infrastructure, have affected over 40% of the ocean’s surface, creating dead ocean zones devoid of oxygen, algae blooms that harm marine species and a devastating loss of biodiversity.
reminded me of a TV news item which bemoaned the devastation to sea bed life due to ocean warming. Seems we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
Paul, what’s the connection between the Guardian and the BBC? They are both pushing climate change like mad and now this makes me very suspicious: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/for-all-its-faults-the-bbc-s-capacity-for-critical-journalism-should-be-celebrated/ar-AAKkiaP?ocid=msedgdhp
Regards Kelvin Vaughan
Unbelievable “debate” on Politics Live. Julia Hartley-Brewer outnumbered but trying hard. Stupid L abour MP claimed fuel poverty caused by high price of gas!
Daily mail article here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9623347/Are-just-five-years-climate-tipping-point.html?login#reader-comments
I was slightly heartened by some of the comments especially from those kids now adults who realise their school teachers were pushing a lie on global warming.
BBC coming all doom and gloom . Noticed it mentioned on the ticker under the BBC2 news reporting Hancocks lies (sorry, answers to parliamentary questions) and then found it on web site .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57261670
likely to be referenced on all programmes today
Paul, Todays’ fearmongering from the garbage heads in the political commissariat.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57261670
Climate: World at risk of hitting temperature limit soon
1. it is NOT a limit. It is an arbitrary number just like it’s predecessor which was significantly larger. Of course the BBC will never say that because their job is promoting fear. Also to suggests that the temperature at the end of the Little Ice Age was a “normal” temperature to measure departure from is just too stupid for words.
And what is this latest garbage based on ? “The analysis is based on modelling by the UK Met Office and climate researchers in 10 countries including the US and China.
Well who would have guessed. More garbage in garbage out models.
and now for todays political statement from a body which should be totally apolitical look no further than the Met Office. “Leon Hermanson, a senior Met Office scientist, told BBC News that comparing projected temperatures with those of 1850-1900 shows a clear rise.
I really get annoyed when they play this game of selecting a time period which suits them to compare to. Why do that unless your intention is to deceive? 1850 is chosen deliberately because that is the bottom of the curve. This is slight of hand and should be called out for the deception which it intends. Where is the pre 1850 data Dr Hermanson? Does it beg questions which is why you avoided using it? Lying by omission is par for the course in the field of climate science abuse.
“Time is running out for the strong action which we need now.”
There you have it….todays political statement from Mr Hermanson.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul,
Todays bulletin from that reliable source of climate propaganda.
“Mud cylinders reveal humans’ impact on Earth began earlier than we thought”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57273664
Oh no! It is worse than we thought. Being able to detect the presence of man and man having a global effect are NOT the same thing and to suggest otherwise is profoundly disingenuous. We are dealing with the difference between what a child perceives and an adult perceives. Local evidence of existence does not mean evidence of global impact. Adults can work that out It is the same as the “since the start of the industrial revolution”. for which there is no empirical data but they all ( including the BBC) keep repeating it to set the idea in people’s heads that the actions of the first person to smelt black band iron ore in the Midlands of the UK started climate change.
Notice the Segway into Climate Change also. Some very dubious claims and the usual oversimplifications and conflation that the BBC is famous for.
One totally ridiculous statement “The last 100,000 yeas climate wise was relatively stable. Well yes if you are comparing it to the first part of the current ice age as also being “relatively stable”. What annoys about such statements is they are creating a false narrative of “everything was great and then man came along and spoiled it all”.
This is more fuel for the “Man is an alien” and not part of the planet nutjobs as if madness today needs any more encouragement.
Cheers
Jon Scott
Battery cars are cheaper, if/when:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/31/electric-car-drivers-100-better-used-petrol-version/
Comments confirm real people aren’t convinced.
Paul, the BBC Wales is reporting today that some reservoirs are becoming regularly contaminated by debris from landslips. This particular report was with reference to Brecon Beacons and reservoirs fed from that environment. Of course the implication or rather the statement made was the increasing number of landslips was due to climate change. The quote made a few times was that there is more rainfall in the Brecon Beacons in winter now and drier summers, as a consequence this is making for ground instability around the reservoirs. As one spokesperson said it’s the equivalent of the canary in the coal mine, i.e. a tangible warning of the effects of climate change. I don’t know if you have ready access to any data records of the levels of rainfall in the Brecons that show these claimed changes or disprove them. Or can you point me in the right direction to view such records myself.
Regards, Spence.
Olivia Rudgard Telegraph today is at it again!
” Climate change may kill off UK bumblebees”
In essence WWF report that spring is earlier and this will affect bluebells, hares and bumblebees.
Try telling that to my goat willow trees which have shed their seed some 3 weeks later than last year.
Hi Paul, I’ve recently started to see an unusual appearance on my Samsung mobile when commenting on your posts via that device. This is what I normally see as a header:
https://www.mediafire.com/file/tyqkunhq6zu8pfg/Standard.jpg/file
But recently I’ve been seeing a distorted header as this:
https://www.mediafire.com/file/w187ptxeep8ha40/Faulty.jpg/file
where the right hand icons drop down into the workspace and the bell changes to a button. I comment using my WordPress ID, which saves my details. I don’t know how to resolve it, having tried clearing the cache in my Opera browser. Any ideas, please?
Thanks.
Sorry, none
OK, thanks anyway. I’ll check with another browser next.
Same problem with Chrome, so it must be something to do with my WordPress ID. If this rely works, I’ve successfully changed it.
In case you haven’t seen this Paul:
https://ed2plan.northernpowergrid.com/planning-for-2023-28/welcome
The main document is 13pp, back ups 61pp, neither looked at yet.
I’ve started to look at the documents included with the above consultation. I’ve also extracted key numbers into a separate PDF, all for review against my council’s Sustainable Energy Action Plan, to implement their Zero40/45 ambitions. They’re already a bit late, which is unfortunate, considering it’s an “emergency”.
The Northern Power Grid proposals are all about:
“The energy system of the future will be a decentralised system where small-scale generation units deliver energy to local customers. Customers utilise renewable energy when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. EVs and community energy storage are charged up at favourable rates, based on real-time supply and demand data. Users flex their demand and the network facilitates this.
They don’t seem to have received the memo.
This link takes you to the documents if interested.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/45wg4y8jka5fk/Northern+Power+Grid+Consultation
I’ve now summarised the costs for the various options:
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/45wg4y8jka5fk/Northern+Power+Grid+Consultation
Just plopped in my inbox…
A third of UK population covered by councils pledging net-zero
More than a third of the UK’s population is now represented by local authorities that are planning to reach net-zero emissions ahead of the government’s 2050 commitment.
Five council leaders have become the latest to join UK100’s “net-zero pledge” and reach the target at least five years ahead of Whitehall.
https://www.planningportal.co.uk/news/article/774/planning_news_-_3_june_2021?utm_source=PPQ+Newsletter&utm_campaign=81ab28bff2-Newsletter_11072019_HTML_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_734e0b63a9-81ab28bff2-7062809#one
I have written a 100 line Op-Ed piece with seven main links available at
Net Zero – What are the Costs & Benefits?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s35i5v0j44qrqou/WCD-CO2-6June.pdf?dl=0
The links confirm that Net Zero is unnecessary if you understand the current Science.
The cost will be prohibitive. Check out the session with Ross McKitrick at the links provided.
I received this message via email the other day:
http://e.reachplc.com/interface/external_view_email.php?RD6396617566335219zzzzz6492c1edd5f4972624d5d624fde56a27d2b2329f2963882ec4e2644d8c30743aa8&varId=
All the usual bullshine but one little passage made me get my calculator out:
One of the key ways the UK will reduce its emissions is by switching to electric vehicles powered by renewable energy. Our green family, the Banfields from Milton Keynes, test drove a Kia e-Niro EV for two weeks and saw their fuel bill plunge from about £250 to £5.
This didn’t ring true. AT 4 miles/kWh, 18p/kWh, £5 gets you £111 miles. 111 miles at 40pmg and £1.20/litre would cost £15. To spend £250 over the same distance, the mpg figure would have to be about 2.4mpg, so they must have swapped from an Abrams tank to the Kia. Hardly fair? Dale Vince has form, so this blatant lie shouldn’t be unexpected.
I should have read a bit further. They swapped TWO cars for one. Running that single vehicle for two weeks cost £5. Their usual MONTHLY spend on petrol is £250. Still doesn’t add up, but blatant distortion on top.
Just to make it worse, not many people can replicate this because there’s a 6 month wait for a Kia e Nero!
I do wonder how the zealots can live with the child labour used in DRC to extract Cobalt. It’s just one of several Elephants wandering around the room
Cognitive dissonance? It’s the same flaw affecting Alok Sharma, who declared the other day that coal is dead as a fuel. The guy’s clearly not stupid so …?
Paul,
“Nato and climate change: How big is the problem?”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-57476349
More garbage from the usual suspect
I notice the BBC uses the word “Pollute” when the main issue of course is CO2 emissions.
Secondly is not the point of armed forces to protect us and when they must to kill other people? How do you do that “greanly”? Turn the corpses into compost? Also if this “greening” in anyway compromises their ability to wage war and to win……what then?
Notice the unnecessary and unrelated emotional climate doom propaganda picture inserted into the piece. This is an article about Nato. Surely the foto should be of a tank or soldiers or is that not important to the BBC when the point is saving the planet?
Note the caption underneath which is OPINION “There has been an increase in worldwide support for climate action in recent years”. Has there? Based on what evidence BBC? More worthless climate propaganda programmes on the BBC is not World Opinion.
So many times I see oft repeated “Climate change is associated with an increase in extreme weather events like heatwaves, flooding and droughts”.
Is it? Where is the evidence?
This is a classic tactic of the alarmists to keep repeating claims and never present evidence to support any part of the claim.
Did this occur during the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period or the Minoan Warm Period? I do know life was pretty dreadful during the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul,
Again, from that most reliable source of climate related propaganda….
UK could be left behind in the electric car race, warns report
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57490100
Race? We are not “racing” to buy electric cars. They are being forced upon us. See how the BBC narrative is a set of instructions to the proles to follow. There is no race so why are they trying to pretend there is?
Also, the most pragmatic compromise, the hybrid is being called “outdated”. Why? Because like LNG it does not fit with the adolescents ill considered demands.
Regards
Jon Scott
The BBC are excelling themselves today
UK warned it is unprepared for climate chaos
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57487943
I note that this is placed under “science” which I would argue it is not, rather it is ill considered opinion.
Also and I quote :
“The CCC is an independent group of experts set up to provide the government with independent advice on the climate crisis”.
They are all on the alarmist hymn book so how can the be “independent”? Look at them all, everyone a confirmed doomist. Independent of what….rationality and reason given that they are pushing 4 degrees rise in 2100 and even offering ultra doom scenarios of 4 deg rise by 2080 just to show how bad it can be.
I am fascinated by this mental condition of only promoting worst case as the only case of interest ignoring “the most likely” based not on models but projection of what we already know.
regards
Jon Scott
and this was major item on BBC1 lunchtime news. basically repeating each item verbatim with suitably frightening and exaggerated video and adding an interview (sorry propaganda message) with Baroness Brown .
So expecting it wall to wall on all BBC news shows today
Paul,
Hot off the press!
“Global warming and cooling for last 2,000 years mimic Sun’s
magnetic activity, not CO2”:
abstract for Geological Society (London) virtual conference
‘Climate Change in the Geological Record’, 26-27th May 2021 by Dr Roger Higgs, Geoclastica Ltd, UK
I have been casting around my friends to see who is still a member of the Geological Society who can get access to the whole paper. I resigned my Fellowship 2 years ago in response to a statement the Society made on Climate without canvassing it’s membership.
**********************************************************************************************************
Here is the text of the abstract:
Most scientists urge shifting to nuclear and/or renewable energy, amply justified by air
pollution, dwindling fossil fuels and, many believe, global warming by CO2.
For the last 2,000 years Earth’s average surface temperature (by proxies and post-1750
thermometers) closely matches solar-magnetic output (SMO) (ice-core proxies, sunspots,
neutron detectors, magnetometers), after applying a ~100-year temperature lag. Both fell for
1,000 years from ~400AD into the Little Ice Age (LIA; ~1400-1900). Then SMO surged from
~1700AD (Maunder Minimum), the largest rise in 9,000 (sic) years, growing 130% in the 20th
Century alone, reaching the strongest solar ‘grand maximum’ (1937-2004; peak 1991).
(Contrast <0.5% parallel increase in total solar irradiance [TSI].) Temperature surged too,
from the final LIA nadir ~1830 (Berkeley-HadCRUT data) to 2016, the largest warming
(~1.3C) and highest peak in 2,000 years. The temperature and SMO graphs share two further
characteristics, besides overall 'hockey-stick' shape: (A) multi-decadal up-down 'sawteeth',
with superimposed 3-to-20-year sawteeth (longer than ENSO); and (B) surge amplitude
about twice the 1,000-year decline. Three simple cross-matches confirm the ~100-year lag: (1)
LIA's three coldest peaks (~1470, 1610, 1830) mimic three SMO extreme minima (~1330,
1450, 1700); (2) the Sun's 310AD peak (second-highest) aligns with a prominent ~450AD
warm peak (with abundant geological-archaeological evidence for a ~3-metre sea-level rise
in <100 years); (3) successive HadCRUT sawteeth cusps at 1910, 1945 and 1975 correspond to
1810, 1840 and 1890 (sunspot 30-year-smoothed chart).
In contrast CO2 has six mismatches with the 2,000-year temperature profile: (1) CO2 was
trendless before its modern rise from ~1850 by industrial emissions; (2) warming began
(~1830, above) before CO2's rise; (3) CO2's rise was continuous (except seasonal sawteeth
[Keeling Curve] and slight decline 1940-44), unlike very punctuated warming (supra-annual
sawteeth, above; 30-year coolings 1880-1910, 1945-75; pause 1998-2013); (4) CO2 has steadily
accelerated from 1944, but warming has not (after its 1975 resumption); (5) the 1975-2016
warming episode had the same gradient as the previous one (1910-45), while the CO2
gradient increased fourfold; (6) the Berkeley-HadCRUT dataset includes solar frequencies,
unlike CO2. Evidently, CO2 and temperature are uncorrelated.
The foregoing evidence collectively indicates that the Sun governs global temperature,
consistent with Svensmark's SMO-cosmic ray-cloudiness theory. Volcanic mega-eruptions,
commonest during exceptional SMO minima, augment solar-driven cooling (LIA "volcanicsolar
downturns"). The ~100-year temperature lag is attributable to oceanic thermal inertia
(high heat capacity, slow mixing). This 'ocean-lag', variably estimated by previous authors
as 10-100 years, explains why warming persists today, despite solar weakening since 1991.
The logical conclusion is that negative feedbacks cancel CO2's greenhouse effect. A
"potentially very important" but poorly constrained natural feedback acknowledged by
IPCC but omitted in their climate models is rising 'BVOC' aerosol emissions from forests
growing faster by enhanced photosynthesis ('CO2 fertilization'). Other IPCC climate-model
errors include: assuming negligible solar influence because TSI changes are trivial (ignores
SMO); and disregarding ocean lag. Further Sun-driven warming is predictable, ending ~100
years (lag) after the 1991 solar peak. Reviewers: Drs Gary Couples and Tom Moslow.
Literature sources (dozens) in ResearchGate papers 348689944, 348369922, 346792725 and 332245803.
Regards
Jon Scott
Sorry about the poor layout. It did not look like that when I posted it.. Mvh Jon Scott
https://fakta360.no/2021/04/dr-roger-higgs-global-warming-and-cooling-for-last-2000-years-mimic-suns-magnetic-activity-not-co2/
Here it is the abstract in a more readable form.
Very long piece in Daily mail today:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9690451/UKs-failure-prepare-global-warming-risking-catastrophe.html
Usual rubbish. Some great advice, though, like chargoe your car ahead of bad weather in case grid goes down. That’ll work!
Interesting Andrew Neil interview with Rishi Sunak this evening. Good to see climate change costs getting an airing. I’ve written to GBNews suggesting they get a bit more basic and look into WHY spend anything.
At a recent Cabinet meeting, my local council was congratilating itself on managing, despite funding cuts, but in some policy areas there’s plenty of cash swilling about:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/changing-gear-learner-drivers-in-coventry-plugging-in-to-electric-vehicles?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_source=5125ba33-55da-44fa-94d7-a3839ffb36c3&utm_content=daily
Who wouldn’t jump on the bandwagon?
Look who’s back.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/20/head-of-independent-sage-to-launch-international-climate-change-group
Paul,
Fresh from climate doom propaganda central :
Great Barrier Reef should be listed as ‘in danger’, Unesco says
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57562685
Which flies totally in the face of reality as reported on Whatsupwiththat ref Dr Peter Ridd’s Facebook Page:
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul,
More uncritical drivel and exploitation of youth from BBC Wales –
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-57555760
More creative accounting in the Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/23/electric-cars-will-cheap-petrol-ones-2025/
The video reporter makes a good case for a run-about but avoids mentioning the downside cost.
Incidentally, I’m having trouble getting into the Reply box, once there, it keeps freezing as I’m trying to input text, sometimes paging up.
The problem occurs on my default browser but is just as bad on Firefox and Edge. To access the Reply box I have to indulge in a lot of pulling the slider down to the bottom of the page before it eventually arrives at the Reply box (happening on all three browsers), then often doesn’t stay there and I can’t get the flashing cursor.
It’s fine on my mobile because the Reply box is at the top of the page. I don’t miss any new replies because I get email notification. Any chance of doing that for the full web page version, please?
Do you get this stuff Paul?
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/
Has the GWPF site been hacked? Getting a message that there has been ‘a critical error’.
This article by Silly Jilly was picked up by Jo Nova:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/five-asian-countries-80-percent-new-coal-power-investment
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/07/04/centrica-ready-put-16bn-hydrogen-storage-site/
Naturally: “Greg McKenna, managing director of Centrica Business Solutions, said the company is waiting for clarity on …. what subsidy guarantees will be given to help the hydrogen industry scale up, before knowing whether to progress.”
Paul, the verdict is out. Trial by bought media says that Climate Change caused the SurfSide Apartment building in Florida to collapse and the senile old fool in the Whitehouse is going along with it.
https://www.everydaypatriots.com/daily-news/the-one-thing-the-surfside-collapse-revealed-about-biden-and-ron-desantis/
Cheers
Jon Scott
Paul, I recently got hold of a fascinating book; The Kent Weather Book by Bob Ogley which carries many illustrations and descriptions of Kent weather going back to early 20th Century and shows clearly how extreme the weather was back then, Obviously there was a lot of heavy and prolonged snow but also some serious widespread flooding which we do not seem to get these days, as well as some notable heatwave and drought type conditions. It seems like a good riposte to those suggesting that our weather is far more xtreme than in the past. Anyway keep up the good work.
Cheers
Brian
Paul,
We can always rely on the BBC and their chief climate cultist during the slack times.
“RIBA Architects say building demolitions cause of carbon emissions”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-57756991
“Embodied Carbon” indeed! Fatuous new invented terminology to give their cult religion a wiff of authority.
Its no different to the cancer obsession of 20 years ago. Everything was thought to give you cancer.
I think Harrabin has been out in the mid day sun without his hat!
Enjoy your vacation
Regards
Jon Scott
I don’t know whether you have seen this article in the Daily Telegraph today 9 July. ” Humans may be shrinking as the planet gets warmer”
People in colder climes tend to be bigger than those in warmer places.
Research by Cambridge and Tubingen.
Nothing to do with diet then.
Just as an aside to my previous post, I vividly remember in the ’70s being in the HK MTR trains at the rear and being able to see all the way to the front of the train over a sea of heads. Fast forward 15 years and it was no longer possible because the Chinese population had rapidly increased in height. Either this is due to diet or HK had become substantially colder.
However did wr gey through WW2?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2021/07/10/homeowners-face-9000-bills-stop-new-builds-overheating/
Spot the irony. First this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/11/do-not-tackle-climate-change-now-will-get-bad-radicals-will/
including such gems as:
“The gap between present levels of consumption and the net-zero future is too wide. Before we get there, we have to do less; drive less, fly less etc.”
Then, on the same page:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/07/11/richard-branson-space-flight-virgin-galactic-launch-watch-live/
You couldn’t make it up!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/buy/best-places-uk-buy-holiday-home-450000/
How about limiting home size and prohibiting second homes?
Wrong link! Sorry:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/07/13/shiver-winter-fight-global-warming-warns-grid-operator/
Paul,
Climate groups urge Joe Biden to turn down heat on China
https://www.makebelievepresident.com/politics/climate-groups-blasted-for-urging-joe-biden-to-turn-down-heat-on-china/
48 organizations!!!! I know I am an empiricist but will you allow me this one opportunity to guess where the majority of their funding could possibly come from?
I for one am not surprise but are they really that stupid to show their true allegiance which is…to marxism of any hue? Just look at the language these supposed” environmentalists are using which tells exactly what they are! Every buzz word from the lefty playbook.
Regards
Jon Scott
the climate PR firm is paying for Twitter advertising
– then Twitter is pushing it out onto me
(Siman Evans was on our local TV item about heat pumps last night)
Paul, hot off the press from the British public funded climate alarm propaganda corporation
Germany floods: Merkel pledges support for victims
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57858829
Paragraph 5: “Experts say that climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme weather events, but linking any single event to global warming is complicated”.
“Experts” indeed! If this is the case and they do not know that (anthropogenic) climate change caused this then WHY is this statement inserted into this piece at all? This event has not been empirically to climate change and specifically what they fail to mention because they cannot, climate change caused by man then what purpose does this statement serve other than as pure propaganda to force a link in the minds of the public ?
I have seen this exact statement used before by the BBC propagandists.
They just cannot leave it alone. There is an evangelical zeal on display.
Following on from that statement to say they cannot make a link then comes this:
“Armin Laschet, the premier of North Rhine-Westphalia, blamed the extreme weather on global warming during a visit to a hard-hit area.
“We will be faced with such events over and over, and that means we need to speed up climate protection measures… because climate change isn’t confined to one state,” he said.
So he knows more than the BBC’s claimed climate shamans?
Why does the BBC not reference their earlier statement to “help” the reader here?
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul, where else but again from the propaganda arm of the climate industrial complex.
UK weather: Heat-health alert issued in England for weekend
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57858950
As if there has never been hot weather before IN THE SUMMER ( in some places) and as if those people never have been on holiday to Spain or Greece… funny how they survive there.
At best this is meddling nanny state at work. Maybe it is not so direct but it is one more way they push the agenda…. Do we get cold alerts ? No? Strange because surely Public Health England knows cold kills more people than heat or am I missing the point?
Regards
Jon Scott
Not ten yrs to save the planet … it’s now 5mths !!!
Just had this crap on email –
“This isn’t global warming anymore. It’s global scorching.
Our world is hotter now than any time in recorded history, unleashing a firestorm of heatwaves, megadroughts, and acidifying seas. We are shattering the temple of life, with a million species on the edge of extinction.
Within 50 years, 1.5 billion people could be forced to flee temperatures as hot as the Sahara desert — already 20 million are forced to run every year.
We’re living through one of the greatest upheavals of life on earth, and it’s caused by a global rise of just 1°C. We’re on track for 3°C. Just imagine the hostile and desolate planet our children will inherit.
But here’s the most important bit: We CAN still turn this around — we may be the last generation who can. The next five months are critical.
World leaders will hold two major UN summits, where momentous decisions on the climate and extinction crisis must be made. It could change everything — or nothing. It means we only have 150 days to shake our leaders into action, radically grow our team to overpower the fossil fuel army, supercharge massive marches, and get the world behind our courageous plan to save nature.”
From Avaaz
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/07/19/batteries-can-solve-britains-big-renewable-energy-problem
Usual rubbish. Plenty on GW bit not much on GWh.
Hi Paul. I’m afraid due to age and recent ill health I’m having to retire and the CWIF website will cease to exist. You’ll see I’ve put a notice on the Home page. It’s only been me for many years. So just explaining why I’ll be unsubscribing but I will log in some times.
Good to see a post from my friend George H. He used to wear a top hat and carry a coffin on demos – Wake for the Wild.
Keep up the fight. Bye.
Sorry to hear that Brenda, I know the problems of age and ill health, as I’m struggling to keep ‘Due Diligence on Climate’ up to date.
Info from your wonderful site helped us stop Anglesey becoming a giant wind-farm. Shame there’s no one to carry your good work.
BUT ***Please find a way of archiving your data***
Good luck in the future (so many idiots to annoy, so little time).
John
Thanks John. Glad we were of help – good to know. I had wondered if there was some way it could be preserved but asleep but I don’t think so as the original designer, who hosts it, no longer does computer stuff. It’s there until February but not updated so maybe you can check for anything important.
It seems many of us are struggling now with this one-sided battle.
Brenda
oh dear, cost of climate change just went up:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2021/07/21/smart-meters-will-useless-uk-homes-go-green/
oh dear, cost of climate change just went up:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2021/07/21/smart-meters-will-useless-uk-homes-go-green/
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1462511/electric-car-charging-station-driveways-new-rules-energy-bills
Paul, more lying by omission by the climate change propagandists at the BBC
Sundarbans: why the world’s largest mangrove forest is sinking
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-india-57929463
Strange they do not tell us anything except by making a usual unsubstantiated “cause by sea level rise due to climate change” statement. The piece is nothing to do with causes but is the usual emotional claptrap so loved of activists and those who have not got a clue and have drunk the AGW koolaid
Here is a non propaganda based analysis
Strange, no mention of “climate change” at all……but rather the impact of man living in a marginal environment. Deltas sink, that is what deltas do but they do it even faster if humans mess with them!
Paul, I would need some assistance for the discussion with my brother who is brainwashed by the climate activists. For him a clear signal of climate change were the last hot temperatures in Vancouver. Do you have any material in this regard ?
jenskroeger@me.com
Thank you.
The best summary is this:
Thank you Paul !
Paul, I came across this in a Science X Newsletter today and wondered if you would like to follow it up. Unfortunately I don’t have the wherewithal to do it myself. When anyone mentions “model” in this context my alarm antennae vibrate.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-07-global-climate-million-energy-jobs.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter
More bill-loading:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/07/24/billpayers-help-fund-electric-car-chargers-controversial-plans/
Paul,
Climate change: Boy, 11, starts 200-mile walk
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-57961176
Wonder where he got instructions aged 11 and the money to read effluent produced by the disgraced Michael Mann? Aged 11 get out of here! I smell a rat or do I smell a soft boiled brained teacher or more probably a soft boiled brained parent?
The scene is nicely set showing a photo of him bedecked in a raincoat toting a rucksack both 100% produced from hydrocarbons.
One more gullible child brainwashed by religious believers!
If only he had been taught some real real science or even read Gregory Whitestone’s Inconvenient Facts he could have saved himself the bother of this extended virtue signalling walk.
I expect he will be interviewed by all the usual suspects if he makes it to London.
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul!
Hot off the press!
A verdict in the case Mann v Mark Steyn
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/11492.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3zHtmBHeIYClhAEFLicr1Z8cdyhqWe3_K3MAazEcYjalW0U7FHkLM6MOI
my favourite line from the pitiful plaintiff Mann:
“Dr. Mann asserts that his reputation was harmed in the community and that he began to receive disapproving glances”.
Regards
Jon Scott
The statement “must be more than unpleasant or offensive; the
language must make the plaintiff appear **‘odious, infamous, or ridiculous**.’”
Man does that himself see his ad.hom attacks
Reading that doc just took 3yrs off my life (:-((
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/going-electric-carmakers-switch-040250217.html
It’s to be hoped energy producers will be able to keep up.
Then there’s the Law of Unintended Consequences:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/07/25/road-pricing-would-cut-congestion-fill-pothole-public-finances/
The comments suggest it’s not going to be easy.
Paul,
Further titbits of note from the judgement of the case the thin skinned politically minded Mann brought against Mark Steyn.
“Dr. Mann offers the deposition testimony of John Abraham, Ph.D., who testified that
he decided against including Dr. Mann on an academic paper for fear of injury to the reputation of other authors also on the project”.
That statement is a shocker because it shows just what an industry this is and that it is all about politics not science. Firstly for some time I have questioned the ridiculous list of multiple authors names I see attached to so many climate doom papers. This is supposed to be about unemotional empirical data based study not the people involved. The paper should stands or fall on the quality of the methodology(s) involved, the quality of the empirical data obtained and the reproducibility of them. Names are “invited” to be included with little or no contribution whatsoever. This name promotion scam is not limited to the climate fiction factory but the climate scam industry is certainly rife with it. That Abraham would weigh the political effect of Mann’s name over and above his supposed science to be published by Abraham and his other co authors speaks volumes about the garbage industry that scientific paper writing and in particular AGW claiming climate paper writing has become.
Secondly:
“Dr. Mann argues that, in the four years before the defamatory posts, he received grants
totaling over $3 million on proposals for which he was the principal or co-principal investigator. Over the four years since publication of the defamatory articles, Dr. Mann claims he received grants of just under $1 million”.
Here is the reason why we are using our time on this anti-science issue. MONEY! Just look how much money is available to write doom laden garbage. The vast majority of that money comes from tax payers as grants. That pays salaries, world travel, nice hotels, fancy restaurants and the like. There are tens of thousands of scientists who have sold their souls to the dark side riding this corrupt wave. Worse, the universities are encouraging it because they are enriched by this money also. I argue that if that funding were to stop tomorrow, how many of these charlatans would continue pouring out garbage based on only their “scientific” knowledge and convictions?
Regards
Jon Scott
Mann reminds me of a professional burglar who sued a householder for loss of income after the burglar sustained injures as he broke in.
Not surprised no one wants to be associated with the odious little cheat, Mann is a disgrace not only to his profession but to the human race.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/rte-news-boss-apologises-for-broadcaster-not-linking-recent-extreme-weather-events-to-climate-change-40692616.html
Entire article .. very Orwellian or a factory boss apology to Stalin.
Title : The managing director of RTÉ News has apologised
that the national broadcaster did not link the recent extreme weather to climate change.
Following criticism over the lack of coverage on the climate crisis as Ireland basked in a rare heatwave where temperatures reached 30C, Jon Williams took to Twitter this evening to apologise.
(Then a big Attenborough video clearly just PR
it’s nothing to do with the story)
“We were wrong not to make clear connection between recent extreme weather events & climate change,” he wrote.
“Sin of omission & reported in good faith.
But truth matters.
So when we get it wrong, we should say so. Lesson learned. Work to do.”
Mr Williams wrote an article detailing how RTÉ has and will be covering climate change and said every journalist on the news team will be taking part in a workshop looking at climate science and the reporting of it.
He also said that RTÉ News will be creating a team dedicated to reporting the climate crisis.
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, Mr Williams said many topics have been put on the back burner, including climate change.
“Pre-pandemic, RTÉ’s financial challenges meant one correspondent covered both science and environment,” he wrote.
“Since March 2020, our science correspondent has been exclusively assigned to covering the Covid crisis.
“However, as Ireland emerges from the pandemic, we will double down on our coverage of climate issues.”
He added that as a public service broadcaster, RTÉ News “has a responsibility to lead the conversation about the climate crisis, and the impact it is having”.
Bloody hell !!! we are on a slippery slope; apologizing for not spreading lies but promising to do so in the future … about something that’s not happening !!
Very Kafkaesque !!!
According to long term records from the Valentia Observatory west coast of Ireland https://www.met.ie/about-us/our-history/valentia-observatory apart from a small rise in temperature of 0.7°C, there has been no change in climate since the 8th October 1860 when the records began; just natural fluctuations.
I think Paul put up the details some time ago.
Climate researchers said that the heatwave was a “one in a thousand years event”, but warned that the schedule of such occurrences had been drastically accelerated by global warming.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/07/28/western-us-faces-water-crisis-extreme-heatwaves-leave-hoover/
Paul,
love her or loath her, Melanie is scathing of the climate change agenda.
https://melaniephillips.substack.com/p/reducing-reason-to-net-zero?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNDc4ODA3MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzkzMjc2NDQsIl8iOiI4REJ0QyIsImlhdCI6MTYyNzUxMDQwNCwiZXhwIjoxNjI3NTE0MDA0LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNzc2NTUiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.h8pDiB1dkUajszBbR1JbCoYBZqnUaMvroFYDLXY48Qw
David, I think regarding “loathing” I would suggest for that those who feel that it can only be because of received wisdom and blind politics. As a casual observer I can offer that she has conducted herself with remarkable dignity in face of the incessant hysterical attacks on her husband. Also, unlike her bigoted predecessor she did not sell her position or dabble in politics certainly she has not bizarrely played the victim game while raking in millions purely because of who she married. The American habit of promoting the spouse of an elected official is as bizarre as it is dangerous. That odious woman Cheri Blair tried to copy and profit from that style in the UK but fortunately found little traction among the electorate who saw her for what she was. Just my opinion of course 🙂
Hi Paul,
Let see the scammer Mark Shorrock – CEO of Tidal Lagoon Power and Shire Oak international doing the ponzi scheme in Vietnam and SEA. He applies the same method as he did in the Tidal Lagoon Power and keep luring the investors to invest on his company and get huge money. He shows in the website that he has consented over USD $2.35 billion of renewable energy projects. He was a pioneer in the UK wind and solar project. Totally scammer!! His new victim is climate fund managers.
https://shireoakinternational.asia/
Paul,
I expect you are already working on this one from the BBC
UK already undergoing disruptive climate change
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57988023
Where is all this “disruptive climate change” in the UK? We have always had erratic and “disruptive” weather.
1. Of course they use emotional language. That is what children and activists do.
2. Notice natural climate variability is deliberately lumped in with the claimed AGM hoping no one notices, it has worked very well for them so far.
3. We are told about “higher than average rainfall in 2020” as a % of 1981-2010 average…no I cannot get my head around that one either ESPECIALLY as since 2010 certainly have begun to include mountain gauges which never were part of the network previously and skew the results.
4. We are lectured that “Leaves appeared on average 10.4 days earlier than the 1999- 2019 baseline”.
5. We are told that temperatures in 2020 are “close to the highest ever”, yet EVER to the climate scamsters seems to be only from 1884-2020
In conclusion we are lectured to about rain in 2020 compared to a 1981-2010 average, leaves based on a 1999-2019 period and temperature from 1884-2020. What happened before 1884? There is certainly plenty of mercury data from before that date. So the world did not exist before 1884 for the use of the emotional word “EVER” Why no common time period?
6. Meanwhile, a new paper from the Climate Crisis Advisory Group, founded by the former UK chief scientist Prof Sir David King, asks whether rapid heating in the Arctic region is driving changes in the jet stream in a way that influenced the recent weather extremes.
So he does not know, he has no evidence…..
Climate Crisis Advisory Group | Centre for Climate Repair at Cambridge: Climate repair? Climate REPAIR???? What on earth is that and what competent none bought scientist can put their name to such drivel? That was clearly written by someone who has not a clue what climate is.
7. “These are all outlier events that exceed what one would expect if it were ‘only’ a 1.2C warming impact (that’s the amount the Earth has already warmed since pre-industrial times).
Ignoring the fact that their starting point for their temperature hysteria is AN ANOMALOUS LOW temperature at the end of the Little Ice Age
8. “Greenhouse gas levels are already too high for a manageable future for humanity.”
Oh really! Which Greenhouse gasses exactly and where is the data 1. to show the unproven greenhouse effect is greater than +/- 5% of the total temperature budget and 2. which greenhouse gasses in particular? Do they mean the main greenhouse gas, Water Vapour?
Regards
Jon Scott
In June, it was also revealed that Nissan’s Chinese partner, Envision AESC, will build an electric battery plant as part of that investment.
They somehow forgot to mention that.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1469252/china-green-revolution-electric-vehicles-nissan-nexperia-boris-johnson-nuclear-power-spt
From yesterday’s f/b page, ‘The Power Stations of Scotland’: Cruachan’s New Role:
———————————-
Steven Berry
Admin
· 1tgS5prggonhsored ·
Cruachan’s New Role
Drax Group, owners of the 440MWe pumped-storage hydroelectric generating plant in Scotland’s Hollow Mountain, Ben Cruachan, are now one year into a six year contract with National Grid ESO in which one of the four units at Cruachan is being utilised in a new way.
Over the period of the contract, the water turbine will run at 600 revs per minute, using power from the grid, to provide inertia and reactive power. Alternative sources of system inertia, to stabilise the operation of the grid, are required as the previous sources of inertia, the kinetic energy of high mass, high rotational speed turboalternators of coal and gas stations, are decommissioned and become unavailable. Such replacement inertia services are not available from alternative generation sources such as solar and wind due to the different manner that they sychronise with grid networks.The reduction in system inertia, due to the reduction in coal plant input, was said to be the reason for the large scale power cut last year after a lightning strike shutdown an offshore windfarm and a gas fired station.
National Grid ESO need to source alternative inertia services to enable them to meet their net zero carbon emissions target by 2025, by deco.missioning gas plant, which was needed to meet 34% of the total UK electrical demand in 2020.
The Cruachan contract together with four others will provide 12.5GVA seconds of inertia, equivalent to the amount that would have been provided by five coal-fired power station units. The cost of the new inertia services to National Grid ESO over the six year term will be £328m. However, National Grid ESO state that there will be an overall saving of £128m to electricity consumers over the six year period
Another contributor to the new inertia services provision sector is the new £25m Lister Drive Greener Grid Park in Merseyside, being developed by Statkraft and ABB. Two Synchronous Condensers are installed at Lister Drive. Welsh Power, in collaboration with Siemens are building a similar Synchronous Condenser plant at Rassau in Wales, which is expected to be operational later this year.
Meanwhile Uniper, in collaboration with Siemens, have repurposed two of the steam turbine alternators at Killingholme and are building two synchronous condensers at Grain in Kent to provide grid stabilisation services
‘Triton have repurposed two gas turbine alternators at Deeside Power Station to provide grid stability services.’
…
What a mess. Still talking about HOW instead of WHY:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-cop26-green-dream-turning-toxic-alok-sharma-t6rng7cv8?shareToken=7406c5ef1fe95237d67ec7abd9df7ae9
Hi Paul,
I have just completed an essay titled “A heretic’s guide to CAGW” (10 pages, 1.4 MB) in which I derive evidence from NASA sources for the following:
1) CO2 does not promote CAGW even when water vapour feedback is considered
2)The IPCC 5th AR estimate of increased atmospheric absorption assumes an absurdly low humidity.
There are no equations (I’m hopeless at maths) but plenty of graphs & lots of data
Would you be interested to read it, and if appropriate publish it on your website?
Did you catch the news of iron/air batteries this week? The media will tout this as the answer to all our problems but it is not. It is a genuine and massive improvement as a battery to supply power when wind and solar are absent. However in a year like 2021 wsind and solar would not have been able to charge them up for long periods. The answer will be small form commercial fusions plants from Tokomak Energy, coming online in 9 years. ^.^
Paul,
This popped up on my computer this morning:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/london-underground-flooding?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB
“The race to save the Underground from flooding”
Apparently, climate change (of course!!) is threatening to drown the London Underground.
Among other revelations, the article says that a report in 2009 discovered that 72 London Underground and Docklands Light Rail stations are located on floodplains, the majority on the tidal Thames floodplain!!! Wow, that’s a bit of a stunner!
Now I’m no engineer, but if you dig tunnels in a river basin I would assume that it would be usual to take at least some steps to limit or deal with water ingress. The article actually details some of the gear in place – remote monitors, pumps, flood doors etc.
But of course, “scientists” say it is getting worser and worser!!!
Enjoy.
Adrian, Many, many years ago I recall reading that this problem of rising ground water levels in London was actually because with the decline of the old industries no-one was using boreholes to draw out water for commercial use. Going back prior to Victorian times natural groundwater levels in London were high – I am sure that I remember reading that the original fountains in Trafalgar Square were powered by natural artesian action and the water level was naturally close to the surface. During Victorian times and into the 20thC the natural water table in London sank rapidly as all sorts of industrial and other operations sank boreholes and extracted water for industrial and other processes – the Trafalgar Square fountains had to be pumped to work….. Since the 1980s (and with increasing de-industrialisation) the water extraction from boreholes in London has largely ceased and I recall that even in the 1990s there started to be a problem for the foundations of the very deep skyscrapers that the natural water table was rising and starting to cause problems. Don’t know where ‘climate change’ comes into it – except that it’s the lazy ‘go to’ statement everyone uses these days.
I’ve found the report I referred to in the above post – The Environment Agency 9th Annual Report, published 2000, on ‘Rising Groundwater Levels in the Chalk Aquifer Beneath London’. It noted (in the Introduction) that “The rising groundwater levels are the result of a significant reduction in abstraction from the chalk aquifer beneath London since the mid-1960s. Prior to this the Chalk aquifer had been increasingly exploited through the development of groundwater sources during the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. By the time abstraction peaked in the 1960s, groundwater levels below central London had dropped to 98 metres below sea-level…. The subsequent reduction in abstraction has resulted in groundwater levels recovering by as much as 3 metres per year in places…”
It goes onto say that “The consequences of rising groundwater have been discussed in detail in previous reports. The extent to which the ability of buildings and tunnels could be compromised by continuing re-saturation of the Chalk and London Clay has not been quantified, but the potential disruption and damage is such as to merit preventative action”
The report goes onto note that engineers actively had to ‘de-water’ the Chalk for the engineering works to build the Jubilee line and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link..It notes that they are now abstracting water to stop levels in certain areas of london rising further.
There is a graph for a monitoring borehole at Trafalgar Square that shows the water table lay as low as 87 metres below OD in 1968, but by 2000 had risen to only 35 metres below OD.
Absolutely correct. In the 70’s I was involved in the supply and installation of a Canadian groundwater monitoring system ( the Westbay system) to monitor precisely the changes in piezometric pressures as a consequence of the decline in abstraction. The problem is that most of the buildings in London are on friction piles in the London clay. As piezometric pressures rise then the friction decreases, resulting in lower bearing capacity of the piles, hence the need for abstraction.
Thank you for all the technical input, though I must admit to be rather surprised that, given the population of London, such significant reduction in water abstraction has taken place.
So where does the London piped water supply originate?
And is the Underground really doomed because of climate change?
London is mainly supplied with water from the Thames – the bulk from reservoirs west of the city. The groundwater abstraction from boreholes was largely for industrial uses – and with the decline of industry since the mid Century that explains the reduction – most employment is now in service and office jobs, rather than industrial and manufacturing processes that consumed huge amounts of water.
“London is mainly supplied with water from the Thames ”
(Apparently southeast Londoners water has passed through at least 6 people)
East end London & Essex get a lot from the Rivers Lee /Lea & Stort.
Paul, I don’t know whether you came across this in the Telegraph Business section yesterday.
” Financial firms buying up Asian coal plants to shut them down”
Participants include Prudential, Citi, HSBC, and BlackRock Real Assets.
Why, are they being philanthropic? No way they are in it to make money by buying the plants, shutting them down and reaping the carbon credits over what would have been the life of the installation, thus making a bundle.
Who pays for this boondoggle? Why you and I.
More lies from the Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2021/08/06/cheaper-green-energy-wont-cut-bills-decade/M
Readers aren’t fooled. How come our politicians are so gullible? They can’t all be on the gravy train, surely?
In the article there is this graph [image: image.png] I seem to recall reading a piece which actually revealed that a large proportion of “Other Direct Costs” are actually really “Green Transition Costs” but cannot recall exactly where that is?
On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 at 11:04, NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT wrote:
> Ian PRSY commented: “More lies from the Telegraph: > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2021/08/06/cheaper-green-energy-wont-cut-bills-decade/M > Readers aren’t fooled. How come our politicians are so gullible? They can’t > all be on the gravy train, surely?” >
Paul,
More promotion of climate doom from the garbage heads at the “impartial B(LM)BC:
Climate change: Time running out to stop catastrophe – Alok Sharma
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58132939
I thought 2010 was the deadline? Or was it 2015? Or 2020. They just make it up as they go along.
It is truly fascinating the way that charlatans like Sharma throw out unsubstantiated crap and the BBC NEVER challenges. This is also a man you made 30 international trips already this year and of course because he is so important did not have to quarantine like the rest of we proles. Strange how he “had to” travel when the rest of us make do with video conferencing. One rule for the elite, another for the cowering masses.
I am sick and tired of these disingenuous politicians making proclamations which have absolutely no foundation in science. They get away with it because the propaganda promoters NEVER ever challenge them on anything they say and uneducated Joe and Josephine Public ARE susceptible to this.
He is attributing things to climate change ( notice no separation between natural and anthropogenic) because they want you to think it is all anthropogenic and there was no climate change until 50 years ago!
“Mr Sharma – who is leading COP26, the climate summit hosted by the UK this year – said the effects were already clear with floods, fires and heatwaves”. WHERE is the scientific data to support that Mr Sharma? Where?
Those claims totally ignore “weather” and a multiphase El Nino event. It is NOT GOOD ENOUGH that journalists do not pull charlatans like Sharma up.
“I don’t think there’s any other word for it,” he said. “You’re seeing on a daily basis what is happening across the world. Last year was the hottest on record, the last decade the hottest decade on record.”
Oh really? Last year?
Until we have journalists who behave like journalists and not propaganda enablers this BS is going to go on and on. All of these charlatans are given a free ride in the media and oh how it shows!
Regards
Jon Scott
Tip : If you want graphs on UK species number surveys over time
This BTO page gives you them at the touch of a button
They have 12,000 people surveying their gardens every week for about 20 years
https://www.bto.org/our-science/projects/gbw/results/long-term-patterns
I just used it to find hedgehog counts have gone up every year since they started in 2007
There are caveats : #1 it’s a proxy cos it’s just gardens
#2 They’ll be some reporting bias, due to changes
eg the way people get CCTV and put hedge houses in there gardens etc.
Other general data page
https://www.bto.org/our-science/data
I was checking Packham’s wild claim that hedgehog numbers are down
And I saw that charities avoid publishing counts from the last decade
they stick with older counts that did show a decline
but even they don’t use the 1950s guys estimate of 30 million
Probably cos they know it was a truly massive over-estimate.
Paul this page is very long
I use a trick , when you view it through WordPress reader it only shows you new comments, not the full page
The address is https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/27436983/posts/2
Will it fold itself over to become /posts/3 ?
If not you might want to do it manually
Great! Thanks, Stew. Bookmarked for future use.
It’s also much quicker than I’m used to. Bonus point
This is interesting. On a day when we learn we’re all going to burn, I read this in the supporting document for a housing planning application?
“In accordance with our fabric first approach and high levels of energy efficiency the scheme does not propose any specific renewable energy technologies as this will impact on the overall viability of the scheme.”
They’ve clearly not had the memo. The planning meeting should be interesting.
This reads like a win:win (but not in the Scillies!):
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/08/11/lithium-found-cornwall/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
Deluded, or auditioning for a place on the gravy train?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/11/government-right-pursue-net-zero-truly-tory-ambition/
My heart bleeds
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/08/13/worlds-largest-offshore-wind-developer-warns-low-wind-speeds/
Paul,
The BBC relentless psychological war in support of their political agenda
Will I ever be able to fly without feeling guilty again?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57917193
The fail and fail by browbeating people with their anti-science so they go for emotional blackmail instead. This odious cabal think nothing of promoting the mental abuse of children so why are we surprised when their focus shifts onto you?
Regards
Jon Scott
Nigel Farage did a piece on GBNews during the week, quoting Prince Charles and others 30 years ago, when they were predicting world’s end in the 90s. This is one repeat that bears showing daily all the way up to COP26.
Just seen Paul’s report on Prince Charles to speak there. It’ll be interesting to see how he gets there.
Just spotted this Paul…
Wind turbine noise ‘can be heard five times more often at night’
17/08/2021 Flinders University
Wind turbine night noise
Study finds ‘swoosh’ sound a possible concern
With wind generation one of the fastest-growing renewable energy sectors in the world, Flinders University experts are using machine learning and other signal processing techniques to characterise annoying noise features from wind farms.
Two new publications from the ongoing Wind Farm Noise Study take another step towards improving wind turbine noise assessment methods, guidelines and wind turbine design to make wind energy more acceptable to surrounding communities.
The new studies find that night-time ‘swoosh’ sound – technical referred to as ‘amplitude modulation’ (AM) – from wind turbines is likely to be heard by neighbouring residents up to five times more often than during day-light hours, depending on wind direction, season and wind farm distance.
For the first time, the research led by Flinders University PhD candidate Duc Phuc (‘Phuc’) Nguyen and acoustic expert Dr Kristy Hansen has combined long-term monitoring of wind farm noise with machine learning and available knowledge to quantify and characterise AM in wind turbine noise.
“We found that the amount of amplitude modulation present during the daytime versus night-time varies substantially occurring two to five times more often during the night-time compared to the daytime,” says Mr Nguyen.
“The noise seems to worsen after sunset when amplitude modulation can be detected for up to 60% of the night-time at distances around 1 km from a wind farm.
“At greater than 3 km, amplitude modulation also occurs for up to 30% of the night-time.”
The Wind Farm Noise Study, based at the Adelaide Institute for Sleep health at Flinders University, is investigating noise characteristics and sleep disturbances at residences located near wind farms. The association between wind turbine noise and adverse effects on humans is an ongoing debate.
Dr Hansen says the directional nature of wind turbine noise means residents living in downwind and crosswind conditions are likely to be more disturbed by wind turbines.
“We found that AM occurs most often during these wind directions,” she says. “Using these recent advances in machine learning, we have been able to develop an AM detection method that has a predictive power close to the practical limit set by a human listener”.
“This includes the noise that increases and decreases as the blades rotate, or AM, including a ‘swoosh’ sound, which further contributes to the negative effects of wind turbine noise.
“These studies advance our ability to measure and monitor the noise from wind turbines that is likely to be more annoying that other noise types at the same level.”
One paper, Long-term quantification and characterisation of wind farm noise amplitude modulation (2021), by Phuc D Nguyen, Kristy L Hansen, Peter Catcheside, Colin H Hansen and Branko Zajamsek has been published in Measurement DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2021.109678
And Benchmark characterisation and automated detection of wind farm noise amplitude modulation (2021) by PD Nguyen, KL Hansen, B Lechat, P Catcheside, B Zajamsek and CH Hansen, has been published inApplied Acoustics(Elsevier) DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2021.108286
Acknowledgements: The studies were funded by the Australian Government NHMRC (project grant 1113571) and Australian Research Council grants DP120102185 and DE180100022.
17/08/2021 Flinders University
Oh dear:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/08/18/hydrogen-lobby-boss-quits-row-fossil-fuels/
An interesting tussle in comments.
Letter to The Economist 2nd August 2021
Your briefing on the threat of a three-degree world (24th July)
focuses on the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from the
combustion of fossil fuels. This is inevitable; no other source of
global warming has been considered since the formation of the
International Panel on Climate Change in 1988. Its Chairman for the
next ten years was a quiet-spoken Swedish meteorologist who had been
in the thick of the earlier meetings, Dr Bert Bolin (1925 to 2007).
His outlook was dictated by his reverence for Svante Arrhenius, the
Swedish originator of physical chemistry who had shown in the 1890s
that carbon dioxide emissions could cause significant atmospheric
warming.
When you burn a fossil fuel three products are emitted, carbon
dioxide, water vapour and heat. All three warm the environment, but
the last is the greatest contributor. Overall, the efficiency of the
transformation from heat to power is no greater than 50% and it is a
simple calculation to show that this waste heat – entropy – would have
warmed the atmosphere up by at least as much the indirect warming from
the greenhouse gases.
Solar and wind power cause no entropic warming so we are doing the
right thing, but for the wrong reason. About 5% of the electric power
we generate is used for illumination, and the NASA images of our
light-spangled planet at night drive home this point.
John Hollaway
Bletchley
Hi Paul,
Latest madness from the Welsh “Government”, as uncritically reported by the lickspittle media here..
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/climate-change-wales-gas-boilers-21344951
Covid: CO2 monitors pledged to aid school ventilation
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-58285359
This is a completely unnecessary expenditure. Ventilation regulations have existed for years for public buildings and are part of their design and yes that also means schools. The local council public works engineers can use portable monitors which they no doubt already have without need to throw a whole bunch of money at this.
I can see what is coming next because of course the CO2 level is going to be way above 410ppm as each child exhales 40,000ppm. Next there will be consternation and .lots of unsubstantiated hysteria over “harm” caused by too much CO2 ( completely forgetting all about COVID) as has been well documented.
The American Navy tries to keep the level of CO2 in the atmosphere in their nuclear subs below 4000ppm or 5000ppm not because of danger if that number is exceeded but just as an easy and arbitrary number to keep to. I can see the hysteria coming from this with the claims already being made by activists about “harm” and mental impairment caused by silly concentrations of 500-600ppm
Paul, You may catch up with the latest scare news that has been reported about rain falling on Greenland’s summit. Science Alert https://www.sciencealert.com/it-rained-on-greenland-s-summit-for-the-first-time-in-recorded-history?fbclid=IwAR2ydLP0A6p9E-hvc5uqtwoAa8u5q5OuFxRcGekRzi1MWKkYMCvEHcothJQ has the headline ‘It Just Rained on Greenland’s Summit for the First Time in Recorded History’. Interesting but the choice of the phrase ‘recorded history’ is deliberately alarmist. As I read it record-keeping only began in 2008, so it’s probably a station that tends to break ‘records’ often because it has been operational for a relatively short time, so we don’t know what happened in the past – notably back in the 1920s-1940s when (at least parts of) Greenland were pretty much as warm as or warmer than today. Other interesting ‘records’ at this station include 6 July 2017 when it recorded the lowest temperature ‘ever’ recorded in the Northern Hemisphere in July at -33C… but I think that just means we haven’t monitored an ice cap for very long rather than telling us about change!
Wow – £4m returned to the taxpayer! Sounds great till you consider what’s gone the other way – £6.2bill.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/08/22/wind-farms-pay-millions-back-government/
Might be of interest
Gavin Newson secures 5 gas generators to make up the shortfall in green power
https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/california-adding-5-temporary-natural-gas-power-plants-to-help-alleviate-energy-shortage/
I heard last night that this guy may be a nominee for President in 3 years time, thanks to the uselessness of the current incumbent and his deputy. I wonder if his green credentials will help or hinder.
My council is starting to get moving on its Zero40/45 policy and has recently presented a jargon-loaded paper for approval, including a version of this:
I don’t know whether their version will be interactive, like the original, but you can bet it’ll cost, via soon-to-be-appointed consultants, and achieve nothing. That said, they claim Cornwall Council’s done great things with it. ANybody on here from Cornwall who’s noticed any improvement?
Paul, do you have any info on the capacity of the three ingnirchworth turbine sites, please?
This is the main array, though i’m not sure if it covers the lot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royd_Moor_Wind_Farm
I often go cycling past them!!
That’s Emley Moor in the background.
Many thanks Paul. This looks like the original installation of 13. The reason I ask is that our council claims that 75mWh of electricity is produced from wind power to provide energy across the borough. I’m trying to establish what they include. They also claim that as of the start of the 2021-22 financial year, BMBC procures 100% renewable electricity. I’m going to ask them where they get this from and whether it’s a smoke and mirrors job with offsets, etc.
Are you sitting comfortably? Here are two fairy stories:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/08/24/maersk-goes-green-methanol-powered-container-ships/
“Maersk’s new carbon neutral ships, which cost about $175m (£128m) each, will run on green methanol made by combining sustainably produced hydrogen and carbon dioxide captured from renewable sources.
“Running on this fuel would cut carbon emissions by about 1m tonnes a year.
“However, the “dual fuel” option, which increases the cost of each ship by between 10pc and 15pc, means they can also run on conventional low sulphur fuel.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/08/24/hybrid-passenger-plane-makes-landmark-test-flight-exeter-newquay/
Why?
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
https://thegwpf.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=78d239dc42&e=6384b6057a
You’ll have seen this, Paul:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/08/25/boris-right-britain-has-beautiful-competitive-advantage-blue/
Lots of claims to knock back.
Some people haven’t had the memo yet:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/08/26/qantas-put-a380s-back-air/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/08/25/gatwick-plans-extra-runway-smart-motorway-scheme/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
Paul
Dr Vernon Coleman absolutely kills it!
https://vernoncoleman.org/videos/global-warming-fraud-behind-covid-fraud
WHAT WOULD EARTH BE LIKE WITHOUT GREEN HOUSE GASES?
A commonly cited claim is that without the impact of greenhouse gases Earth would be 33C colder than it is. This is derived by applying the Stefan Boltzmann law to the current average received energy of 238 watts/sq. How realistic is this claim?
Earth’s atmosphere generates mechanical energy. It raises water to high altitudes powering hydroelectric generators, while wind can blow down trees and buildings, raise waves and drive wind turbines. So, where does this energy come from? Clearly from absorbed solar energy. That means earth’s surface and atmosphere is converting thermal energy into mechanical energy, the definition of a classic heat engine. Heat engines are very well understood, the laws defining their operation were first described by Sadi Carnot (1796-1832). A working fluid, in this case the atmosphere, cycles between a hot junction where heat is injected into the working fluid and a separate cold junction where heat is lost from the working fluid and leaves the system. The difference between the heat absorbed and the heat lost is converted to mechanical work. Of prime importance is that 100% efficiency in converting thermal energy to mechanical energy is not possible. A heat engine must discard some of the input energy as waste heat. The maximum efficiency possible is the carnot efficiency defined as
Efficiency = (Thot – Tcold) / Thot
Where Thot = the temperature of the hot junction
Tcold = the temperature of the cold junction
Normally the hot junction is the hottest point in the system and the cold junction is the coldest point in the system.
In the case of earth, the energy injected comes from the sun and the only way energy can be lost is by radiation to space. The hot junction is clearly Earth’s surface and especially the surface in the tropics but where is the cold junction? There are 2 candidates, the first is the top of the rising column of air, (top of the troposphere called the tropopause) and the second is the poles. However, the working fluid has to cycle between the hot and cold junction and for two reasons the atmosphere rising at the equator cannot get to the poles. Firstly, because air rising at the equator is moving at the speed of earth’s surface at the equator, 1600 km/hour. But because Earth is a sphere, as one moves away from the equator the surface speed decreases. The further the rising air tries to move towards the poles the greater the speed difference between it and the surface and this speed difference results in a force pushing the air back towards the equator. It is why we do not have an equator to pole circulation but instead 3 coupled circulations – the Hadley cell, the Ferrel cell and the Polar cell.
The second reason is that even if the equatorial air could get to the pole it would have to descend to transfer heat energy to the surface which can radiate it away to space, but in order to descend it must first cool (ie: lose energy) otherwise it would be descending against a temperature inversion. But without GHG’s it has no way of cooling ie: a catch 22 situation. The cold junction of our climate heat engine is the tropopause not the poles.
That means heat energy must be leaving the atmosphere to space at this point and that is only possible by radiation. However, by definition, a gas capable of radiating thermal infrared radiation is a greenhouse gas. If there are no greenhouse gases, the tropopause cannot radiate energy so a necessary requirement for a heat engine is not met. In practical terms, the rising air cannot cool so it cannot lose energy which it needs to do in order to descend again. Thus convection stops and the lapse rate disappears. With time the entire atmosphere ends up at a uniform temperature. Without the air movement caused by convection there would be no wind. Water vapour also cannot condense because condensation requires losing energy and without greenhouse gases there is no way for it to do so, hence no clouds would form. Without condensation the entire atmosphere would become saturated with respect to water vapour and then net evaporation would also stop. In short, there would be no weather, no clouds, no wind, no rain. A completely static vertically isothermal atmosphere. The temperature would vary with latitude according to the solar energy absorbed by the surface at that latitude. Given a near transparent atmosphere Earth’s albedo would be close to the surface reflectivity. For oceans that is cited as 0.06 and bare earth is probably best compared to lunar albedo of 0.12 so maybe an average of 0.08. The clear sky albedo of Earth is cited as 0.15 but that includes a significant contribution from the atmosphere especially atmospheric dust. Without convection no dust would be raised and what was in the atmosphere would settle out.
In near Earth space the solar energy intensity is 1370 watts/sqM. For the Earth as a whole the average solar energy at the surface is 1370/4 * (1- albedo) which, with an albedo of 0.08, equals 315 watts/sqM. That translates to a Stefan Boltzmann temperature of 0C (273K). However, this is misleading, without wind and the impact of evaporating water, the surface can heat up extremely fast; think of how fast sand at the beach or a dry concrete path heats up in summer (typically well under 1 hour). The peak energy at noon in the tropics would be around 1370*(1-albedo) = 1260 watts/sqM yielding a Stefan Boltzmann temperature of 113C while at night, because the surface can radiate freely to space while receiving no energy from the sun, the temperature would be far below freezing. The situation would be similar to the surface of the moon which reaches 127C during the “day” and minus 173C during the “night”. Although because the lunar day/night is longer than Earth’s (28 days vs 1 day) the result would not be quite as extreme.
Energy transfer between surface and atmosphere is rapid when the surface is warmer (after all that is what drives convection) but, without a convective cycle, in a static atmosphere energy transfer when the surface is colder is only by conduction which is extremely slow. As a result the atmosphere would end up at an equilibrium temperature far closer to the noon surface temperature than the average temperature!
Away from the equator the temperature would not be quite as extreme but consider Melbourne at latitude 37 south. At noon in December the sun is at an angle of 14.5 degrees from vertical giving an energy input of 1370*cos(14.5)*(1-albedo) = 1225 watts and a surface temperature of 110C. At noon in June the angle is 60.5 degrees giving an energy input of 1370*cos(60.5)*(1-albedo) = 619 watts and a noon surface temperature of 50C. The temperature inside a closed car in summer, which heats up because convection and evaporation is prevented, can and alas too often does kill children in minutes. This is not conjecture or modelling it is sadly proven fact which is why there are laws making it a criminal offence to leave children in closed cars. Without convection and evaporation, the entire environment at that latitude would be in the same position as a closed car.
Without greenhouse gases the earth would not simply be 33C colder. The day night temperature variation would be extreme, both far hotter and far colder. Both the heat during the day and the cold at night would be incompatible with life on land. Greenhouse gases greatly reduce these temperature variations. This is of course in addition to bringing rain, wind and weather to our planet.
Unless there is a point where the impact of GHG’s reverses this trend of making climate more equitable, one would have to postulate that an increase in CO2 will simply make Earth’s climate even more equitable. If there is a point of reversal (a point of inflection) where is it, which side of it are we on at present and why would it exist?
Much as I would like to be able to agree with this paper (since it does not agree with the current climate change mantra), it is worthless.
Human scientific knowledge will not enable prediction until it includes a COMPLETE understanding of the climate and how it works.
Scientists still can not label every factor affecting our climate let alone exactly HOW each factor has its effect.
This paper ignores accepted science such as the ice core records in which warming never follows rising levels of CO2.
It ignores Milankovitch cycles during which climate change is unrelated to solar radiation.
It ignores the work of Svensmark on the effect of cosmic rays.
Even the august IPCC admits that it does not understand the effects of water vapour.
More electric cars = more congestion because so cheap! Twisted logic.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/08/31/motorists-should-changed-per-mile-counter-electric-vehicle-traffic/
Paul, someone taking your content and republishing it
Last spring I opted for a 1 year energy deal with Scottish Power, the best I could get at the time. I’ve just had an email from them offering an electric vehicle charger (£899 – £350 or £350+250 in Scotland) and a link to time-of-day tariffs. I duly logged in but found nothing specific to Evs, probably because I don’t have a smart meter.
What I was offered was truly shocking. For a similar one year deal to the one I’m on:
Gas – 5.54p/unit (currently 2.65p) standing charge 34.32p/day (currently 21.4p)
Electricity – 22.09p/unit (currently 14.2p), standing charge 36.68p/day (currently 23p)
This has the effect of doubling the cost of energy. In my case it’s not likely to result in a reduction in use, but for people already struggling, not a happy prospect.
I can understand an uplift in rate to reflect the self-imposed increase in cost of oil and gas, but why should the standing charge rise so much, if at all? A futile exercise I know, but I’m going to ask.
Paul,
For my sins I am a solicitor – this is some of the green drivel that now regularly appears in the Law Society Gazette. When it comes to climate my fellow professionals’ much vaunted analytical skills all evaporate..
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news-focus/in-focus-should-city-firms-cut-the-polluters-loose/5109675.article
More good news from HIghways England:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/revolutionary-resurfacing-on-the-a1-in-northumberland?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_source=43d17974-3f1d-415d-b366-277eef9555e7&utm_content=daily
Of course, graphene is a form of carbon and a quick look at hw it’s made suggests it’s not going to be cheap or undemanding of energy. Whilst extolling the qualities of graphene, authors of the article don’t get round to that.
Meanwhile, on Planet Ambrose:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/09/09/cumbrian-coal-mine-careless-diplomacy-economic-idiocy/
It’s starting:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/09/09/ireland-freezes-power-exports-uk-energy-costs-rocket-tenfold/
A little off the beaten track:
200 Organizations Ask Gates Foundation to Stop Funding ‘Failed’ Green Revolution
“Like many philanthropic givers, the [Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation] looks for quick, tangible returns on investment, and thus favors targeted, technological solutions.”
It seems there’s a long overdue movement to stop plundering of national assets by ‘green philanthropy’ organisations using the concept of philanthropy as cover to make massive profits.
I particularly like this passage:
“Like many philanthropic givers, the [Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation] looks for quick, tangible returns on investment, and thus favors targeted, technological solutions.”
Forgive me if this seems naive, but philanthropy used to mean giving to the needy, by the wealthy, with no profit motive didn’t it?
It’s a bit like the philanthropic Gates ‘giving’ to global vaccination campaigns having publicly stated they are the most profitable investments he’s ever seen.
I’ve long though Gates was quite mad, but we all must be madder when he makes these statements and we all go Ho Hum, must be nice to be wealthy.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/gates-foundation-stop-funding-failed-green-ag-revolution/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=cacc2aea-c217-47d5-9690-c74c60dd8146
Damn WordPress, It’s HotScot, not Informed Consumer!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HotScot!!!!!!!!!
It’s worse than we thought!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9975653/Melting-ice-trigger-underwater-landslides-spark-tsunamis-UK-expert-warns.html
More wishful thinking and conflicting arguments:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/09/11/power-struggle-europe-uk-grid-struggles-keep-lights/
Some highlights:
““Interconnectors are some of the largest plants that can trip,” he said. “It causes a large drop or rise depending on the direction in which power was flowing. We have seen a number of excursions outside the operational limits of frequency because of interconnectors.””
So let’s build some more!
“It is among a growing number of giant underground power cables – known as interconnectors – between Britain and continental Europe … Officials on both sides are counting on such cables to play a key role in the energy system as the industry shifts towards renewables, helping to smooth out gaps in supply and demand from intermittent wind and solar power.”
“Electricity prices between interconnecting markets do tend to converge and, currently, British power is typically more expensive than in Europe partly due to top-up prices on carbon in Britain. Cornwall Insight points to studies suggesting the North Sea Link between Britain and Norway will raise Norwegian power prices by between £1.7 – £2.1 per MWh, while reducing prices in Britain.”
“Many argue the chaos highlights the need for more flexibility in the system to help smooth out renewable energy supply and spiking gas prices. This can be provided by interconnectors and other sources such as car batteries plugged into the grid, storage batteries, hydropower and hydrogen.”
“Britain struggles the most when wind generation is low. It tends to be the case that if wind is low in Britain it’s also low in the rest of Europe.”
Paul,
The BBC never miss a chance to push their climate porn. Any comment no matter how absurd will be reprinted by the faithful propagandists in the BBC if it is on the idiot side of the discussion.
Now we have klimut experts in the TUC!
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58538887
“Climate chaos is here already”!
What exactly does this scientifically challenged B class fool with political ambitions mean? What is the definition of climate chaos I wonder. Will we ever be told?
Just one more self aggrandizing idiot indulging in klimut language inflation. I suppose the scientifically challenged fool means individual weather events of any kind regardless of the data.
Interesting the trend on Wiki et al is to tell us where people were educated but not what in. I would have thought the latter would matter more than the former in their marxist utopia!. She says that klimut cheynge represents dangers to “workers” but as usual does not elaborate. I find it so peculiar to listen to such B class political wannabees promoting the fear of dangers to one group of people as if they are somehow the focus of the non existent threat. No mention of course what those “dangers” may be.
I am smiling while I write this because climate IS chaotic. Tis fool may not be aware but the atmosphere is a strong brownian motion producer but I doubt that is understood by this political wannabe!
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul,
Climate Change – It’s the internets fault.
https://www.academia.edu/46194719/Climate_disinformation_adverts_real_world_indicators_of_an_online_problem?email_work_card=view-paper
Excellent take-down of the government’s climate policy in John Constable’s evidence to a Lords committee (via GWPF newsletter):
https://thegwpf.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=f9024cca1b&e=6384b6057a
I’m going to look for the transcript to savour and save.
It looks as if the France-UK Interconnector could be down until March 2022 due to a fire on our side. Should be front page news when up to 2GW capacity into our creaky grid goes AWOL overnight…
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-9994891/Energy-bills-soar-fire-shuts-France-UK-power-cable.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1491467/National-Grid-fire-Ashford-Kent-latest-fire-engines-water-pressure-disruption-update
Gas prices rise ‘cos they can… Any excuse will do!
Not a battery fire, I hope!
Paul, you might like to take a look at this story , if you haven’t already seen it.
Anyone have the means to review this apparently new release?
https://www.videoproject.org/once-you-know.html
It was released in March apparently
..already been shown in festivals etc
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9430820/
Paul
A very good review sent to me by one of my troubled American friends.
What is incredible is the total banality and submissiveness to state sponsored coercion of the Norwegian electorate. I have lived there for 30 years and I just cannot get over the automatons they have become. The number of times I want to shake them say wake the F up! They “believe” government…end of…..There is no right of centre politics…. they had them all shot at the end of WWII. Their “right” Hoyre party are just slightly less left than the rest of the marxist/leninist/Maoist rabble which is the freakshow which passes for political parties in Norway today all fighting battles which were won 50 or more years ago but for them it is a job ( or is it a racket) so they persist..
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/09/gretas-chumps-bruce-bawer/
Cheers
Jon Scott
Paul,
yet another journalist to join the ranks of the BBC’s Harrabin et al. A quite unbelievable article in the spectator from this no nothing journalist who doesn’t recognise that converting a 3 bedroom house to NetZero standards will cost between £75,000 and £100,000 for the householder.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-gas-crisis-shows-how-important-net-zero-is
Commenters put him straight in a big way!
Paul you get almost a similar set of ITV BBC local news as us in Scunthorpe
Tonight both ran long anti-Rathin oil field items again
Both preceded that with dreams about solar
namely the Army Solar panel field got long items
and the BBC preceded that with another solar item
The BBC anti-oilfield item included a Yorkshire Greta
====
Tonight the local BBC put up 6 tweets with videos promoting these items
Local ITV posted 2 plus a third tweet promoting a WWF thing
Detailed in my 3 posts here
More rubbish to cope with. Funny post in comments about shortage of plumbers:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/09/30/households-gas-pay-proposal-switch-green-energy-surcharge-electricity/
It gets worse:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/02/village-homeowners-may-have-gas-forcibly-cut-refuse-take-part/
Paul,
How Screwed is mainstream science?
You have to see it to believe it:
“Research on coastal atmospheric change and Latin dance performance based on target detection method”.
Hmmmmmmm……..Latin dance performance?
Scientific fraud on an industrial scale, not my words, the words of the author.
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/10/03/436-randomly-generated-peer-reviewed-papers-published-by-springer-nature/
Hi Paul
Perusing the Canadian blogger Donna Laframboise web site BigPicNews.Com I read a piece about biased fact checkers who were criticising a recent book on climate change by a Steven Koonin. The 11 fact checkers, commenting on the subject of rising sea levels, were mostly professors or high level representatives of prominent American universities or institutions.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/wall-street-journal-article-repeats-multiple-incorrect-and-misleading-claims-made-in-steven-koonins-new-book-unsettled-steven-koonin/
Several of them make exactly the opposite assertions that you make and make statements in various contexts about the accelerating rates of sea level rises in various recent periods. Are they incompetent scientists? (in my own opinion, quite possible); duplicitous activists, (also possible), but how can they make these assertions, when climate change sceptics say as one that the data show sea level rise is exactly the same constant rate of 2 – 3mm per year that it has been for decades?
What is your take on this?
Orde Solomons B.Sc. (Physics 1976)
Paul,
The ultimate perversion of truth by none other than the BBC!
“What climate scientists can teach us about dealing with climate change doom”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58756143
Asking the very people who have manufactured this fraud how they deal with the “stress and anxiety ” resulting from their own fairy stories. Are the BBC serious?
You just cannot make this stuff up and the BBC are wilfully implicated in this BS, the irony of which they cannot see, just promoting it and indeed ANY form of climate porn which promotes the leftist agenda.
1. This is an invented problem
2. There exists no statistically significant empirical data of any kind which supports the insane anti physics and geological history claim that CO2 returned to the Carbon Cycle by the actions of man during the past 100 years is in any measurable way responsible for all or part of the current welcome warming of the planet, the fourth such warming in recent human history which began 350 years ago, heralding the end of the Little Ice Age
3. The biased mainstream media including the BBC’s with their unbalanced and almost completely uncorroborated alarmist rhetoric (except by other climate alarmists) IS the cause, the nothing else……because there is nothing tangible to see. It is only because they report incessantly the doom laden BS and kids are picking it up from them and their ilk that they are full of doom and despair, nothing else!
It is not as if the kids in the UK and the rest of the Anglosphere are experiencing any adverse issues regarding the climate indeed, throughout the whole of human existence, they never had it so good!
The shear arrogance of those in the BBC just goes on and on to new levels.
Regards
Jon Scott
It appears the Tories aren’t all singing the same tune (yet)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/05/hydrogen-boiler-revolution-pretty-much-impossible-says-minister/
More smoke and mirrors from the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-fuel-industry-subsidies-of-11m-dollars-a-minute-imf-finds
From the above:
Proper pricing for fossil fuels would cut emissions by, for example, encouraging electricity generators to switch from coal to renewable energy and making electric cars an even cheaper option for motorists. International cooperation is important, Parry said, to allay fears that countries could lose competitiveness if their fossil fuel prices were higher.
What he means is that the cost of non-electric cars will rise. A bit like my council, who are selling ASHP heating as competitive once gas prices increase. You couldn’t make it up.
He uses the word “proper” to mean biased! What planet do these people live on, which ever one it is they should maybe go back there sharpish!
Is there any consideration to someone “taking over” the iceagenow website? I sadly only saw today that Robert Felix passed away on your blog. I will miss it, please feel free to email me should you want to discuss. Thank you
Hi Paul It seems that in previous warming phases the poles warm quite a bit more than the tropics and this is happening this time too.
Given that the latest IPCC report states that the best estimate of warming since 1850 is 1.07 C are their any reliable sources that give an estimate of the latitude dependency of warming? Unfortunately the current models are only agitated to provide a fairly crude average global warming with large spreads. Understanding latitude dependency may be important as there are numerable scare stories about the tropics becoming uninhabitable which are very hard to believe
Paul,
I expect you have seen this at a time when they have no idea where to take enough gas from:
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-regulator-rejects-shells-plans-develop-jackdaw-gasfield-sources-2021-10-06/?mc_cid=edba6d296e&mc_eid=6e6c09ffcb
Forget our Conservative government eclipsing the Monster Raving Loony party, They are now the wilful asininity party. However this is not only asinine but verging on criminal
This is what the GWPF had to say:
https://www.thegwpf.com/government-refusal-of-north-sea-natural-gas-field-is-irrational/
I shake my head and to think I also voted for them.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Apparently, one of the reasons for the fuel shortage was the need to run down tanks for the switch to E10. Perfect timing.
The airline industry had a meeting this week:
“Almost 1,000 airline delegates had descended on the Massachusetts capital the day before, flying from all corners for the world’s annual aviation jamboree.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/09/airlines-plot-flightpath-net-zero-wake-pandemic-turbulence/
Not a lot on saving the planet but there was this interesting graphic:
Sorry – full details won’t save. Try the article.
Carrying a cross on a pilgrimage to Calvary?
The latest climate religious absurdity of course trumpeted by the ever so reliably impartial BBC
Climate change: Artist carrying polar bear to COP26 to encourage talking
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-shropshire-58857018
Notice the marxist extinction rebellion symbol on the polar bear’s chest!
Firstly, does he not read the news that his “symbol” the Polar Bear is in rude health? Secondly this is a purely religions act this buffoon is conducting. Does he also not see the absurdity of that? As usual none of this is about anything real, it is all about emotion and belief.
Paul,
The BBC are excelling themselves today
Biodiversity loss risks ‘ecological meltdown’ – scientists
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58859105
Oh those “scientists”, the BBC does love to quote authority figures when promoting climate porn.
Notice how they only mention climate change and totally ignore the 27% increase in the world population during the last 20 years alone. Also the UK population in my life time has gone from around 40 million to more than 70 million and that is not considered as an effect?
They want you to believe that it is “all because of climate change”
Strangely in their porn piece they quote from the IUCN website what seem to be global figures not UK figures without pointing that out. Also the figures they quote are at odds with those on the site as is their claim of ONE IN FOUR which is a gross rounding up of the numbers.
I have just had a scan though the IUCN website and I can see they seem to do no original work but have a lot of workshops and checking eachother sessions but specifically what hard empirical data they use I did not find a reference to at all. Notice that this is all about “threat level”. I saw no set of actual extinctions which had been monitored and the cause analysed. It is just more “science” from the “could” and “maybe” brigade that we are so very used to from the climate subsidy farmers. I also saw no statement or acknowledgement of the fact that extinction is a NATURAL part of evolution so it appears that they jump to the absurd conclusion from the get go that every population demise is because of man without showing how they reach that conclusion.
https://www.iucnredlist.org/
Regards
Jon Scott
Whitewash 2#?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/10/this-is-a-story-that-needs-to-be-told-bbc-film-tackles-climategate-scandal
The next big thing?
I see mention of the cost of putting stuff into space coming down to $2000/kg. The installation would weigh 2000te, so that’s a big cost already, before the cost of the kit and ground-based receiving tackle. Still, “only” £50/MWh.
Commenters generally sceptical.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/10/10/orbiting-solar-farms-not-out-of-this-world-think/
Paul, missing pages ?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/09/19/record-power-prices-blackouts-hit-germany/
No longer there
And I’d expect a few other pages to be from around Sept 20th
but the list jumps to the 23rd
The Canaries volcano eruption live feed:
Large amounts of SO2 and CO2. Numbers of other stats along the strap line at the bottom of the picture but not all that clear on my viewer.
CO2 emissions 1884t/day.
Paul,
Off topic but given the total worthlessness of so much that is now promoted as science in the realm of climate subsidy farming I think the BBC just reached a new low.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58795079
Some garbage is not worthy of comment. This was entitled “Black experts say” what ever a black expert is. As usual for the progressive attack on the sciences it is paradoxically all about feelings not facts but that does not stop the BBC propaganda arm of anything anti establishment from blowing the trumpet any time they can.
Comment in Telegraph Letters today:
S Wilson
14 Oct 2021 9:44AM
I have just been sent a message:
All the COP26 delegates are staying at 5* Gleneagles. 20 electric Teslas at £100k a pop have been purchased. Gleneagles has only one charging station.
Malcolm Plant has been contracted to supply diesel generators to charge up all the cars!
Somebody followed up with this:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/cop26-world-leaders-electric-cars-could-be-powered-up-by-vegetable-oil-fed-generators-because-of-charger-shortage-3412247
Crisis? What crisis?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/inside-uks-waterfront-property-boom-get/
Just found this link on my local council’s “sustainability” site. No wonder kids can’t sleep:
https://www.facebook.com/climatescienceinfo/
More Unicorn Dust:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/17/world-energy-watchdog-guides-us-painless-net-zero/
It contains gems like this:
The shibboleths of the old energy order fall away. The International Energy Agency has systematically struck down every economic and social objection to net zero.
A decarbonisation dash will instead accelerate economic growth, lifting global GDP by an extra 0.4pc annually over the next decade. The 5m jobs lost in oil, gas, and coal will be trumped by up to 24m green jobs, and three-quarters of these will be local.
It will lower the average household cost of electricity, heating, cooling, and transport fuel from $2,800 to $2,300 a year by 2030 in wealthier countries, with gradual gains to follow as the energy share of disposable income falls from 4pc to 2pc by mid-century. Energy bills in the developing world will creep up, but that is because of rising affluence.
Net zero does not cause energy poverty: it is the answer, …
The latest solar park tender at Saudi Arabia’s Al Shuaiba PV Project came in at $10.40 per megawatt hour, tantamount to free power.
Marco Alvera from the Italian infrastructure group SNAM thinks green hydrogen from Sahara solar will reach the critical level of $2 per kilo (Washington is aiming for $1 by 2030), at which point he plans mass production on the spot for shipment through existing pipelines to Europe at costs that undercut natural gas.
Commenters aren’t so easily brainwashed.
It’s not all sweetness and light, though, in this piece in WUWT:
Bloomberg notes:
“The next several decades could see more periods of energy-driven inflation, fuel shortages and lost economic growth as electricity supplies are left vulnerable to shocks.. . . . The world is living through the first major energy crisis of the clean-power transition. It won’t be the last. . . . Wind and solar power production have soared in the last decade. But both renewable sources are notoriously fickle — available at some times and not at others. And electricity, unlike gas or coal, is difficult to store in meaningful quantities. That’s a problem, because on the electrical grid, supply and demand must be constantly, perfectly balanced. Throw that balance out of whack, and blackouts result.”
They can’t both be right, surely?
In the meantime, this poor, deluded writer is stressed out in the Spectator:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/having-a-child-is-the-grandest-act-of-climate-destruction
“… I’m not alone. A large American study found that some 60 per cent of 27- to 45-year-olds reported concerns about children contributing to climate change. But almost all — 97 per cent — were concerned about what would await those children in a world devastated by climate change. The same study found that 6 per cent of parents confessed to feeling remorse about having had children. One 40-year-old mother said she regretted having her kids ‘because I am terrified that they will be facing the end of the world due to climate change’.”
He’s worried that “… not having a child, in the developed world at least, saves 59 tonnes (tCO2e) emission reductions per year.”
He’s about overpopulation but hasn’t made the connection between lack of development and birth rate.
Ian, notice this disease of the mind is a purely Western and specifically an issue found in English Speaking Countries.
meanwhile, the rest of the world and in particular the third world is breeding like there is no tomorrow.
There has been a 27% increase in the world population during only the last 20 years since the Millennium.
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
What this brainwashed fool is talking about is just one more aspect of the dark marxism which essentially wants Western Civilization and along with it Caucasians to disappear and they cannot make it happen quickly enough.
I agree entirely, but when the concern is, in effect, sanctioned by government policy, it’s hard to counter.
https://www.focustransport.org/2021/10/freightliner-moves-from-electric-to.html
Paul,
Climate change: Fossil fuel production set to soar over next decade
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58971131
This document is dripping with the shear cost of a myriad of people doing non jobs. The shear cost of all those people is shocking. Even worse, take a look at this from their glossary to show you how unscientific and corrupt this whole circus is:
“Greenhouse gases (GHGs)
Atmospheric gases that absorb and emit infrared radiation,
trap heat, contribute to the greenhouse effect, and cause
global warming. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), as well as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur
hexafluoride (SF6)”.
WHAT HAPPENED TO WATER VAPOUR??????????????????????????????
CO2 IS NOT the principle theorised greenhouse gas by (theoretical, not proven) effect, WATER VAPOUR is! yet water vapour is not even included in the list. That is sleight of hand on a shocking scale.
Actually McGrath copies this style by excluding China and India.
As an aside. What people promise is meaningless Fantasy Island stuff. Surely the acid test is what they have ACTALLY done as a gauge on what they will continue to do.
Exactly HOW do you keep to the pulled out of a hat 1.5deg C (not they do not tell you that this is since the end of the Little Ice Age which means it is an increase from an ANOMALOUS LOW, not from an imaginary optimal place).
They just make it all up as they go along and treat their made up numbers as if they have an origin in empirical data which they most certainly do not. It is just p.eudoscience wrapped mumbo jumbo to wow the uneducated and spineless politicians.
“Subsidy
A financial benefit accorded to a specific interest (e.g. an
individual, organization, company, or sector) by a government
or public body including direct transfer of government funds;
tax expenditure, other revenue foregone, and underpricing of
goods and services; induced transfers (price support); and
transfer of risk to government”.
Nice to see a clear definition of why the whole pointless renewables circus exists and the distorted universe it inhabits.
Why are they talking about production and not consumption I wonder, parroted by the ever reliable propagandist McGrath. This makes no sense. Surely it is consumption which produces emissions not production. If you produce it and no one wants it then except for some leakage where are the emissions?
Second, why are countries listed alphabetically and not in terms of actual production? After all that is the “problem” these handwringers are paid handsomely to “worry” about.
Thirdly in McGrath’s list of naughty countries WHY does he not mention China or India? This man could not wee straight if he tried!
Sorry I tried to read the report but the lying premise means I could not take any of it as anything more than a political document in a party frock.
Regards
Jon Scott
Hi Paul. Given that the La Palma volcano has been erupting for a while now, and no doubt spewing out all manner of gases etc., I was wondering how its emissions of CO2 to date compare with normal emissions? I’ve been searching on-line for something on this but cannot find anything.
Regards
Brian
Brian. If it is being acknowledged be aware that is “nice” CO2 unlike the bad CO2 your SUV produces. Also I found a paper for 2013 by a fellow geophysicists who was claiming that climate change caused volcanic eruptions. How it ever got published I have no idea as her work is full of assumptions, leaps of faith and a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. She makes correlations without bothering to consider causation. Anyway, you can be sure that pseudo science will be exploited for all it is worth.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/10/19/alien-world-austrias-doomed-glaciers-tells-tale-collapse/
commenters not fooled, unlike the DT.
An interesting report:
View at Medium.com
California leads the way… An American essay on the current lunacy… https://www.city-journal.org/california-switch-to-primarily-solar-and-wind-powered-grid-is-dead-end
THE GWPF now appears to have lost the plot. The Worm in the Rose paper they just published is pro ‘CLEAN’ energy and believes CO2 is a pollutant. Andrew Montford really has taken over.
The propaganda seems to be working (though nobody asked me)
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/climate-change-electric-vehicles-ford-brits-give-up-planes-cars-230128490.html
In that story is a link to a Greenpeace linked story:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-homes-energy-bills-uk-economy-boost-131242024.html
This contains gems like this:
…. modelling produced by Cambridge Econometrics on behalf of Greenpeace UK.
An extra £5bn would be funnelled into the economy if the cost of heat pump installations fell to £5,500 in line with industry estimates, the report found. No account taken of the fact that this is fairly mature technology – where are the savings coming from – and ignores the peripherals.
This is the same sort of “research” by “experts” that allows my council to concrete over hundreds of hectares of green belt to put up mega-sheds and thousands of houses without any measurable impact on the climate! Locally, this includes allowing the developers to specify gas heating in these houses because the alternatives aren’t competitive.
I’m surprised that no mention has been made here of the BBC’s The Regenerators programme on a new website which was launched on October 26th. The programme aims to “educate” children from the tender age of 5 to more mature 16 year olds on what to do to tackle climate change, such as eating more plants and less meat. One particularly sinister aspect to this infiltration by the BBC into children’s lives, however, is that these young viewers are being urged to ask their parents if their banks invest in sustainable businesses. The BBC has no business pitting children against their parents. Any thoughts?
Climate Change and the Other Swedish Connections
For some years now I have been wondering how it has come about that an increase of one part in ten thousand of the trace gas, carbon dioxide, can be causing global warming. It isn’t. Here is what happened.
The names Svante Arrhenius and Bert Bolin do not have the same resonance as Greta Thunberg, but they deserve to be ranked with her in the panoply of climate change activists. Arrhenius was a giant in Swedish scientific circles at the end of the 19th Century, single-handedly creating the discipline of physical chemistry and a key figure in setting up the administration of the Nobel Prize. He bought into the concept of atmospheric warming by carbon dioxide and ‘laid the foundation of the modern theory of the greenhouse effect and climate change’.
Bert Bolin was Professor Emeritus in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Stockholm, having been a Director of the International Institute for Meteorology in Stockholm, and Scientific Advisor to the Swedish Prime Minister. He was a shoo-in for the Chairmanship of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, having been much involved in its creation, and he reigned there for the next ten years. There were 3,500 scientists on the panel, and Professor Bolin, to quote Wikipedia, ‘is credited with bringing together a diverse range of views among them into something resembling a consensus’. The range was indeed diverse, including those who believed global warming was caused by cosmic rays, by changes in the earth’s orbit, by changes in the tilt of the earth’s axis, by volcanoes, by methane and by water vapour. The consensus that he created was that Arrhenius was right, that carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion was threatening to cook the planet.
This achievement brought him great honours. In 2007 he shared the Nobel Peace Prize with (former US Vice President) Al Gore. Bolin was asked to accept the Prize on behalf of the IPCC, but was too ill to attend and he died in November 2007. He had revered Arrhenius. In his (posthumously published) account – ‘A History Of The Science And Politics Of Climate Change’ (Cambridge University Press 2007) – there are forty mentions of his name.
To step back, when a fossil fuel is burnt there are three products that can cause atmospheric warming – carbon di-oxide, water vapour and, yes, heat. The assumed predominance of the first of these is such that it is now simply referred to as ‘carbon’, and as might be expected there are a lot of references to it, 470 to be precise, in Bert Bolin’s history of climate change politics. There are only 20 references to water vapour.
And heat? This requires a little further explanation. Ideally all the heat energy in a fossil fuel is used in generating another form of energy such as propulsion or electricity. However, in practice much is used for drying or cooling, where all the heat is lost, directly or indirectly, to the atmosphere. As for propulsion and electricity, these are very inefficient transformers of heat into energy. Internal combustion engines, such as those in vehicles, emit about 60% of the energy they use as heat, power stations rather more. In simple terms probably about 70% of the heat in all the fossil fuels we burn simply ends up heating the atmosphere.
This lost heat can be called ‘waste heat’ and there are two references to it in Bolin’s history, both in the context of nuclear power stations, and their absence of ‘carbon’ emissions. However, he bemoans their inefficiency, not apparently aware that all steam-powered electricity generation suffers from the same drawback. The scientific name for this ‘waste’ heat that is lost during its transformation into other forms of energy is ‘entropy’ and this word does not appear in the document.
Another Swede, Greta Thunberg (‘You stole my childhood…how dare you!’), has been the unwitting spokeswoman for this tunnel vision focussed on the word ‘carbon’. She told the BBC that the great climate change jamboree called COP26 in Glasgow this November should be postponed, and she does not plan to attend anyway.
So global warming (and yes it exists, for whatever reason) is probably not much due to ‘carbon’, which gas has increased by just one part in ten thousand in the atmosphere since we started exploiting fossil fuels in quantity. Nor does it seem to be greatly affected by water vapour, even though there is of the order of twenty times as much of this in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
The real cause is much simpler. We are warming the atmosphere directly with our waste heat. The calculation of the order-of temperature rise from our energy use is almost laughably simple. Here it is.
There is a useful website, https://ourworldindata.org/ , which has assembled annual estimates of fossil fuel consumption since the early 1800s. The total about a year ago came to 5,455,496 Terawatt hours, a ridiculously precise figure, which is equal to roughly 2.0 x 1016 Megajoules (MJ). The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.2 quadrillion tons (5.2 x 1015 tons) and its specific heat is about 0.001 MJ/kg/degree Centigrade. Multiplying the mass of the atmosphere by its specific heat and dividing this figure into all those megajoules gives a (very) theoretical temperature rise if all the heat from the fossil fuels we have burnt went just to warm our planet’s atmosphere.
This crude calculation gives a temperature rise of 3.8 degrees Centigrade. Let us generously assume that half of the megajoules in the fossil fuels burnt created motion or electricity, not heat. This would give a temperature rise of 1.9 degrees Centigrade. However, a warmer atmosphere would radiate more heat into space, so a one degree rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution from our waste heat seems reasonable. Right in the ball park, too.
There is visual evidence of this effect in the form of those dramatic NASA images of our light-spangled planet at night. Only about 5% of the electric power we generate is used for illumination, so what we see is the tip of the iceberg in terms of power generation, and this in turn is under half the entropic heat that goes into the atmosphere.
Entropy. It is going to be a word that we will hear a lot of. All those millions of individuals (and yes, there are millions) who are financed directly or indirectly by the money poured in to thwart the approaching carbon Armageddon will abruptly change direction. They will argue, persuasively, that their work will reduce entropy. It will resemble that scene in Orwell’s 1984 when Big Brother’s spokesman is handed a note in the middle of a rally condemning the enemy Eurasia, glances at it and, without missing a beat, declares that Eastasia is no longer an ally but The Enemy, and Eurasia is the one real, true, permanent Ally. In a trice all the banners with their slogans are torn down and new ones raised to reflect the real, true order of things.
Irritatingly, these beneficiaries of climate change funding will be right. Their hastily assembled, but valid, argument will be that solar, wind and hydro power generate zero entropy and that we have been doing the right thing but for the wrong reason. The threat to their incomes averted, COP26 can go ahead. Only the slogans will have changed to reflect the real, true order of things. Perhaps Greta will decide to come after all.
Is John Kettley about to be cancelled? He was interviewed on GBNews this morning about the severe weather and flooding which, among other things, is keeping delegates from COP26 due to train cancellations. He was invited to blame climate change but steadfastly refused, citing similar events in 2003 and 2009. “It’s weather”. Very refreshing, but grossly off message.
Paul,
Saturday stupid from the BBC ( news you can trust)
Wales weather: Landslide wrecks Nefyn road after heavy rain
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-59097578
I know the BBC is desperately hunting down any weather related issue it can to promote hysteria during the time of the obscene junket in Scotland but this is just plain silly.
First the 12 year old writer uses the word “wrecked” to describe a road only which soft unconsolidated sediment has flowed. A totally unsuitable and incorrect word but it is big and bad so they use it. All that is needed is for the lose sediment to be taken away, the angle of the slope reduced and or the slope stabilized with a retaining wall. Quick wash and the road will be good to go unless the failure is below road level and there is no evidence of that from the foto.
Gravity causes slope failure of unconsolidated material. That is possibly a man made slope or at least a man modified slope. A lot of factors contribute to slope failure, more rain (where is the data reference) is only one of them.
Next, we are treated to the climate expertise of a Mr Kerr who lives there:
“Mr Kerr said: “The rain was very heavy this morning, there were quite a few roads closed when we ventured out.
“With climate change Nefyn has been quite exposed. Now people can’t get down to the beach, there’s no access and the cliff path is closed.
“Nefyn cliffs are obviously quite susceptible as they’re mostly mud and clay, it slips off down the hill.”
Oh the off the cuff unsubstantiated reference to climate change which the BBC dutifully reproduces. In his ignorance Mr Kerr has just pointed to the root cause of the cliff/beach collapse namely unconsolidated sediments which will have interbedded clays and silts, the clays act as an impermeable barrier allowing the above sediments to become supersaturated and a surface for detachment.
The problem is that someone did not do their homework all those years ago when houses were first placed on the cliffs and also making the road cut. Also I muse on what part the houses play in accelerating failure ( sewage leaks etc). Building houses on unconsolidated material is never a good idea…..
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Hi again, hot of the press from hysteria central is this
COP26: Greta Thunberg mobbed as activists gather in Glasgow
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-59102422
I have read it now four times. They are completely open. This is a religion with lots of different religious factions joining and Greta is their “Brian”!
I read with utter disbelief. The language is only religious.
Strangely the BBC do not give the name of the disciple who wrote this in such gushing terms but REALLY???
I keep waiting for someone to be shocked to learn we all exhale 40K ppm CO2 with each breath and suggest an international holding your breath competition to save the planet! We have heard so much absurdity…. I become blase…..
Paul,
More egregious pap from climate propaganda central, the BBC
COP26: World at one minute to midnight over climate change – Boris Johnson
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59114871
The one minute to midnight is the latest in fear mongering term inflation. I wonder how long before the rest of the weasels latch onto it an apply their term inflation and will decrease that meaningless minute until we get to one second?
The meaningless waffle contained in the main text is however is not what caught my eye. Rather, it is the graph at the end of the piece showing a supposed IPCC sourced graph of observed temperature increase and “simulated” increase ( with unnecessary mention of human effect) and “natural factors only”.
Every graph I have ever seen of claimed reality (massaged) against the product of IPCC modelling consistently shows reality at the very bottom of the range of simulated outcomes indicating that the models are consistently running hot, certainly not putting reality in the centre of the modelled results. This graph is suggesting that the 100% wrong models from the IPCC to date suddenly are correct. When did that happen????
Another thing is, I am assuming that the cloud is produced by P50 outcomes from models, but that critical information is not given. Compare that also to their claimed simulation of natural effects without man and you then see something very strange that they are claiming that without the effects of man, we would still be in the Little Ice Age. Interesting also is the temperature at the end of the Little Ice Age is shown at zero which many people are led to believe is “normal temperature” which it most definitely is not.
Simply. There have been four warmings in recent human history. The Minoan, The Roman, The Medieval and the present warming. I note the convenient way the display is cut off at 1850 and does not go back any earlier. That is aliasing the data and in my book deliberately lying by omission.
It is disingenuous in the extreme and unscientific to make claims about causes of the current warming without understanding what caused the previous three warmings. Only when the cause of those warmings is known and found not to be occurring today can a statement be made about other “possible” causes because it still would not be proof of course without empirical data to support said cause.
I have stated this many times before but I will say this again. Science is only based on empirical data. No empirical data, no science. People are entitled to claim whatever they want but they cannot call it science. There exists today no statistically significant empirical data of any kind, produced by falsifiable methodology which supports the claim that CO2 liberated back into the Carbon Cycle by the actions of man during the last 100 years is in any measurable way responsible for any or as is claimed here, all of the current welcome warming which actually began 350 years ago, heralding the Little Ice Age.
The data does not exist so what garbage is the “simulated only” data in this graph based on and as that data does not exist why is human activity specifically mentioned in the graph labelling.
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul,
COP26: World leaders promise to end deforestation by 2030
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59088498
And how exactly are they going to do that especially in Brazil where no permission is sought to make clearings in remote places. How can it be policed? More virtue signalling from the weasels because most know they will not be in power by then and the rest know this is mostly out of their control.
More from the funny pages.
27% increase in the world population in just 20 years and it does not get even a mention as a factor and indeed a mention as THE factor?
So those 27% have no need for land to farm or wood to burn for energy?
This lot are just in Lalaland.
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul,
I read through this list of the young indoctrinated with dismay
“COP26: Scotland’s young climate change activists in pictures”
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-59109736
Strange how climate is a purely left wing issue. You would almost think it is not about science but just an opportunist political tool.
Every statement is political, contains no credible action except for this dripping of of left wing politics.
An eight year old spouting either her teachers or her parents received wisdom. Notice Polar bears are mentioned. This sick lie is comes up again and again from the mouths of babes. Clearly the lie is being pushed in infants schools by at best profoundly ignorant or worse politically motivated teachers upsetting children with images of starving polar bears. This is sick.
She is one of three badly advised striking on Friday? What does that achieve other than harming their own education?
Also, off course diversity had to be in there because this is the BBC.
As laudable as beach cleaning is, how does that “save the planet”/fight/stop/reverse climate change I wonder?
And to finish we have the perpetual leftie student age 28 who is playing politics as president of the students union at some lowbrow “educashun” institution in Glasgow.
They are all spouting the cheap throwaway lines of the leftie activists. We have decolonisation in there! We have marxism ( People before profit , sure an eight year old thought up the slogan on her placard all by her self). We have the Green fool whose rant is about “victim groups”, even queers get a mention. We have a “scientist” but we are not told what kind of scientist, food scientist, social scientist, political scientist? ( Is 29 “young”? That is an adult)
All of the marxist/lenenist mantras are there. Not one of them has anything to say except spouting left wing slogans.
Nic said we that in order to reduce carbon emissions “we need to understand the root causes of the issue”
Good idea Nic and you start by learning some science and understanding IF CO2 really is a problem but no, where you start is where you are told to start and don’t you go prising up any floor boards to see what is underneath the house of cards you are embracing.
All the language is of the left. Fighting and activism, decolonisation and lists of claimed victim groups and anti capitalism. Where ever you look with the manipulated young they have been fed a diet of extreme socialism combined with a conflation of radical environmentalism which has been co-opted into climate change. There is not an original thought amongst them, rather just received activist wisdom.
I would suggest there needs to be a root and branch assessment of the political persuasions of those who are let loose on young and impressionable minds in our classrooms.
Regards
Jon Scott
From the Telegraph:
“A Treasury press release said the companies would have to publish “net zero transition plans” but it remains unclear how much detail would be required.
“It is expected such plans would need to involve “high-level targets” for becoming greener, “interim milestones” and “actionable steps” on delivery, according to the Treasury release.
“The details will be worked out by a Transition Plan Taskforce made up of industry and academic leaders, regulators and civil society groups.”
So that’s where all the green jobs will come from. Not many generated north of Watford, I’d guess, though.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/11/02/uk-listed-companies-will-forced-publish-annual-plans-will-go/
Paul,
a few thoughts on very recent events some of which I posted on WUWT but I’ll expand on a little here.
It began with Nigel Farage considering mounting a run at a referendum over NetZero:
The most stupid idea Nigel has ever had.
“I’m not questioning the fact that seven and a half billion of us on this planet must make some difference to the environment in which we live, and there are many things we could do better to have a greener world.”
We are making a difference Nigel, and we do have a greener world thanks to increasing atmospheric CO2 thanks very much.
Starting from the position you express you are already on a hiding to nothing.
Don’t we imagine the massed MSM joining ranks with the BBC wouldn’t see this as an opportunity to swamp the electorate with misleading and dangerous propaganda?
How about Facebook and Twitter. All the excellent scientific reasons against NetZero simply deleted and commentators cancelled. I mean, it’s been happening for the last few years, and it would only get worse.
How about the fanatical politicians with vested interests and cushy jobs to go to, after the populace is battered into submission, with the nice, generous renewables companies, or renting out their lands to wind-farms?
Just how do we get our messages across to the myopic sheep who never ask any questions far less seek out the answers on ‘Denier!’ web sites?
The fact is, COP(out)26 is doing the job rather well for us. The obvious own goal of Xi and Putin refusing to attend has been compounded by Modi of India demanding $1Tn dollars to help with greening of his country.
Then there’s the recent announcement that Germany has persuaded the EU to designate Natural Gas and Nuclear as green. Germany would, of course, because they have about the most expensive electricity prices in the world and Russia is holding them to ransom for Gas.
Nor can Boris come back to Westminster from Glasgow and expect anyone to replace their Natural gas boilers for wildly expensive Heat Pumps when Gas is Green. This is an utter disaster for Boris’ madcap plans.
Dr. John Constable of the GWPF was at pains to point out to a House of Commons select committee that the UK was well on it’s way to a green transformation by substituting coal for gas before moving the country to Nuclear. The contemptible old hag on that committee who accused him of being a denier is now going to be forced to swallow her words. The rest, to be fair, gave him a fair hearing, and he was very convincing.
They will all now be reflecting very carefully on that hearing today.
As for sleepy Joe, nothing is going right for him. He’ll head back to the US with his tail between his legs and people will demand answers over him banning fracking now Europe has designated Gas as Green (subject to crossing ‘T’s’ and dotting ‘i’s’ I suspect).
Cop(out)26 appears to be the best thing that could have happened for the sceptics in decades for many more reasons than I can express here.
But back to Boris. some tome last month (October) three prominent, big hitting Conservative back benchers openly criticised Boris’ Net Zero plan in the media (IDS and DD in Telegraph articles); Ian Duncan Smith, Steve Baker and David Davis. That should be a worry for Boris as these guys don’t break cover like that, virtually simultaneously, without having considerable support from other back benchers.
Davis, Smith and Baker were all members of the European Research Group which was very pro Brexit, so they know how to undermine a campaign.
On his return from Glasgow Boris will have to face Conservative MP’s who comprehensively bungled the Own Paterson with MP’s appearing to have ‘marked their own homework’. In response the Tories announced there would be a procedural review, then said there wouldn’t.
Paterson did a ‘victory lap’ of TV interviews last night, never once admitting fault which enraged Tory MP’s who had supported him. As the Spectator points out:
“this particular case has potential to damage Boris Johnson in the longer term because many of his MPs now feel humiliated that they supported a policy the government then dropped so quickly.”
And whilst the general public who don’t read your analysis of Modi’s announcements at COP(out)26 won’t have a clue about his insincerity, you can bet MP’s have twigged to it very quickly.
With the overall failure of COP(out)26 looming large, Boris will return to a hostile HoC. I also have the feeling he isn’t liked much by the back benchers (and probably many of his Cabinet) so the knives will be sharpened as COP(out)26 continues.
Finally, back to Nigel. He should remember Bonaparte: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”. A referendum merely changes the dynamic and risks handing the initiative back to the loonies running the asylum.
Paul,
From the BBC “news you can trust” today
The BBC clearly supports censorship! Here it is!
Climate change: Facebook fails to flag denial, study finds
https://www.bbc.com/news/59147659
The conclusion from this is that the BBC claiming impartiality status is supporting the suppression of any opinion which is not approved by the climate shamans.
The shear arrogance of the BBC and those rent seekers from the gutter which they support in appointing themselves arbiters of truth.
A long quote from yet one more opinion piece dressed up as news from the BBC
“The CCDH looked at a sample of posts from the past year which attracted roughly 700,000 likes and shares. Researchers used social media analytics tool Newswhip to search for strings of key words including “climate change”, global warming” and, “fraud”, “hoax”, “cult”, “scam”, “lie” and so on.
The researchers manually reviewed every post to make sure it met their definition of climate denial and was not a post condemning such beliefs.
Highly shared articles made false assertions that climate change was not confirmed by science or claimed to debunk it with data. Of these, 69% could be traced back to just 10 “super-polluter” publishers – dubbed the “toxic ten” – the campaign group found.
In fact, our understanding of climate change comes from analyses of millions of measurements gathered in different parts of the world. And multiple independent teams of scientists have reached the same result – a spike in temperatures coinciding with the onset of the industrial era”.
My question is, WHO makes this mob the arbiters of truth? What are their definitions of misinformation and hate?
Also seems if you are to disagree with any issue and use certain words you are identified.
I had to laugh reading the last pompous paragraph:
“In fact, our understanding of climate change comes from analyses of millions of measurements gathered in different parts of the world. And multiple independent teams of scientists have reached the same result – a spike in temperatures coinciding with the onset of the industrial era”.
THAT is their “understanding of climate change”? “A spike in temperatures coincided with the onset of the industrial era”? Really? One guy setting fire to the coal associated with black band iron or in the UK Midlands caused a “spike”? Where is that “Spike”? Have you seen it?
More and more of these totalitarian thinkers are coming out of the shadows and revealing themselves in the light of day
Regards
Jonathan Scott
I agree. We are entering a very dangerous time. To add to this I note that the BBC and other media have now signed up to a report by the Government’s Behavioural Insights Team (AKA Downing Street Nudge Unit). This means the media will work to encourage their audiences to make lifestyle changes that address the climate crisis. This is really worthy of the Soviet Union and Pravda, or the Ministry of Truth…. The media working as the propaganda arm of Government. And all this under a Conservative Government – what fear of Labour now!
Paul,
And the next. I did ignore the pointless Greta article.
“COP26: New Duke of Edinburgh-style climate award to be launched”
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59172936
Nothing more and nothing less than government sanctioned indoctrination of children with at unsubstantiated unscientific opinion and politically motivated twaddle.
Why is the supposed Conservative party embracing marxism?
Regards
Jonathan Scott
The La Palma volcano eruption has been going on for several weeks now:
Why isn’t this the same problem for air travel as the 2010 Iceland one was?
More rubbish from what used to be a decent paper:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/11/05/jet-engines-run-ammonia-rather-kerosene-development/
Still you can see where some of the green jobs are going to come from:
“Ammonia engines could offer an alternative to electric planes, which could suffer from limited range. Reaction Engines said ammonia-powered aircraft could be initially capable of ranges of 1,250 miles.”
Yes, think of all those floating airports in the Atlantic, Pacific and other large empty spaces, plus the supply chains thereto.
Paul,
Monday morning and the BBC still is in a frenzy.
COP26: Fossil fuel industry has largest delegation at climate summit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59199484https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59199484
More unbalanced reporting from the BBC ( News you can trust).
As if they should not be allowed to put their case. Funny isn’t it that any scientist associated with the oil industry is to be dismissed as dangerous and biased instantly because they are claimed to be in the pay of the oil industry but…..scientists in the pay of the climate subsidy farming cartel are all above reproach!
This is the second oped from the BBC supporting the shutting down of opinion which is not that of the activists. It is an opinion piece mostly, strange I thought the BBC was a news outlet, where the theme is NOT shining a light on the fact that the climate farago has nothing of substance in it’s eye wateringly expensive shop window, oh no they point out that the oil industry dared to have people there supposedly lobbying for it. Why not?The BBC tell us that “campaigners” tell us they should be banned” without adding anything opinion of this marxist position ( Classic BBC when reporting on those they agree with).
But who were they all? Perhaps some only work as scientists in the industry and were there independently?
Alessandro Vitelli, an IETA spokesman said “What we seeing is the putting forward of false solutions that appear to be climate action but actually preserve the status quo, and prevent us from taking the clear, simple actions to keep fossil fuels in the ground that we know are the real solutions to climate crisis.”
Oh a reporter who clearly knows more about atmospheric physics than any scientist on the planet! Regarding his pompous statement about “false solutions”, does he meal like windmills and solar panels!? Who is this garbage head from yet one more murkily funded lobby group to say what is true and what is false and again the BBC true to form just reproduce what he says without any qualification.
How about the BBC exposing all the Soros funded groups? How about the BBC exposing all of the baseless claims?
Regardless since when was it the right of the activists and campaigners to be arbiters or truth and the BBC to support and promote their cause?
Once again the BBC trashes it’s charter.
regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul,
COP26: UK pledges £290m to help poorer countries cope with climate change
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59202129
More from the Garbage Heads in the climate industry propaganda arm once called the BBC
Our good friend Harraharrabinbin gets his piece (“Dangerous heating”???? and “Climate Disruption” and oh look he is on the marxist inspired reparations bandwagon)
What is striking is it is all talk about giving money to who shouts “I’m a victim loudest” and most concerningly “reparations” for what exactly?
I saw no mention of climate mitigation and planning which is the only sensible way that money can be spent. Instead we are throwing money at vague claims and more worthless green blobbist fantasies.
Regards
Jon Scott
Not the first instance of this issue, but worth a read:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/11/08/french-couple-suffering-wind-farm-syndrome-wins-100000-damages/
Paul
GOTCHA! BBC caught making it up in Wales!
North Wales Nefyn where they claim a land slip is caused by Seal level rise is actually caused by sea level fall! That not one of their “experts” mentions this is a shocker and demonstrates exactly what motivates their “experts” and it is not science and a pursuit of the truth.
Climate change: Size of Wales may change due to coastal erosion
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-59223819
Our “experts” are By Sabrina Lee & Geraint Thomas, two people described as “weather presenter” ( maybe they are joined at the hip? ). A bit like calling a news presenter an expert in every issue they read off the paper
As if coastal erosion ONLY occurs because of klymutt chaeynge
So come on BBC, explain how klymutt chaeynge is making the sea level fall in N Wales?
Nowhere in this egregious pap is there any reference to isostatic rebound of Scotland and locally in N Wales. This is VERY important for Wales because as a consequence of the positive rebound centred on the Highlands consequential flexing down and negative rebound is occurring in Southern Wales which does affect the coast line. Added to that, North Wales had its own small ice cap which exaggerates the positive rebound in North Wales. To quote all their “experts” not one of whom qualifies measurements taking this effect into account is tantamount to wilful lying with the intention to deceive.
Essentially Wales is the UK in miniature isostatic ally, N Wales is net emergent, Mid Wales in equilibrium and S Wales submergent.
According to Jeremy Parr, head of flood and incident risk management, : “We can expect sea level rise for one thing and some of the predictions around that are quite scary,” he added.
“The coastline is a dynamic environment. Parts of the coast will erode and fall away into the sea.”
Disregarding his use of the emotional term “scary” which has no scientific relevance, his second paragraph says it all. Everything in the universe is attempting to reach a position of equilibrium. Sea-level change is constant either positive or negative. Sea level is NEVER static
To their ever lasting shame and wilful ignorance they show a land slip video FROM NORTH WALES!. The still picture is very interesting.
Firstly, we can see TWO cliffs not one. Between the lower and upper cliffs is a wave cut platform indicating that sea level was much higher quite recently and then fell. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. These cliffs are made from unconsolidated material. A hummocky area can be seen between the upper and lower cliffs. This is material is from previous cliff collapses with sea level FALLING on the way to brief equilibrium. Net sea level fall has caused the lower cliff to become unstable causing the partial equilibrium in slope to be lost and therefore the unconsolidated material collapses back in this case to involve the upper cliff. It is a domino effect. The lower cliff fails and then the upper having lost it’s backstop also fails.
Next and this is total deception they show us only South Wales where flooding occurs. I wonder wonder why!
2. Solva Estuary is a Ria valley. It is a drowned river valley and is testament to the dynamic nature of sea level regardless of cause. If the Pembrokeshire landscape is considered almost the whole of southern Pembroke is a wave cut platform with small paleo islets sticking up from it. This probably represents the post glacial level before the level fell back.
“”You get increased storminess and increase in winds. That can increase the water level even further and make conditions along the coast, really, really treacherous – and it means that there will be more flooding and it means that there will be more erosion.”
Where is the evidence for this? He is quoting activists with an agenda not empirical data.
We are treated to repeated use of the term “climate change” and because of climate change without saying specifically what they mean.
Then we are treated to a fatuous unsubstantiated claim from the buffoon in chief of the Meteorological Society “The Royal Met Society has been around since 1850 and we’ve seen a lot of extreme events here in the UK over that time,” said chief executive Liz Bentley.
So Liz, were there no extreme events before then?
She goes on:
“But what we’re finding because of climate change is that those events are becoming more frequent”.
Really? Which events and where? Where is the data to support that claim?
Then she really goes for it: “One degree has made a big shift in what we’re seeing in rainfall patterns. It also means we’ve started to see a significant increase in sea levels. So the sea level has risen by about 16 centimetres, which again, doesn’t sound very much, but for low-lying areas that has a huge impact.”
16 cm? Where? Clearly not over the whole of the UK which I suppose is what she is referring to so where? Over what time period? Was she talking about Wales? This is unacceptable sexing up by someone who has no excuses for doing that.
We are then treated to another subsidy farmer Prof Richard Lucas, from Aberystwyth University’s geography and earth sciences department. Telling us again that “He said that although the landscape had changed in the past, the pace of change was a new phenomenon”. Really WHERE IS THE DATA?
He goes on: “It’s the speed of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the speed that sea levels and other factors like flooding are changing.
“So the sea level is rising more rapidly than in the past, and ecosystems and people have to respond to that. And sometimes it’s just too fast for them.”
He added that to avoid a change in the shape of Wales, sea defences would “need to be strengthened into the future”. The situation “depends on the actions of people and how we respond to changing climate.”
Again lots of throw away unsubstantiated comments from someone making unsubstantiated claims about “increasing rates”.
It is clear he is chasing funding and every opportunity people like him and the stupid woman in the Met Soc get they sex it up knowing they will hardly ever if ever be challenged for their bare face lying.
Refs:
https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=8805
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7241713_Modelling_the_glacial_isostatic_adjustment_of_the_UK_region
Click to access 152.pdf
Of course a lot depends on what questions the “impartial” BBC ask their friendly experts but still not one of them is being scientific in their quotes. This is a clear example of the BBC setting out with malice of forethought to intentionally deceive.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Can you please promote this petitiom I started. The people need the right to a referendum to have their say on this government’s Net Zero £3 trillion policy.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/11/13/floundering-smart-meter-rollout-bids-plug-electric-car-revolution/
It includes: “On Wednesday, energy smart meter number 16,037,179 was connected to the network.”
My own smart meters would perhaps have been numbers 16,037180 and 181, if Siemens had bothered to turn up on Thursday. I didn’t want them but my supplier had reminded me that my tariffs are based on having smart meters and if I want to continue to have the benefit of (what are now) good prices …
The reason for the mission failure, given by a nice young lady that evening, was slippage due to installation problems elsewhere and the installers lacked the gumption and good manners to let me know. After 16 million, you’d have thought they’d have cracked it!
Paul,
A speech by Robert F. Kennedy, in Switzerland, to the Swiss people, before their referendum on covid. Utterly brilliant and all we need do is is replace the word ‘covid’ with ‘climate change’ and the parallels are clear.
https://rumble.com/vp5aw0-robert-f-kennedy-jr.-speaks-to-switzerland-press-conference-12112021.html
Wall Street’s running our electricity system now?
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/inflation-surges-highest-level-decade-220946686.html
Depressing view from Germany:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-environment-agency-warns-against-using-fossil-co2-ccu?pk_campaign=weekly_newsletter_2021-11-19&pk_keyword=german-environment-agency-warns-against-using-fossil-co2-ccu&pk_source=newsletter&pk_medium=email&pk_content=readmore
And buried in a post in Net Zero Watch:
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Could-An-Energy-Crunch-Lead-To-A-Worldwide-Financial-Crisis.html?mc_cid=1f5dcb2253&mc_eid=6384b6057a
Climate policy will directly impact economic growth
We are already beginning to see the second-order effects of the climate policies being adopted in the wake of the Paris Accords and its offspring the COP-26 love fest in Glasgow this year. I am referring, of course to the energy crisis in the UK, brought on by unanticipated underperformance of wind farms, and under-investment and early retirement of petroleum energy sources, over the last few years. This has all been pretty well documented, and I am not going to belabor them further now.
One of the things that astounds me about the green energy movement is the number of unasked, or unanswered questions related to its full spectrum adoption. Assumptions have been blithely put forward as fact with no supporting evidence. In fact, if you do ask questions you are labeled a “climate denier,” and ignored or canceled.
So what is one assumption that seems to have not been entirely thought through? Let’s start with the plan for wind power to provide up to 40% primary electricity generation by 2030, now codified virtually around the world in tax and carbon policy. I ran across a calculation by William Lacey on another site that was quite revelatory. I am paraphrasing his work on that site here in the next couple of paragraphs.
Can this really be done? A study promulgated by Arcelor Mittal, the world’s leading steel producer is revealing.
“Steel will play an important role in all renewables, including and especially solar and wind. Each new MW of solar power requires between 35 to 45 tons of steel, and each new MW of wind power requires 120 to 180 tons of steel.”
https://press.hse.gov.uk/2021/11/17/contractor-and-security-company-fined-after-security-guard-dies-of-hypothermia-at-windfarm/?utm_source=hse.gov.uk&utm_medium=refferal&utm_campaign=press-channels-push&utm_term=hypothermia-death&utm_content=news-page
This is a good idea – flammable mega-batteries next door to petrol tanks:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-storage-systems-to-support-ev-drivers-rapidly-charging-on-englands-motorways?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_source=3bcf12ae-919b-4677-be92-8c6ef7df4677&utm_content=daily
BTW – Wales have declared they’ll get to Net Zero by 2035. I wonder if we’ll notice when we cross the border, IF we’re allowed to, that is?
I’m currently looking at energy storage system safety issues and came across this in a briefing paper on “Energy storage in the UK”:
“In a report last month, the select committee on energy and climate change, concluded
that storage technologies should be deployed at scale as soon as possible. The Committee
also called for the Government to address urgently the archaic regulation and unfair
‘double-charging’ obstructing the deployment of energy storage in the UK:
The current regulatory conditions for storage are hindering its development. We
welcome the Government’s consultative approach to this matter, but hope it will
proceed with a sense of urgency. We urge the Government to publish its plans, as
soon as possible, for exempting storage installations from balancing charges, and
from all double-charging of network charges.”
What is “double charging”? Would removal of “balancing charges” give this system supplier an unfair advantage?
ENTSO-E and ENTSO-G have recently produced a “Ten-Year Network Development Plans gas and electricity joint Scenario Report”, which envisions a plan to get the entire EU to zero emissions by 2050.
https://2022.entsos-tyndp-scenarios.eu
Would be interesting to read a review of these forecasts/proposals.
Is this one of the more sensible applications of renewables?
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/vodafone-net-zero-plan-120422185.html
Probably Ian but it will depend on the reliability of their choice of generation and storage technologies. I would like to think that Vodafone has considered the net cost of emissions of producing the hardware to support their choice of technologies. How will they maintain the “off-grid” technology? What is their projected life-time for the technologies? Will it require subsidies?
Thanks Gary. With the consequences of equipment failure in such a situation, you have to hope that they have all the answers.
Hi Paul,
This from Guido and the unreal level of arrogance and hubris from the SNP
Scotland can save the Planet but only after they get what the minority wants…..
Wait till they start to charge electric cars as well!
http://e.examinerlive.co.uk/_act/link.php?mId=RI6191138618812815zzzzz64489f5f73a663c85c8edf190f5c17aa46e3d72e46a95109164a92646edc9aac7d&tId=3818936
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602?reveal_response=yes
It would be interesting to see what questions were asked to get the alarmist responses claimed.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-retailers-and-landlords-drive-towards-greener-properties-000126312.html
Sounds very much like big business jumping on the bandwagon. Will it translate to actual action at ground level? Unlikely, noting the rejection of the £5K bung to go ASOP heating.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/11/30/bid-fire-power-stations-ease-energy-crisis-strangled-red-tape/
“if the stations are as competitive as they maintain, they could enter the market without government support.”
Why can’t this apply to wind?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/01/ftse-100-markets-live-news-inflation-omicron-energy/
“The company said it will invest £3bn in boosting biomass pellet production and carbon capture …”
Then why not just use coal?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/02/households-should-pay-higher-tax-gas-reflect-cost-climate-change/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/02/households-should-pay-higher-tax-gas-reflect-cost-climate-change/
“Currently, electricity is artificially expensive, with almost a fifth of the domestic cost made up of levies funding decarbonisation projects, as well as subsidising energy for poorer households, while just two per cent of the price of gas comes from these costs.”
Nothing to do with grid balancing, then?
Somebody’s taking net zero seriously!
http://email.roadtransport.net/linkapp/cmaStart.aspx?LinkID=pageid100235350nfxqh~zfhj9h9q~qxfzqt~9fnnhr~z~f~f~f~n
Unfortunately, it requires a detailed, industry-related registration to get the full story.
Follow the money:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/07/hedge-funds-game-system-cash-net-zero-targets/
Paul,
I have just noticed that the BBC are now demanding full address and telephone number details when making a complaint. Why do they need all of that information?
There are three ways to look at the reason(excuse) for this.
One because of I am sure a proportionately small number of malicious complaints.
Two because rather than addressing the root cause of the complaints they are receiving they go the bureaucrats way and want to cut down on the number of complaints they are receiving.
Thirdly and most worrying is that they can identify dissent now on a range of issues in particular climate. Who is to say they will not weaponize this information and hand it to their wokey woke woke friends in the police who more and more are sticking their noses into what people think and visiting people regarding “non crimes”, people who do not toe whatever is the line dreamed up last week? There have been several outrageous calls by prominente who should know better for the criminalization of dissent in the form of challenges against the For Profit Climate Hustling Industry. Do we really want to hand a bunch of raving lefties who repeatedly demonstrate that they do not have our best interests at heart our personal contact information?
Regards
Jon Scott
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/08/2g-3g-phased-2033-blow-smart-meter-roll/
“We are announcing a further £50m to put the UK at the forefront of mobile connectivity and to make sure our telecoms networks are safe and secure now and in the future. ”
From comments:
“It’s nothing to do with CO2, I worked in the electronics industry when these things were being introduced, the industry press was a feeding frenzy about the money to be made making tens of millions of meters which would need regular upgrades.”
See my earlier link to milking the green cow.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/08/life-slow-lane-london-became-worlds-congested-city/
John Lewis must have seen the same research. Somebody should tell Mayor Jarvis:
“Two factors that make it dreamy or nightmarish to drive into and around cities, though, are counterintuitive, in that they have nothing to do with transport at all. The data, though, show that how densely cities are populated and how thriving their centres are makes a huge difference to drivers.
“If cities are densely populated, it is easy to provide a coherent public transport network to lower car numbers. Paris, with almost 54,000 people per square mile and busy Metro stops every 200 yards, is the classic example. Sheffield, with 4,000 people per square mile, has a tramline that is considerably less popular.
Moreover Paris has a thriving centre, so it is easy to funnel people in the single direction they are all going. Whereas Sheffield, like many British cities outside London, has been hollowed out; jobs are spread all over the place, so workers find it far easier to drive to their offices. “
Paul,
Thought you might be interested in this:
https://wan-ifra.org/2021/12/its-time-journalism-gave-climate-change-its-due/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/end-scandal-burning-wood-energy-mps-demand-telegraph-investigation/
“A Drax spokesman said that they play a “critical role generating 12 percent of the UK’s renewable electricity” to keep the lights on and work toward net zero.”
They’re lying. Most of the time I look at Gridwatch, biomass ranges from 5-6, though currently 7.27%. Nowhere near 12%.
Silly me! Now I’ve actually read it, I see it’s a percentage of renewables, but just as meaningless, especially at £800m/year.
Paul,
Two articles you might be aware of.
Michael Schellenberger reports:
“Netherlands Goes Nuclear In Massive Atomic Humanist Victory!
Dutch government will keep existing nuclear plant operating AND build two more full-sized water-cooled plants”
https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/netherlands-goes-nuclear-in-massive?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNDc4ODA3MCwiXyI6Im9uMDhlIiwiaWF0IjoxNjM5NjgxMzU5LCJleHAiOjE2Mzk2ODQ5NTksImlzcyI6InB1Yi0yNzk0MDAiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.fU-ZhA6a83P5ZAchvOmSyuU9kilJwAXkT5mUsPSCYVc
and:
If people really think climate change is a problem, they haven’t taken their eye off the ball, they’re watching entirely wrong ball.
“Demographic winter: The plague of the century
Musk is right, rapidly declining birth rates are the biggest risk to civilization”
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/dec/14/demographic-winter-the-plague-of-the-century/?mc_cid=dd93d28aa8&mc_eid=5f2cfb8234
If people imagine climate is a problem, population decline is truly terrifying. In just a couple of generations AI and robotisation won’t be a fanciful threat to employees, it will be an absolute necessity to make up for a dearth of youth in employment.
Nor can we do much about it, in a couple of generation the already growing demographic gap will hit the western world hard. Whilst the author highlights the case of Ukraine it also might explain Biden’s open border policy with Mexico which, to my knowledge, has never been explained.
BREAKING!!!
ELON MUSK suffers tragic explosion whilst in one of his own cars!
(PS I have nothing against EV’s, I just don’t want them shoved down my throat by a government)
Paul – You are probably aware already but interesting piece on the Daily Sceptic site re Sky nudge unit https://dailysceptic.org/2021/12/21/ofcom-complaint-about-collaboration-between-sky-and-government-owned-company-to-promote-net-zero/
Original article https://thecritic.co.uk/nudging-the-news/
PAUL – interesting article from the DT that will probably be pulled down when they realise that it goes against the AGW mob.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/12/25/climate-change-ravages-cradle-civilisation-spot-excavated-agatha/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/12/25/climate-change-ravages-cradle-civilisation-spot-excavated-agatha/
Usual stuff – dig deep enough and the story changes. Commenters aren’t aren’t fooled.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/12/28/taxpayers-foot-800k-bill-make-nicola-sturgeons-official-residence/
They forgot to mention the increase in running costs.
Paul, More balanced reporting from McGrath and the BBC today
Climate change: Storm clouds gather after COP26
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59744522
Firstly and incredibly McGrath conflates physical climate and politics using the same sensational and meaningless hyperbole ……a first I think.
I quote: “2021 was a momentous year for climate change.
As well as a host of extreme, destructive events influenced by rising temperatures, the past 12 months have seen unprecedented political engagement on the issue, culminating in the COP26 summit in Glasgow in November.
1. So he just admitted that weather events occur naturally. Notice no backing up of that claim with any data reference to calibrate “how much worse” and of course he is party to the deliberate and complete conflation of “natural” and claimed “man made” weather effects deliberately blurring the lines between weather to climate.
Was 2021 so momentous from a climate point of view? Really? Is he not wilfully misinterpreting WEATHER events as climate?
2.”Unpresented political engagement? Does he mean COP 26 had more worthless hangers on than previous meetings? If so I would agree. It would appear so from absurd spectacle of the Love in of the Lovies all flying in on their private jets to “be concerned”. What is the relevance of that statement and the need for hyperbole?
As usual the balanced and impartial McGrath is soft on China hardly mentioning them at all. India is mentioned only once and then grouped with other countries. No emotional hyperbole there from Mr McGrath.
McGrath leaves the final word to the pointless and irritating Alok Sharma:
“I believe we will reach a net zero world, and the UK is leading the way through our own actions such as rapidly expanding our renewables sector and working to eliminate the use of coal from our electricity generation in 2024, the question is whether that will be fast enough to avoid the worst effects of climate change.”
Britain leading the way to economic melt down! Is that something to be proud of and promote? Clearly Mr Sharma is sorely in need of not only a does of reality and common sense but also of some BASIC scientific knowledge.
He would appear in that statement to be making the absurd suggestion that by ruining it’s self Britain is going to save the planet all on it’s own from “the worst effects of climate change”!!!!
What are those “worst effects” given that the climate is different all over the world?
The arguments as presented even from a political point of view do not stack up. I will not even go near the issue of scientific credibility for any of this.
Cheers
Jonathan Scott
Paul,
The garbage heads at the BBC seem to have been as bored as I was with the lacklustre fayre on the TV over Christmas.
More egregious instructions to climate activist promotional from the “impartial BBC”
*******************************************************************************************
Why climate lawsuits are surging
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211207-the-legal-battle-against-climate-change
*************************************************************************************************
This is a pure promotional piece to broadcast the idea to their other climate activist friends in case they had not thought of vexatious lawsuits as a way to irritate people as opposed to damaging property or gluing themselves to the road.
I was drawn to this statement below one picture of some of the BBC’s friends at work:
**************************************************************************************************
“Increasingly solid science proving anthropogenic climate change and shifting public sentiment are two reasons for the uptick in climate lawsuits”.
**************************************************************************************************
If there was solid science then that is the only thing they need to mention surely?
This statement is simply not correct either grammatically or scientifically. Firstly Science is empirical and therefore quantitative. The science either exists or doesn’t so where is it BBC? Saying there is science or quoting models is not science. Without empirical data there “is” no science rather just politics and religion.
What is solid science? Is it different from “soft” science I wonder? These meaningless layman terms point to the problem which lies at the root of much of what the BBC produces on this subject by those trying to give legitimacy to what they pump out by saying sciencey words.
There is NO proof in science. None! This is a mathematical term. In science there is only weight of evidence in support of a hypothesis. This means this weeks hypothesis can be totally replace next week should a different set of data be produced which can support a totally different hypothesis. Science is never settled or proven. “Proof” is not part of the language of a scientist. It is however part of the language of those who also use phrases like “science is settled” and talks about “97% consensus” in science. To use the word proof is only a “proof of a lack of scientific understanding.
Where is the measurement of that “shifting public sentiment”? From what I can see is the public is sick to death of the doom laden proclamations which never come true. The public is continuously having climate based BS imposed on them away from the ballot box so that statement is pushing the truth beyond any limit.
Also we were told at the beginning in the headline “there is a surge” in lawsuits, now it is just an “uptick”, which is it BBC? Notice we are not given any figures for the number of lawsuits which must be a number. Why not BBC?
The main reason for this uptick in what are purely vexatious litigations is simply a shift in tactics by the sickening well funded marxist activists infesting all of the climate pressure groups who all copy each other. Not one of their claims or suits has to have any place in reality to be presented as long as there is money and seems the god Soros gives it to them by the sack load.
Anyway on to : “Increasingly solid science proving anthropogenic climate change”.
I have a serious problem with this statement.
Given that there exists NO statistically significant empirical data of any kind to support the claim that CO2 returned by man to the Carbon Cycle is in any measurable way responsible in full or in part for the current welcome warming which began 350 years ago HOW can the BBC now claim as having scientific “proof” of something which is totally dependent on that earlier non existent “proof”? Where is your “proof” BBC?
Climate is a highly complex process which is still very poorly understood yet the BBC is telling us that without all of the pieces of the puzzle that we should accept their word that some mysterious science has appeared which skips over cause yet “proves” its effect in climate change.
Without “proof” of cause there can be no “proven” effect. QED.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul,
From the BBC today
How Covid and climate misinformation and ‘fake news’ spread in 2021
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-59736375
The copper calling the kettle black!
Here we have the BBC, the arch peddlers of disinformation, misinformation and lying by omission daring to accuse others of what they do every single day!
The sheer effrontery of these people has no limit.
They then dare to produce this OpEd as some kind of proof.
9/10ths of the video is about covid and even then most of the “miss information they are talking about is a matter of opinion. When we get to the climate part the evidence these sheisters present is one foto of a frozen wind turbine after they show pictures of non endangered polar bears! Other than that on both subjects the problem appears to be people daring to question the narrative which they promote. The BBC themselves peddle total numbers of cases which they must know is meaningless yet never do you read or hear them mentioning this.
There has been a wilful lack of credible information provided on both subjects with deliberately vague and contradictory information provided on the covid. As for the climate farrago we all know the totally science free one sided presentation of activist opinion is enough to make anyone question what is going on.
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul,
Have you seen this one more piece of support for the anti scientists by the impartial BBC?
Climate change: Small army of volunteers keeping deniers off Wikipedia
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-59452614
The fact that the BBC are promoting such egregious anti science is a shocker even for them!
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Something to take the Royals’ minds off Prince Andrew’s woes?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/30/moths-munching-away-royal-palace-treasures-climate-change/
I bet their energy bills are interesting.
American Public Broadcasting (PBS) recently released a nice climate scare porn piece here:
The term “tipping point” was mentioned 7 times amid constant flow if images of forest fires, floods, deserts, calving glaciers, etc. A conversation between a young Greta Thunberg and the Dalai Lama began and ended the hour-long piece. Here’s an example of the kinds of claims being made:
“. . .Scientists estimate that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels could produce an increase in temperature of up to 8 degrees Fahrenheit resulting in the deaths of millions of people and the loss of countless species.”
They also mentioned that, “if the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melted, sea levels would rise100 feet.” (30 meters) Interesting use of degrees F and feet instead of degrees C and meters. . . for effect, I suppose.
Most contributors were from the Woodwell Climate Institute. I wonder what you and your followers will make of this.
https://www.pbs.org/video/earth-emergency-6njifx
Afternoon Paul,
Thought you might be interested in this.
Radio 4 PM Five O’clock news Friday 31 December 2021.
“And the Met. Office has confirmed that today is the UK’s warmest New Year’s eve on record. The temperature reached 15.8 Celcius in Merryfield Somerset – around double the seasonal average.”
A correspondent then weighed in with:
“Today’s temperature beats the previous record of 14.8 set a decade ago at Colwyn Bay North Wales. Conditions were so mild that outdoor ice rinks at Hampden Court Palace and Somerset House in London have been forced to close for the last two days. This month is likely to have been the dreariest for 65 years with the UK averaging 27 hours of sunshine in December. Forecasters say the dull weather is linked to milder winter temperatures and is likely to be caused by global warming.”
Of course there have been plenty of hotter days in mid-winter it’s just that they didn’t happen to be on New Year’s eve (e.g. 10 Jan 1972 18.3 degrees Aber Gwynedd) see
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-climate-extremes
As for the temperature being double the normal and the weather being the dreariest for 65 years, well what can you say.
Inews is also on the case:
“New Year’s Day could be equally record-breaking. The warmest New Year’s Day on record currently is 15.6°C, set in Bude, Cornwall in 1916. Tomorrow temperatures of 15°C could be fairly widespread across much of the southern half of the UK, according to the Met Office, and could well beat the 1916 record.”
And: “These warm spells in winter are consistent with what we would expect with climate change, and while cold snaps cannot be ruled out, we would expect above-average temperatures like this to become a more frequent occurrence as the global climate warms,” said Mr Armstrong [Met Office spokesman?]”
No attempt to explain what might have caused the record high temperature 105 years ago well before global warming was thought of.
Sent from my iPad
2021, 2022, nothing changes:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/01/01/polar-bears-forced-migrate-america-russia-climate-change/
A New year gift …
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/hundreds-voi-e-scooters-damaged-6431203?utm_source=bristol_live_newsletter&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter2&utm_medium=email#comments-wrapper
&
Bristol’s Voi e-scooter burns in man’s home
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristols-voi-e-scooters-trial-6355934#comments-wrapper
Paul,
Good article you may have seen by Micheal Schellenberger.
The really interesting paragraph is:
“Even longtime natural gas and renewable energy boosters agree there’s a crisis. “The ability of Europe and the U.S. to respond to a Russian invasion is constrained both by a desire not to exacerbate Europe’s energy crisis by sanctioning Russian energy exports and, more broadly, by the threat that Russia could retaliate to any confrontation by restricting gas flows into Europe, as Russia did in 2006 and 2009,” Jason Bordoff, a former Obama administration official, told Bloomberg.”
So, green mania directly implicated in territorial wars now. Is there nothing climate change hysteria can’t do?
https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/finally-bloomberg-admits-renewables?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNDc4ODA3MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDY1ODMwNTEsIl8iOiJsNm9ONCIsImlhdCI6MTY0MTMxODgyOSwiZXhwIjoxNjQxMzIyNDI5LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjc5NDAwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.JwjEcrgNZS6MzV94LcnzsGZm39AC6yAFivOtI8ta9dE
Good news!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/01/04/british-lithium-moves-step-closer-uk-production/
That’s progress!
Perhaps not so much:
The company’s pilot plant in Cornwall is now capable of making 5kg a day of lithium carbonate …
The company wants to be able to produce 21,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate or hydroxide a year …
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/uk/government-eco-red-tape-will-wipe-thousands-house-prices/
It’s actually worse than portrayed in the piece. Apart from the impact on private property, taxpayers will also have to carry the cost of council actions to improve their rental housing stock.
Another “you couldn’t make it up” piece:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/01/07/thousands-planes-forced-fly-across-europe-no-passengers-eu-red/
The gravy train is alive and well:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/01/07/former-energy-secretary-amber-rudd-joins-board-british-gas-owner/
Monty Don was full-on blaming climate change for Venetian catastrophic floods a couple of years ago.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00135tx/monty-dons-adriatic-gardens-series-1-episode-1
Paul, from the BBC today. A lot for you to challenge in here from the ever so “impartial” BBC
written by a Georgina Rannard with a quote from climate shaman Rowlatt
Past seven years hottest on record – EU satellite data
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59915690
The single thing which just about sums up weasels like Rowlett is right at the end of this “Oh no it is worse than we thought” propaganda.
I refer to the final section with the heading “Warming gases increased”.
We are told the following in two successive sentences:
>>Carbon dioxide concentrations reached 414.3 parts per million last year, growing at a similar rate to 2020.<>But scientists remarked that methane levels in the atmosphere increased to reach an unprecedented approximately 1,876 parts per billion.<<
Unprecedented compared to what? WHY quote CO2 in ppm and then the next sentence for CH4 in ppB?
How is the reader expected to make a reasonable comparison or is the intention for them NOT to be able to do that?
Trying to "big up" the methane numbers are they? This to me is deliberate to create a story making the CH4 numbers seem bigger. How many people would see the shift in units?
The comparison actually is CO2 0.0414 and CH4 0.000187
You would get eaten alive in any scientific setting were you to unit shift like that when reporting on two substances from the same setting. It demonstrates a total lack of method but worse, on this issue the BBC are desperate to make things bigger badder, worse and if sleight of hand is needed then that is with the blessing of Rowlatt and McGrath et al.
Regards
Jon Scott
Your pal’s at it again, Paul:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/01/13/foreign-gas-fickle-britain-should-go-hell-bent-north-sea-gas/
He starts off OK, but ends with:
“The latest contracts for offshore wind are as low as £40 per MWh. Compare this to the current Ofgem price of power at £119. It is not even close.
Our problem is not wind. It is over-reliance on imported global gas. The UK’s current account deficit has ballooned to 4pc of GDP, and the energy deficit makes up the lion’s share.
If your energy bill goes up by 50pc to £2,000 in April, just remember: you are paying that surcharge, day-in, day-out, to foreign powers. Our wealth is being drained away.
So be thankful for offshore wind turbines: they are going to save you a lot of money.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/01/15/125m-yorkshire-project-aiming-break-chinas-rare-earths-stranglehold/
It’s got to be better than wind turbine subcontractor work. Although noting “the environmental footprint of the rare earths industry in China”, they’re careful not to go into the byproducts/effluents here Still, it’s on a brownfield site, so that’s a good start.
They couldn’t resist this:
“It is also set to have a direct power feed from the Dogger Bank wind farm, making its power 100pc renewable, and could eventually recycle materials from old wind turbines – creating a so-called “circular economy”.”
Just in case:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/smart-meter-tariffs-now-massively-overpriced-prices-triple/
“Octopus Energy, now the only large supplier to offer the tariffs in Britain after rival provider Bulb closed its doors in November, has warned customers that most households would be better off using a traditional energy tariff.
“The supplier said on its website: “[Our] half-hourly pricing exposes customers to wholesale market rates. Over the past few years, this has enabled customers to save significantly compared to a standard tariff, but right now, prices are consistently high.
“Most homes will be better off staying on a standard fixed or variable tariff for the Winter.””
Hi Paul, I’ve been a subscriber for a long time now.
Suddenly your emails stopped.
What’s happened?
B rgds Brian Jackson.
Paul,
Not sure I know what to say about this latest demonstration of being “not fit for purpose” by the ever so scientific Met Office. Doing just weather seems either beyond their abilities or no longer interesting.
“Met Office warns of armed militias roaming a UK ravaged by climate change”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1551007/Met-Office-warning-weather-news-report-UK-alert
Regards
Jon Scott
Hi Paul,
I’ve been a subscriber to your NALOPKThat blog for a long time and enjoy it very much, with its automatic emails.
2 weeks ago the emails stopped.
I’ve signed up to WordPress so I can resubscribe, but can’t find your blog on there.
Please advise for restart of emails?
B rgds, Brian Jackson.
07762 733 863.
Sorry for the delay Brian. Been out on the bike all day!
Your details don’t appear on the list.
Try Resubsribing in the box in top right hand corner of my website
Paul
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/01/17/nicola-sturgeon-reaps-700m-auction-triple-uk-wind-power/
No mention of the impact on the transmission system.
Who’d’a thought it?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/01/20/architect-energy-price-cap-says-has-destroyed-market-must-scrapped/
Then there’s this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/21/face-mask-cows-among-finalists-prince-charles-climate-crisis/
“One project, called ZELP, involves a “wearable device” for cows which looks like a face mask covering the animal’s nose. It is designed to “neutralise methane emissions in real time” for some of the 1.6 billion cattle on Earth.”
I wonder how they’ll eat.
And another:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/01/22/energy-crisis-bursts-green-shares-bubble/
And finally:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/01/22/americas-climate-alarmists-have-made-look-like-fools/
Including: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
I think I’ve seen that one recently on here?
Paul,
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60074407
False banana: Is Ethiopia’s enset ‘wondercrop’ for climate change?
Each time I feel the BBC has reached a new low then then come up with something new.
Firstly they show us the fruit of this plant compared to the banana and then tell us it is inedible! We are told it is the stems and roots which can be used so WHY show something which has no value?
In spite of the year on year records being set for World food production, (FACTS) our impartial friends in the BBC based on wrong models are grasping at anything to keep “crisis” in the minds of their readership and their latest desperate climate life belt is the following nonsense. Note they push this based on “predictions” which come from those famously wrong models.
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL/visualize
Choose your crop…… thanks to a slightly warming world, more plant food ( CO2) and in some places ( not all) improved technology, world food production sets records every year.
They have the shear effrontery to not even pay lip service to the UN figures (hardly an impartial organization at the best of time) by even mentioning them to qualify their article saying it is all going to change soon, simply real data is not convenient so they are ignored. They also ignore the real problem in Africa which is an exponentially growing population. THAT is the threat to food security, not nonsense about climate change but hey never let the truth get in the way of a good story when the BBC is showing its “impartiality” on this issue.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul,
Climate change threatening buried UK treasures
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60091485
As usual with anything they tie to climate change it has to be replete with emotional language…”fears” and “devastation”…except….. did not the Medieval Warm Period occur between the Roman Occupation and the Present Day? Seems the archaeology survived that no problem at all.
One peat bog apparently drying ( which can be because of a whole bunch of reasons including local farmers draining land or movement in the water table) means ALL peat bogs in the UK and 22000 archaeological sites “may be” under threat according to Rowlett.
Also not sure about all the guff about Vindolanda and claiming it is all a peat bog which appears to be what they are saying. I thought the Romans were clever. Indeed they must have been to set building foundations ………on a peat bog? Could not the very archaeology be part of the cause?
Note also, and it has been the case for some time with the BBC now after the successful completion of project conflation, ALL warming and consequentially climate change is automatically man made. Those “natural forces” just do not get a look in anymore.
I “thought” the BBC was telling us that the country is getting wetter, clearly the overall weather patters show Scotland is indeed getting wetter. Maybe this also points to “local factors” but hey this is the impartial BBC and they have a narrative to push.
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul,
Government says its climate change curbs inadequate
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60026378
“The report is a response to an analysis of the UK’s vulnerability to climate change by the official advisers, the Climate Change Committee.
“Climate change is happening now. It is one of the biggest challenges of our generation and has already begun to cause irreversible damage to our planet and way of life,” the report begins”.
Oh ho ho! “Irreversible damage to our planet” Really? So what about the HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of previous warmings across geological history? Did they all also “irreversibly damage the planet”? Where is the evidence and how are we here if they did? What about starting with the three previous warmings, The Minoan, the Roman and the Medieval”? Not a lot of “irreversible damage” caused then, far from it, humanity thrived.
Where is the physics and indeed evidence to support the “irreversible damage”? Where is the physics to support this? This is just the unsubstantiated and totally debunked “tipping point” in a party dress.
Also if the planet is “damaged irreversibly” then how can you talk in the same breath about our “way of life”? Surely that Irreversible damage means end of human life rather than a need perhaps to wear shorts comfortably in the UK?
Also if 2deg warming is going to destroy the UK agricultural system, how come people who already live in 2 deg average warmer temperatures are not dead from starvation, but no wait….they have year on year record breaking food production and in some situations exponentially growing human populations which that extra food is so far keeping pace with?
And these clowns who use theatrical language seriously are advisors to our government?
regards
Jon Scott
I’m just reading “Global Crisis…17th Century” by Geoffrey Parker covering the Little Ice Age. Now that period of cooling, as opposed to warming, does sound grim indeed with crop failures, food shortages, starvation and resulting population declines, all of which sounds like the prophesies of the current doomsayers. Some warming is surely to be welcomed, especially in northern latitudes (perishing chilly here in Sussex at the moment by the way!!). but I don’t think these alarmists have any idea as to how the climate has changed, in both directions, in relatively recent history.
Interesting development?
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/self-driving-cars-calls-to-make-companies-liable-for-accidents-not-drivers-091044304.html
Another unintended consequence:
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/northern-ireland-climate-bill-risks-wiping-out-thousands-of-farmers-mps-warned-124828127.html
“UFU president Victor Chestnutt told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that farmers agreed that climate change legislation was necessary to tackle emissions, but added that a fair transition must be ensured.”
Like the Irish joke, I wouldn’t start from there.
Dear Paul,
I’ve been a long time follower of your blog but not a commenter – I thought this article about expensive car batteries from Leicester Live might entertain your readers!
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/mercedes-owner-horrified-new-battery-6545540
Regards,
Mark
We will see a lot more of this naïveté, Mark. Imagine what Ranjit’s bill would be if it was a full electric vehicle. The replacement cost would be more like £30,000. [Someone with better knowledge of the British market than me (virtually none) might be able to provide a better estimate. I roughly based it on the battery stack for a EV being more than twice the size of the battery stack for a hybrid.] Of course, is Mercedes a good example?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/01/28/brussels-sets-sights-british-wind-power/
“Efforts since made to try and reverse that situation and protect UK jobs now face a challenge from abroad. The European Commission is examining whether Britain is unfairly prioritising local firms and, reported the Sun, is on the brink of filing a challenge with the World Trade Organisation. ”
I thought we’d left the EU.
Interesting : https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00157-9?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=8a99fe8d39-briefing-dy-2022026&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-8a99fe8d39-45404282
A mega-drought in the past… some 4,000 years ago…
Hello Paul. I’m not on social media or anything like that. How do I contact you to tell you all about what I believe is a corker of a scoop concerning the lunancy of the green blob.
I’ll email you thanks
There is a small but growing group protesting against solar farms:
https://www.solarcampaignalliance.info/
There is a real and serious problem with many planning applications for mainly sub 50MW farms which are classed as not significant infrastructure and which require only local planning authorities to decide.
My personal view is:
the loss of agricultural assets to industrial activities is unsustainable and
with electricity priced at over £120/MWhr the loss of ROC since 2015 is not a significant bar to development; land owners are being offered ten times the agricultural value in leases lasting 40 years. When this amount of money is being spent it creates its own malevolent influence both locally and nationally, especially if the electricity market slumps.
Paul, have you seen Rowlatt’s latest: “Climate change: The science briefing that convinced Boris Johnson” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60203674
It seems that it took just 11 slides to to convince him: https://www.carbonbrief.org/revealed-the-11-slides-that-finally-convinced-boris-johnson-about-global-warming
Lots of hockey sticks!
I have left a suitable comment on Carbon Briefs comments section. No doubt I’ll be inundated with hysterical responses from the weak minded climate change fanatics.
Surely you must support this petition so can you PLEASE promote it at EVERY opportunity on here and with all your contacts. It is far from perfext but it is all we currently have and after a rapid start we have slowed but if we can reach 100,000 votes by April we could get a debate in parliament. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602
It gets dafter by the day:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/06/homes-risk-energy-rating-downgrade-install-heat-pump/
Paul
More hyperventilating egregious pap promoted by the usual suspects promoting wilful lying by omission by “scientists” eagerly lapped up and regurgitated ( after a little sexing up of course) by the usual cabal of suspects
Mount Everest: Mountain’s highest glacier melting rapidly, new study shows
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60259427
Ice that took roughly 2,000 years to form on Mt. Everest has melted in around 25
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/03/asia/mount-everest-climate-ice-glacier-melt-intl/index.html
Climate change: Mount Everest ice which took 2,000 years to form has melted in just 25, scientists say
https://news.sky.com/story/climate-change-mount-everest-ice-which-took-2-000-years-to-form-has-melted-in-just-25-scientists-say-12532956
and we are told by sexy Sky that science expert expert experts say it is another “climate wakeup call” GOSH!
Mount Everest’s highest glacier is losing decades’ worth of ice every year, scientists warn
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-mount-everest-melting-glacier/
As usual with the promotion of their climate fear science, none of the usual suspects put any of the observations into context, but then it appears neither do the scientists ( can we guess where there funding past present and future comes from?)
Notice the way the term “climate change” is just thrown in without any of them saying HOW climate change is causing this. There should at least be a scene setting which covers all the variables especially as this place is below freezing all year round which means it most certainly is not melting.
All these climate “experts” quoting verbatim science “experts” use the term melting. This is interesting because as far as I can ascertain the temperature rarely if ever in the South Col is above -5deg C. What is actually happening is the process of sublimation which is where ice can go directly into gaseous form at any temperature.
A glacier is a river of solid phase water. Input equals output. If there is a lack of input then there will be a lack of output so the change is most likely due to reduced snow fall….. or is the dumb public being led to believe that snowfall has been constant for 2000 years? Also what is the 2000 year claim based on because we are not told. I wonder what happened during the Roman Warming Period and the Medieval Warming Period so I would want to make a very close inspection of the claimed basis for that 2000 year claim. Maybe most if not all the ice is Little Ice Age in origin? We are also told the meaningless statistic that the ice is melting 80x faster than it took to form….which means what exactly?
Interesting point made in the usual data free fear article by the BBC ( News you can trust) where they make the strange claim that the glacier has lost 54m of ice thickness YET the “scientists” only have a 10m ice coring tool. How do they achieve the 54m number I wonder as we are as usual never told when critical information validating a claim is required.
We have to ask do the purveyors of wilful climate fear propaganda all use the word “melting” by mistake or is there a common desire to create the idea that temperatures are above Zero up at 8000m elevation and next years Everest expedition will be wearing singlets, bikini tops flip flops and speedos?
Cheers
Jon Scott
Paul,
Low and behold two “wakeup callsl” oh we are so lucky! The second today, according to the Gruauniad and the rest of the climate propagandists hyperventilating about some artificially reclaimed land being reclaimed by the sea as “evidence” of climate change. So much emotion and crocodile tears from the desperate peddlers of climatageddon
‘This is a wake-up call’: the villagers who could be Britain’s first climate refugees
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/18/this-is-a-wake-up-call-the-villagers-who-could-be-britains-first-climate-refugees
They are all in there, the BBC the Grauniad, Sky the lot of them
As with all their asinine one size fits all blame game does not hold water (pardon the pun) upon closer inspection but hey they are quoting “scientists” who’s very livelihoods depend on bigging up project climate fear but even then reading the text of the below report and looking at the maps this is not a place where anything other than beach houses/ boat houses should have been built..
I need to do a bit more reading but a useful document to flush out the climate rat is this one by the Welsh Government:
Fairbourne Coastal Risk Management Learning Project
PUBLICATION DATE: 19/12/2019
Click to access fairbourne-coastal-risk-management-learning-project.pdf
Way too many off the cuff insertions of the term climate change without any justification in the report and crazy sea level estimates which ignore completely the current 3.4 mm (+/-4.0mm) Nasa
The Intro page 6 is a good place to start and then sections 2.12 (important), 2.13, 2.14 and 2.15 set the scene.
This is artificially reclaimed VERY low lying grazing land and salt marsh (19th & early 20th cent) which flooded regularly in the 19th century before the defences were put in. However, those every defences are in part responsible for the demise by arresting the natural movement landward of the shingle bank. The notable flooding event they refer to was in November 1938! Worse because of it’s location flooding could originate from the landward side just as it could from the seaward side
I will spend some time on this tomorrow. There is a very interesting foto on the BBC piece https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-49994297 (second foto in the article) which shows clearly that sea level was much higher and recently to and indeed created a notch which forms a cliff behind the houses. Why they not build on the higher land rather than on the reclaimed salt marsh is not clear, but more on that later.
Regards
Jon Scott
Jon,
I ‘roll my eyes’ when they go on about Fairbourne. Do you think any of the writers have traveled only 11 miles up the coast (as the crow flies) to Harlech? The stunning castle at Harlech was built between 1282 and 1289. At the time the sea used to come right up to the walls of the castle and there was a long flight of steps down to a quay that meant that the castle could be supplied by sea during sieges. Fast forward more than 730 years to the present day and the sea shore lies nearly three quarters of a mile further AWAY and further west – so much for the impact of sea-level rise! Or you could travel another 4 miles north of Harlech and, in medieval times, sea ships could make there way up what was then the Glaslyn estuary (the Traeth Mawr) towards Pont Aberglaslyn. Nowadays the shore is several miles further south at Porthmadog and all of the Traeth Mawr is land! Now, to be fair, the estuary was closed off in Victorian times by a railway embankment and the land behind has been reclaimed, but even so this still shows that the coastline of Wales is (and always has been) a dynamic one and that sea-level rise is not a major factor given some human ingenuity.
Hey Chris! Thanks for the observations. We both know what we are dealing with here, the frustration is knowing that climate is just a tool for the advancement of a political agenda. The people pulling the strings could not give a monkeys chuff about “climate” or is it global warming. What appals me is to see supposed scientists lying by omission which seems almost standard now in the largely empirical data free world of climate fear promotion.
There are multiple factors which are inputs to net erosion or net accretion of coastal areas, sea level rise ( or fall) is just one of them. It is the asinine one size fits all argument again and again that the humanities graduates with their bought pet scientists promote. Sea level is relative yet do you ever see any semblance of qualification before “scientists” wade in with their contribution to project climate fear? The BBC amongst others were screeching about coastal erosion of poorly consolidated cliffs in Norfolk last week as caused by klymutt chaeyngsh and of course they had their “expert to answer specific banal questions they asked. They failed to mention that that erosion is actual caused by strong currents causing longshore drift which is depositing the same sediment 10s of km further along the coast making that place accretionary. The politicisation of science is now pretty much complete. Environmentalism is now completely infested with far left wing ( and that is being polite) activism. It has nothing to do with ecology. Experts and scientists abound. The media purveyors of this garbage do not care if the person they quote spouting is in anyway qualified to pontificate about coastal processes . A good example was The BBC last month where a couple of weather presenters were promoting a land slide in Gwenedd last year as caused by sea level rise. Wales exhibits a remarkably dynamic history of both uplift and depression of parts of the land area. Due to glacial isostatic rebound, North Wales is rebounding positively and as a consequence South Wales is pivoting negatively along a zero line not for from Fairborne. One look at the foto they showed of the landslide in Gwennedd revealed not only that this was a positive adjustment collapse of recent poorly consolidated sediments and nothing at all to do with sea level rise but all so two clear notches in the cliff line caused by previously falling sea level. Sadly there are plenty of “scientists” who see guaranteed salaries when they are willing to be “selective” to be sure the bits they talk about support the narrative. I have spent my career either presenting or challenging scientific presentations. It takes no more than 3 or 4 minutes into a presentation for me to know if the presenter is hiding something or not. Usually the reason is either not enough confidence in some results or the results totally contradict the line of their argument. I have been put in that uncomfortable position myself and as someone who passionately believes in science as the pursuit of the truth I feel unhappy being put in a position where I must be selective about which data I present. Indeed it is incumbent upon a scientist to reveal the data which does not agree with the thesis they espouse, but rarely will you see that anymore.
Two more examples of wishful thinking:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/08/national-grid-pays-households-ration-power-use/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/08/net-zero-target-danger-heat-pump-progress-goes-cold/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/08/smart-meter-overhaul-open-gates-surge-pricing/
They still haven’t got the message that there’s a limit to the level of unreliables.
“A timeline published by Ofgem says it will formally gain the powers to introduce the changes in May. They will be implemented by 2025”
On the basis of past performance, 2030?
Paul,
From the BBC today
UK must move faster to insulate homes – climate chief
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60290876
“Chris Stark says” If this is all about science why are so many of those put in influential positions people with no scientific education or background? Surely that is critical to be able to maintain a perspective?
Also excuse me for asking but IF as the fearmongers who he supports say we have run away global warming (A), then why the need to push home insulation (B)? B does not logically follow A. Are they not telling us something?
“Investing in insulation is “critical” if Britain is to cut energy consumption and meet its climate goals, says Jan Rosenow of the Regulatory Assistance Project, a clean energy think tank.
For years, low energy prices have made it more cost effective to just turn up the boiler. That’s why we’ve been caught out in the current energy crisis”.
Oh it is OUR FAULT! So the whole problem according to this numpty is only cause by us turning up our boilers in the winter and not the fact that he and his ilk have created meltdown within our energy supply system by removing guaranteed base load and “replacing it” with worthless wind and solar! Notice also his tactless quip about “low energy prices” as if that is something bad! One more pointless pontificator who has his head in the clouds.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul,
Green energy measures saving households £1,000 a year – analysis
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/28/green-energy-measures-saving-households-money-analysis-shows
Lies, damned lies and statistics
Bare faced lies from the bare faced liars in the marxist grauniad.
I have been waiting for some doubling down on the energy crisis.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
It’s starting to feel what it must have been like in 1940 at the height of the blitz; one thing after another, except the German bombs were real:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/10/national-grid-drain-electric-car-batteries-times-peak-demand/
Whatever happened to concerns about range anxiety? The results of the trial, with 135 carefully selected owners, will be worth a good look, if/when available.
Paul,
As it’s Friday, here from Climaterealism:
https://climaterealism.com/2022/02/anything-for-a-headline-climate-change-is-altering-the-smell-of-snow/?fbclid=IwAR2bEvOZVI8uJQdABOS0MbadOosUXxxY6ivkZD8TXCN5z4t0wb7hEPrFv64
Cheers
Jon Scott
Paul,
Just when you think it is not possible to have more clear evidence that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum:
Is this part of a cynical plan after their pathetic approval of “6” oil and gas fields as if a number means anything …sweeties to pacify the children not allowed toys?
GOVERNMENT’S OIL & GAS AUTHORITY ORDERS ABANDONMENT OF 37.6 TRILLION CUBIC METRES OF ONSHORE GAS
Given Samuels background either he has been nobbled and sold his soul for 30 pieces of silver or he winged it for the whole of his career in the oil industry. Let us see if he pops up in the next round of honours” gongs for those who toe the line”.
ANDREW NEIL: It’s madness to ignore the answer to the energy crisis that’s lying under our feet.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10503839/ANDREW-NEIL-madness-ignore-answer-energy-crisis-thats-lying-feet.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2022/02/13/worlds-largest-trees-find-home-britain-peaceful-giants-rapidly/
Commenters aren’t amused. No doubt WUWT will pick it up.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/14/teesside-factory-serving-offshore-wind-boom-create-2250-jobs/
So, we couldn’t supply the steel for the Chinese wind farms in Scotland, but by spending £300m, suddenly we can. Wasn’t Korea the destination for the redundant steelworks kit from Ravenscraig?
https://unherd.com/2022/02/green-hypocrisy-hurts-the-poorest/
Nobody’s listening, but look, it’s not all bad (if you’re on the gravy train):
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ey-to-hire-1300-in-net-zero-drive-000149680.html
Have you noticed that as the gas price has gone up our remaining coal fired generation capacity seems to be running full time – bet that will not be reported on the BBC
The difference between eco-concern and having a life? What does it cost?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/middle-england-getting-heated-wood-burners/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/families-save-530-energy-bills-turning-old-fashioned-log-burners/
Ian, who would have guessed? The law of unintended consequences. More than one commentator has pointed out that if the cerebrally challenged zealots get their way regarding fossil fuels within 5 years there will not be a tree left standing.
The arguments presented do not add up but then they were never meant to. Climate/environment call it what you will, the activism is purely political with enthusiastic useful idiots offering themselves up as window dressing.
When we hear the same people screeching that the world will end if we open a coal mine/start fracking/commission a new offshore oil field in the UK yet remaining silent regarding importing the same tells you what this is really all about and that is brut politics with power as the goal.
Their one and only goal is chaos because chaos is the only route their ideology knows to assume power. There is no end game as presented. This principle can be applied to any facet of the multiheaded hydra that is “progressivism”. What is so shocking today is the total emasculation and capitulation of the balance expected from right of centre.
Paul.,
For the irony folder
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul,
Some interesting claims in this piece from the impartial folks at the BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60411622
Biggest power plant in coal-reliant Australia to close early
“The 2.88 gigawatt Eraring plant is located in the Hunter region north of Sydney and operated by Origin Energy.
The plant will now close in 2025 and be replaced by a large-scale battery.
It adds to a long list of coal plants forced shut by the growth of cheap wind and solar energy in the country”.
Regards
Jon Scott
Virtue signalling meets arithmetic – and loses:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/02/17/pay-per-mile-road-charging-threatens-electric-car-sales/
Mr Merriman, the Conservative MP for Bexhill and Battle … speaking at an event organised by the Policy Exchange think tank he insisted that the need to repair the hole in the public finances outweighed the need to promote sales of electric vehicles. In a report this month the Transport Committee urged ministers to act.
Just did a fag packet calculation. Vat and subsidies on the electricity used by EVs, together with the additional vat brought in because EVs are at least £10k more than combustion engine cars has resulted in windfall income of around £1bn in the last year alone.
Not mentioned – surprise surprise!
Paul,
From the usual suspects.
Scrabbling around desperately to find real evidence to support their climate cult, the BBC has found a new way to keep it in the minds of the ignorant masses and treats is to hypothetical ways to fight/stop/reverse climate change.
Could we bring back mammoths to fight climate change?https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/could-we-bring-back-mammoths-to-fight-climate-chan/p09cdh9z?playlist=thought-experiments
Oh “thought experiments”? What was wrong with the perfectly understandable existing term “theorizing”? Couple of questions regarding this. He is suggesting that trees are bad and grass is good. This alone is a massive point which the climate obsessed BBC completely misses. I have often posed questions regarding the western humanities educated activist obsession with planting deciduous trees ignoring the grass that they replace.
Secondly he is proposing having millions of large grass eating herbivores that the same people screeched about together with their vegan fascists pals claiming they are bad for the planet as they produce methane so something is not right there either.
There are a lot of assumptions in this “thought experiment”.
Overall I am highly disturbed by the absurd idea of man playing God. We have a track record for being very bad at it. This obsession with man having god like abilities has been a common theme for quite a while. Stopping extinction (a natural and critical part of evolution) being just one part of the myopic vision of the God wannabes. Even if this was possible, what about the unintended consequences which must surely occur?
Finally of course this is all justified by completely unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable claims about it being just one more control knob in the asinine “fight against climate change”.
What does empirical data based geological history tell us ? What happens when the second part of the current ice age comes? Climate change occurs with or without the influence of man. Those grass lands have not disappeared JUST because those animals are not there. There is a whole host of reasons why they existed in the first place. The grasslands occurred first because grass arrives first when the ice recedes. What does he propose to do with all the trees? As for the mosses that is an environmental issue not an animal grazing issue. Bog is bog.
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul,
From Netzerowatch,
https://mailchi.mp/3af077cd9d71/putin-sabre-rattling-causes-a-seismic-shift-in-views-on-uk-energy-security-187214?e=6e6c09ffcb
Second article “2) Putin sabre-rattling causes a seismic shift in views on North Sea energy
The Sunday Times, 20 February 2022
I could not help but comment on the pontification by the degrother moron from “Friends of the Earth Scotland”. Interesting that they claim concern for the planet but need to have an extra bureaucracy specifically for Scotland. Why do they need that I wonder?
From Ryan Morrison, from Friends of the Earth Scotland
“Their position is at odds with environmentalists and the SNP, which has signalled a shift away from fossil fuels because of concern over the climate crisis. Ryan Morrison, from Friends of the Earth Scotland, said the answer was to focus on ending our need for diesel and boosting public transport.
From Ryan Morrison, from Friends of the Earth Scotland who unsurprisingly has left wing( I am being kind) leanings spouting all the usual guff from the marxist playbook that the lefties in their ignorance think is socialism.
“The UK’s fossil fuel energy system only benefits oil and gas companies who make billions in profits whilst millions of people can’t afford to heat their homes and our climate is destroyed. It beggars belief that anyone with a shred of concern for people or the planet would want to further lock us into that system.”
An unbelievably ignorant assessment of the value of the fossil fuel energy system from an activist with activist tunnel vision. He is rewriting history or never bothered to learn it, being oblivious to the fact that getting rid of the fossil fuel power generation and replacing it with useless wind and solar is one of the root cause of the price rise. Reminds me of Monty Python and “What have the Romans ever done for us”?
So now thanks to this activist moron not only do we have climate negative and climate positive, stopping climate change and reversing climate change but we now have climate destruction!
Regards
Jon Scott
Ethiopia starts generating power from River Nile dam
Published3 hours ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-60451702
Interesting we are not provided with an opinion from the “impartial” BBC about what must be the vast amount of space in Ethiopia which together with its latitude can offer a credible case for solar and that old green stalwart, wind. It is also glaringly obvious that the placement of this dam has a substantial political component given its location right on it’s border with Sudan.
Can it be that Ethiopia actually has people who do the numbers and advise honestly, people who realize not only would the infrastructure costs be daunting but the results would be an ability to do little more than run fairy lights (when the conditions are favourable)? Can it be that their advisors told the truth about what works to produce base load and what is just virtue signalling by Western elitist humanities graduates with their new religion of climate doom? Maybe we need those people from this 3rd World Country to come and “advise” us?
Somebody’s been on a creative writing course:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7enp3/the-future-of-green-energy-is-comically-large-wind-turbines
“… taller turbines are more efficient than shorter ones in a few different ways: They reach higher-quality winds and surpass obstructions like mountains …”
“… repairing a single turbine, with one set of parts, is easier than repairing many.
“The fewer moving parts you have, the fewer possibilities of failure,” Lantz said. “Reducing the number of machines that you have to maintain and service can provide an opportunity for operations maintenance cost savings.””
Near where I live I can see 13 smallish turbines. If one goes down, there are still 12 in operation.
Paul,
WWIII is being threatened tomorrow by the paranoid delusionist in the Kremlin but don’t you forget about the REAL problem which is “almost” here.
From the BBC today:
Climate change: UN report to show true scale of impacts
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60525591
“A new UN report on the impacts of climate change is set to be the gravest assessment yet of how rising temperatures are affecting every living thing.
The report will likely say that the world is fast approaching the limits of adapting to climate change.
But rapid political action can avoid the worst impacts”.
So not being content with waiting for the report the BBC has to speculate!
Notice the same old same old.
“Gravest assessment”? You mean the POLITICAL operatives who write the document have indulged once again in meaningless term inflation to guarantee their lousy jobs?
“We are approaching the limits of adaptation”. Really? based on what metric?
And finally “But rapid political action can save the planet”! And that “rapid political action” would not just happen to be rabid socialist totalitarianism and degrowth of the west would it?
We all know the IPCC is a political organization which uses and abuses often shockingly poor quality “science” when it suits their cause. They pretend to be scientific but to push a political agenda exposes them for what they are.
Regards
Jon Scott
Hi Paul, (apologies if this is sent twice)
I was just looking for the myworld2015 records, that you talked about in your post
“Climate Change Ranks Bottom Of Concerns In UN Poll” October 7, 2016. I followed these up, and obtained a later summary of the results in 2019, that had nearly 10 million respondents and “climate change” was still last place. I have a readable screen-capture of this.
Those of us who are climate realists realise that those we are up against have limited understanding of mathematics, physics, even basic logic, but they are certainly making progress with propaganda and censorship. None of the links in your article work any more, and the url http://data.myworld2015.org no longer responds. I clearly remember copying
the latter to the Wayback Machine aka archive.org but it no longer exists there either.
An internet search using a private browser window and duckduckgo produces your page, a Washington Post article, but everything else leads to myworld2030, which is now heavily propagandised, well beyond the initial an@l retentive contribution provided by the Angry Birds.
On a couple of occasions I have successfully undertaken an “intervention” eg de-brainwashing of a young person who was morbidly depressed, in one case threatening suicide because peers, teacher, social media and media were telling them that it’s all over in 12 years. I expect to be asked for my help again, and there is no way any young person on my patch is going to self-harm if I can do anything about it. So I am putting together a few papers that would help, and the myworld2015 data is one of these. It does show that a large proportion of humanity recently said they don’t consider that “climate change” deserves any priority.
Regards,
Martin – details visible by clicking on my name, otherwise look for my details on
tropicdesign.net.au
My post can still be seen in full on Wayback:
http://web.archive.org/web/20170206195632/https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/climate-change-ranks-bottom-of-concerns-in-un-poll/
At least we still have the images
Finally, The Telegraph has caught up:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/advice/favourable-bik-taxation-plug-in-hybrid-cars-swindle-penalises/
As I tried to tell successive MPs. Unfortunately, nobody on HMRC or HMG generally is listening.
Paul,
Direct comparison drawn by Volvo between the CO2 emissions from cradle to grave of its popular ICE and all Electric XC40.
The break even point in the UK is around 90,000 miles.
The average annual milage done in the UK is, I believe, around 10,000 miles so obviously, it would take around 9 years ownership of a Volvo XC40 Recharge to compete with the XC40 ICE in terms of CO2 emissions.
That’s assuming the battery lasts that long. The running costs are another bone of contention because if and when ICE’s are banned the cost of fuel duties will have to be met by EV’s somehow, perhaps mileage cars as is commonly predicted.
Click to access volvo-carbon-footprint-report.pdf
TEST post — page not found
George Freeman the under secretary of BEIS made this remark at yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on Large Solar Farms https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-03-09/debates/22030973000001/LargeSolarFarms
“Solar generates large amounts of electricity even on cloudy days, and from indirect sunlight.”
He must be utterly insane.
Something else that Freeman said was that all our electricity had to be from renewable sources by 2035. I never understood this.
Nice idea:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2022/03/11/demand-relieve-cost-living-passing-bonuses-cheap-renewables/
But it’ll never fly:
‘A spokesman for Energy UK, which represents suppliers, said the surplus so far had been offset by “additional costs”. ‘
Will Drax be affected, I wonder? Our council boasts about it’s green, biofuel-fired district heating system. Tenants were already struggling at yesterday’s fuel cost.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/03/13/end-russian-wood-pellets-mean-soaring-bills-biomass-boiler-owners/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/03/19/hollow-mountain-key-unlocking-britains-energy-security/
More pie-in-the-sky. The author doesn’t say how long the turbines would run at the capacity quoted.
“A generator with spinning parts helps to manage modern electricity grids in preventing power cuts, as they will keep temporarily spinning even if power suddenly fails – giving time for engineers to quickly restart them or fire up alternatives. ”
Nor does he say what the running cost of a spinning reserve is.
What else could we get for £300m?
Here we gi again:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/20/antarctica-hits-record-temperatures/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2022/03/21/five-ideas-solving-energy-crisis/
Trying to please everybody but just showing her ignorance.
An email from our Nigel to his supporters….
Dear Supporter,
They’ve tried to shut us down; they’ve tried to get it stopped but the Vote Power Not Poverty campaign is on a march to Bolton next Saturday and here is why I need you to join us.
The Net Zero agenda is the biggest silent rip off in Britain today.
We’re told it’s about reducing CO2 and if that were true, we might not mind so much, but it isn’t.
Even before prices go through the roof, 25% of your electricity bills go towards green subsidies and environmental expenditure. What those bills don’t tell you though is who benefits from that 25% – giant, foreign multinationals and rich landowners here in the UK who get paid to have ineffective wind turbines put onto their estates.
BOOK TICKET
The Net Zero delusion is nothing more than a few rich, privileged people thinking that by importing half of the gas that Britain needs, by importing up to 10% of our electricity from France, by importing increasing amounts of oil and coal, somehow, they’re saving the planet.
Bowing down to a teenager called Greta, who has no scientific background whatsoever, they’re perfectly happy for our heavy industries to move out to China and India because they believe that they’re reducing carbon dioxide output; they’re not – they’re simply outsourcing it.
The real problem with that now is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has changed the world and it isn’t going to go back for many, many years.
If we rely on France to sell us electricity, on Putin, Norway, or Qatar to sell us natural gas, there could come a point when genuine shortages mean that those countries choose to look after themselves.
DONATE TO REFORM UK
In a very different world, our energy security becomes more vital than ever. We need to be self-sufficient in energy.
The UK should be a net exporter of energy, not a net importer. Under our feet we have an estimated £1trillion of natural gas, some experts predict under current prices it could be as much as £2trillion. That would be a value of gas equal to the size of our national debt.
By exploiting that, rather than buying gas from Mr Putin or from elsewhere, we can produce our own natural gas and alongside that, tens of thousands of well-paid jobs.
We have real solutions, real alternatives to the Net Zero madness that are essential if we’re to provide the secure, self-reliant future that Britain needs.
Next Saturday morning in Bolton, 26th March, I’ll be speaking alongside Richard Tice, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Graham Stringer MP and Dominique Samuels. Together, we will be demanding a referendum on Net Zero.
BOOK TICKET
I need you to come and support us. If you can help me to send that message to Westminster then we will get the change we need.
It’s time to Vote Power Not Poverty. It’s time to play your part.
Many Thanks,
Nigel Farage
Honorary President of Reform UK
Here we go again:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/03/23/planning-shake-up-opens-door-hundreds-new-wind-farms/
“[If] ministers can persuade communities to embrace onshore wind, the boost to Britain’s energy security – at a time when the Ukraine war has sent gas and oil prices soaring – could be a big prize indeed.”
The message isn’t getting through.
Here we go again 2#:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/24/britain-could-become-tidal-energy-superpower/
“Schemes based on using tidal river basins would increase energy security, … Moreover, unlike wind and solar, there is no intermittency problem and electricity is generated round the clock every day of the year.”
“Turbines work between the river and the excavated basin, which is subdivided into chambers with turbines in the dividing walls. When the tide comes in, through the turbines, it makes electricity and when it goes out, it also passes through turbines to make electricity. Some water is held back in the chambers to keep generating while the tide is turning.”
I can’t see how tidal systems can be claimed to be non-intermittent. If the water held back is of any real volume, throughput must surely be limited as well as variable.
Warning – this IS in the Express, never knowingly understated:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1585964/electric-vehicle-breakthrough-new-quantum-tech-charge-ev-cars-three-minutes
Give or take 50 years and problem solved! Wait, though – full charge in 3 minutes? What’s the charge rate for a 50kWh battery, let alone 90kWh?
I was directed to the book “The Real Anthony Fauci” (900pp!) by a commenter on this blog. This post is a taster and has parallels with the climate scam:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-great-aids-scam-a-dry-run-for-covid/
Well I never:
“A project digitising the Met Office’s weather archive has found that several records, particularly those for dry weather, were set much earlier than previously thought.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/24/weather-history-books-rewritten-victorian-archives-push-back/
An Aussie win.
Turbines forced to shut down overnight in Victoria by Supreme Court.
Hi Paul, don’t know your email address, so this will have to do… From: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Sent: 29 March 2022 19:39
To: simon browne
Subject: Re: Economic intelligence
Well of course, how can wind cover all cars, trucks, ships, planes, home-heating, industrial use of gas, etc, etc, from a standing start? Bloody amazing it has reached 4pc already..
Power means electricity. It does not mean energy. This was written for our Economic Intelligence newsletter. I assume a minimum of sophistication.
As you infer, we are at a very early stage of this renewable roll out. The reality right now is that we have a fossil based energy system and prices have been going through the roof because of Putin, China, etc, and not because of anything going on in this tiny, wet island.
Fortunately renewables have been displacing a large amount of imported gas used for power plants over the last three months, roughly 25-30pc of power use on average, and that helps a lot. That means more money kept in the British economy and less money for Putin, Qatar, and foreign suppliers. Why does this make you angry? You should rejoice. The sooner we get to 60pc , the better. Even less money for dictatorships.
On your broader point about displacing all ENERGY with renewables – minus nuclear obviously – I think it is not only doable but will be driven very fast by market forces. Basically, we are moving into a world where large parts of the Sahara, Patagonia, Western Australia, etc, will be covered with solar and wind arrays, creating cheap green energy for shipment or pipelines on a mass scale. I was talking to the CEO of a clean hydrogen company today who is already below $1 a kilo, so the Holy Grail is here.
I very much doubt that Homewood ever speaks to the technological entrepreneurs at the cutting edge. He is a stuck record from fifteen years ago, which is ancient history in technological time. The dogs bark, the caravan moves on.
Don’t agree on storage. All kinds of technologies are coming along, including cheap and scalable cryogenic compressed air. Excess wind at a nera zero price will be turned into green ammonia through electrolysis, and that is easily storable. It is already being burned in Japanese power plants.
Actually my article is very much consensus in global energy circles. It is the oil and gas industry that is proposing – and doing – a mix of wind and energy. Nothing very optimistic about it. It is where we are going.
The problem right now is fossil fuel. I am not optimistic about that. Could it get a lot worse because of the commodity investment cycle. Oil to $200? Yes, probably, and will you find some way to blame that on wind when it comes?
But I have a question: are you a climate denialist? If you are not a climate denialist, what is your proposal?
But yes, we agree that more gas is needed. Hurrah!
rgds
Ambrose
On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 18:00, simon browne wrote:
Good afternoon,
‘Britain needs a huge expansion of wind and gas at the same time’
I am concerned that your piece ‘cherry picks’ the dire facts of the situation. You have missed the key statistic, that wind power provided less than 4% of the total energy requirement for the UK in 2020. If you dispute this figure, please let me know. It should be a statistic you recognise, and at your fingertips…
Instead you quote a claim that:
‘Wind has made up 25pc of the UK’s power since the beginning of the year’.
This is misleading, in that the Government’s objective is that renewables provide the total energy requirement of the UK in a few years’ time, not just electricity production. Although you do not state the fact, this figure applies to electricity generation only. Rather than a 4x expansion in wind generators, we would need a 20x increase.
Even then, there is no viable technology for storing surplus energy, much of the extra wind energy production will be wasted. The time frame advocated by this government, or the opposition benches, is completely unrealistic. Your whole article is based around an optimistic forecast with no possibility of success. The religious quotation of the ‘Holy Grail’ is entirely appropriate.
Fairly obviously, an expansion of gas production is what is needed, with a lead coming from The Daily Telegraph…
Kind regards,
Simon Browne
—
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
World Economy Editor
Daily Telegraph
(44) 207 931 2808
telegraphmediagroup
111 Buckingham Palace Road | London SW1W 0DT
http://m4.emails.telegraph.co.uk/nl/jsp/m.jsp?c=%40pQ2N%2FIBeIhc15EKa5yJYDhgUTW4fg1bxsnh5iLKjdCLQNL%2BC0XudyDo3smrpXgmEqmMfQMVwc0yxZ1m62Bkq3Q%3D%3D&WT.mc_id=e_DM1317&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_EIn_New&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_EIn_New20220329&utm_campaign=DM1317
Britain needs a huge expansion of wind and gas at the same time
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard,
WORLD ECONOMY EDITOR
Simon beat me to it. There are lots of good bits but some silly stuff, making it a bit schizophrenic. At one point he says:
“Renewables are at least mitigating the economic shock. Each gigawatt of wind, solar, nuclear, or hydro displaces imported hydrocarbons and therefore enhances energy security. Let us call them ‘liberty electrons’.”
I assume he means GWh, and does it, really?
Suggesting the writer is a “climate denialist” is going for the man (or person?), not the ball.
Good morning Ambrose,
Thank you for your prompt and considered reply. It is greatly appreciated.
A couple of points in response:
Meaning of ‘power’ quickly gathered at random from the net:
‘the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events.
“a political process that offers people power over their own lives”
Verb’
supply (a device) with mechanical or electrical energy.
“the car is powered by a fuel-injected 3.0-litre engine”
move or travel with great speed or force.
“he powered round a bend”
Of course businesses [energy or otherwise] will make money where they are guaranteed a premium and with little apparent risk. If companies like Shell are pursued through the courts by groups such as ‘Climate Earth’ [Their largest funders include, among others, Children’s Investment Fund, Peoples Postcode Lottery and UK Govt Department for International Development for Heaven’s sake!] then that will make them even more anxious to comply with the Green Agenda.
You say energy prices have been increasing due to events beyond our border, quite true, and a good reason for controlling our own energy supplies. Had we started fracking in 2011 only 13 per cent of Europe’s gas would derive from Russia by 2040 according to the U.S. Baker Institute. [via your colleague Andrew Orlowski]. There is even a suggestion from the States that Russia may have funded some anti-fracking organisations to prevent this. It doesn’t make me angry, just sad that our politicians have not felt able to secure our own energy supplies, not even to the extent of maintaining our existing gas storage facilities in the North Sea. Of course the subsequent energy price increase is very welcome to the Green Energy lobby. However, I would not entirely concede your point on externally caused price increases – as wind capacity increases, so does price volatility… recently varying from £50 per MWh [Day Ahead] to over £400:
https://timera-energy.com/wind-intermittency-driving-requirement-for-uk-flexibility/
Energy storage [other than fossil fuel] in bulk is still a problem and, despite your optimism, not near being solved. You mention Ammonia as a means of storing energy. It is also useful as a precursor for many chemicals but it is still derived either from natural gas and now electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen, as you know. The trouble is the conversion is not efficient, only one third of the original energy being retained in the product. What non-scientists often fail to grasp is that there are physical laws that cannot be broken, no matter how urgent the problem or how much money is thrown at them. New catalysts or even biological systems may help, and, of course, if you pay a scientist to try, s/he will be only too pleased… The laws of thermodynamics, for example, will always prevent heat pumps from being as efficient as gas boilers. The increasing price of their power source, electricity, means that the costs of running them is increasing faster than the rising cost of running an efficient gas boiler. You mention future energy sources in far-flung locations – apart from the fact that they have yet to be built and lack energy security, the transmission/transport costs are enormous.
You cite Paul Homewood, an accountant by trade, as stuck in the past… Here is a recent quote which, to my mind, shows him to be perceptive and forward looking on this topic:
Paul Homewood from January 30 2022:
https://www.gov.uk/…/digest-of-uk-energy-statistics…
Total gas consumption, net of energy industry use, was 810 TWh in 2019, more than double total electricity generation.
Gas used in the power sector was 297 TWh, which in turn generated 132 TWh of electricity.
According to the Committee on Climate Change’s Sixth Carbon Budget, we will still need 50 TWh of dispatchable generation by 2035, rising to 60 TWh* in 2040:
image
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-carbon-budget/
This will either have to come from gas with carbon storage, or hydrogen made from gas. (The CCC acknowledge that electrolysis will remain a tiny source of hydrogen for many years to come).
So we will therefore still need a lot of gas for power generation, one way or another. And because both CCS [Carbon Capture and Storage] and hydrogen production are energy inefficient, even more gas.
A rough calculation would suggest we would require 180 TWh of gas to produce 60 TWh* of electricity, via CCS or hydrogen. That is 60% of current consumption.
It is hard to see much of a decline in gas consumption in the other sectors. Even if new gas boilers are banned in 2035, as mooted, it is unlikely many householders will have already converted to heat pumps beforehand.
Equally industrial users of gas will be loathe to spend billions switching to electricity, and a hydrogen network simply won’t exist in any scale by then.
My guess is that natural gas consumption will still be around 700 TWh by 2035, only 14% lower than currently.
At the moment, we produce about half the gas we use, and import the rest.
North Sea Oil
Now let’s move on to oil.
image
https://www.gov.uk/…/digest-of-uk-energy-statistics…
Surface transport accounts for most of the UK’s oil consumption, 37 TWh or 57%.
According to the CCC, the ban on new petrol/diesel cars from 2030 will reduce numbers of these on the road from the current 34 million to around 14 million in 2035. This is on the extremely optimistic assumption that there will already be 12 million EVs on the road in 2030, up from the current hundred thousand or so.
But taking the CCC’s projections at face value, we could estimate that oil consumption will decline from 37 million tonnes to approximately 17 TWh. This assumes that HGVs will still largely be dependent on diesel.
Oil used for aviation fuels may decline slightly, as biofuels start to play a bigger part, but given this is essentially an international issue, it would be risky to assume any significant drop in demand for oil.
As for the other sectors, it is difficult to see any substantial cuts in oil consumption.
If we add this lot up, oil consumption in 2035 will still probably be around two thirds of today’s.
Worse still, it is not only the UK, where oil and gas exploration is being actively discouraged. We see the same thing happening in the USA and across Europe. And all in the wishful thinking that we will be able to run our economies largely on renewable energy in a few years time.
Instead we will end up facing acute shortages of oil and gas, which will make the current energy crisis seem like a picnic in the park.
That would trigger another Great Depression.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/…/dont…/
Of course, there are other views, Mark Carney, as late as October last year, was still calling fossil fuels ‘stranded assets’. I doubt the Chinese would agree, although Boris Johnson may well… https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/21/climate-stranded-assets-show-the-need-for-rapid-energy-transition-carney-says.html
You ask if I am a climate denialist.
No scientist [or any rational person] would deny that the climate is always changing. The question is how quickly and over what time frames. Globally, there is little doubt that the temperature has generally been increasing since the Little Ice Age which ended around 1850. The rate of future increase is debated, not least by Climate Scientists, depending on which Climate Model they happen to be using. It has to be said that they have been in business long enough for nearly all of their previous predictions to be proved incorrect. There are so many Models that they cannot all be correct. I am reminded of the false and unremitting reliance of the Post Office on their ‘Horizon’ accounting system. I hope the consequences of this false faith does not scale up for the Climate Industry. Perhaps I could ask you, in return, which Model you favour and what temperature increase you expect to find by 2050?
Even if temperatures increase by 2 or 3 degrees, I doubt it will make such a difference to the climate, or to seal level, that we should throw all our remaining resources at the problem:
Average temperatures over a year, high, low, degrees C:
London 15 8
Edinburgh 13 5
So London has an average temperature around [the predicted ‘global warming’ by 2050?] 2-3 degrees warmer than Edinburgh. Would you say London has a more extreme climate than Edinburgh? I think not.
Should we throw our remaining resources into cutting our use of fossil fuels when we only contribute 1% of global greenhouse gases? All the while knowing that we have exported our manufacturing industries to countries who will not cut their emissions.
You ask what my proposal would be to solve our current problems. We agree that in the short term fossil fuels are required asap, the North Sea and the Bowland Shales are beckoning. In forward-looking Derbyshire [where I happen to have been born] consultations are already in progress:
In the future I expect Fusion to lead the way – probably starting in Gloucestershire [where I happen to live now]. Maybe there is a place for Rolls Royce to build their Small Modular Reactors. I have little faith in the mediaeval technology of wind power – on the grand scale, the physical laws are against it, despite the quasi-religious support it receives.
A view I found very interesting comes from Professor Michael Kelly, Prince Philip Professor of Technology in the University of Cambridge from 2002 until his retirement in 2016:
ACHIEVING NET ZERO
A REPORT FROM A PUTATIVE DELIVERY AGENCY
Prof Michael Kelly
‘I hope this report gives the bare facts about what is implied by committing to a net-zero emissions economy for 2050. Short of a command economy, it is simply an unattainable pipe dream, and we will struggle to get 10–20% of the way to the target, even with a democratic mandate to proceed. I think that the hard facts should put a stop to urgent mitigation and lead to a focus on adaptation. Mankind has adapted to the climate over recent millennia, and is better equipped than ever to adapt in the coming decades.’ mjk1@cam.ac.uk
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/03/Kelly-Net-Zero-Progress-Report.pdf?mc_cid=3de10e3d7a&mc_eid=a3b18fed4b&fbclid=IwAR0gd_4Ah4ibjC1WKi8lLxOpVLq84agsB9rp_1SvenGVbhJDoASrP3Gsr00
Thanks again for your reply,
Kind regards,
Simon Browne
Simon,
Stop this nonsense. Power means electricity.
As I stated, I am (with reservations) in favour of fracking. That is because I have spent a lot of time in Texas and talk to frackers.
I am against the indiscriminate disinvestment from fossil fuel. Gas is the transition fuel for the next 20 years. I have been stating this until I am blue in the face. I restated it in the latest Econ Intel piece.
Had we fracked and drilled more for gas, the global price would be exactly the same, and the energy cap would be soaring,,, but at least the money would have stayed in the UK economy (mostly). It would not have made the slightest difference to perceived fuel inflation. Fossil prices are GLOBAL. The UK is too tiny to make any difference to GLOBAl prices.
It is an entirely different story with renewables. Prices are LOCAL. At current global prices electricity from new wind in the UK costs a small fraction of electricity from gas (opex, capx, financing). That really can make a difference to perceived energy inflation.
Homewood still thinks the oil and gas industry is in conflict with the renewable industry. They are working hand in glove. We need both, and they are the same companies.
His perspective is ill-informed and outdated. He does not know what is going on in global energy and finance.
Renewables are going to sweep the board this decade – whatever you and Homewood think or want. Solar is on an exponential curve. It grew 23pc globally last year. It is becoming so cheap in many latitudes that it will soon be tantamount to free energy. Then it is just a question of storage, and that is coming.
The UK is not optimal for solar so we have to settle for second best: offshore wind. Still a hell of a lot better than fossils.
Are you a climate denialist? Be honest.
rgds
Ambrose
Simon,
Re: “Renewables are going to sweep the board this decade – whatever you and Homewood think or want. Solar is on an exponential curve. It grew 23pc globally last year. It is becoming so cheap in many latitudes that it will soon be tantamount to free energy. Then it is just a question of storage, and that is coming.”
This Ambrose chap is simply deluded with no idea of physics or engineering reality. Storage coming soon? Ha ha! Ask him to make a considerable and public bet on this “sweeping the board” nonsense with a specific target 80% (?). We could mobilise and support an org like NetZero Watch to take on this bet. It wouldn’t have to be financial of course, an agreed public humiliation would be fine also.
Thanks Simon
I’ve emailed AEP, asking him to persuade his editor to devote a page to the arguments for and against.
I have offered to write half, with AEP the other half.
Watch this space!!
(Maybe you might email him with the same message)
Hi Ambrose,
I let Paul Homewood know of our conversation and he has emailed you regarding a suggested exchange of views in the Telegraph…
I don’t mean to be pedantic, it is my scientific training coming through, an agreed definition of the term in use is always a necessity. You have made your meaning entirely clear.
Regarding the global price of gas, there seems to be some divergence between the US and Europe, see below. Presumably the Government is free to negotiate whatever contract it feels is appropriate with the fracking companies? Perhaps they should ask Opec and the Norwegians for advice on how to ensure the UK gets the gas at the price it wants?
As far as Climate Change Denying, I would align myself with David Coe, below. As you can see I think it most likely that human produced carbon dioxide has resulted in a climate sensitivity value of around 0.5 degrees C. This is close to the view of Prof. Ray Bates, who received his PhD in Meteorology from MIT, has been employed as Prof. of Meteorology at the Niels Bohr Institute in University of Copenhagen. He was a senior scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre. https://gript.ie/the-science-is-not-settled-irish-climate-scientist-speaks-out/?fbclid=IwAR2NQMAS3eYENALK_T9ZeBzvQ2-kIrPOa95iW0Zs9ziR-QDThzLb2K8TkqQ
SUMMARY
Using well documented data on the infra-red absorption spectra of atmospheric gases it is a straight-forward process to infer the overall atmospheric IR absorption and from that the effective global average temperature. The simplest of atmospheric models has been used: the atmosphere is considered to be a uniform thin absorbing layer of gas. The results demonstrate clearly that the warming effect of the atmosphere is almost entirely due to the spectral absorption characteristics of CO2 and H2O. They are both exceptionally strong absorbers of infra-red radiation. It is however this strength which determines the characteristics of the earth’s temperature, and in particular its stability.
70% of the energy radiated from the earth is removed by a mixture of 0.1% H2O and 200ppm of CO2. This alone is sufficient to raise global temperatures from the chilly 255K of the estimated zero atmosphere condition to 284.3K, less than 4deg below current average temperatures. An estimation of the current atmospheric mixture of gases is calculated to deliver a global mean temperature of 286.8K close to the best estimate of 288K for that temperature. Further increases in both H2O and CO2 have relatively small impacts on temperatures. This is due simply to the fact that at current concentrations the spectra of both H2O and CO2 have effectively extracted most of the energy at wavebands corresponding to their molecular absorption spectra. There is little further energy to be extracted by adding more H2O and CO2. This results in climate sensitivity* values of less than 0.5degC, in comparison to the 1.5 to 5 degC range quoted by the IPCC.
CO2 levels of 3000ppm will only raise temperatures by a further 1.5K. These temperature increases are in fact well within natural variations seen in the past, including the medieval warm period and the little ice age of some 300 years ago.
The possibility of positive feedback from water vapour is discounted by the simple fact that the H2O spectrum is incapable of absorbing significant further amounts of radiated energy and the modest increase in temperature due to increasing CO2 levels is unable to deliver any significant increase in H2O concentration due to the specific relationship of H2O saturation vapour pressure and temperature. It would take an increase in temperature of 10degC to double the mean H2O atmospheric concentration, and that doubling would only result in a temperature increase of 2degC.
The impact of other known “greenhouse’ gases, CH4 and N2O are also calculated from known IR spectra data. Their absorption spectra are swamped by H2O and CO2. The combined warming caused by current atmospheric concentrations will elevate temperature by only 0.2K and increasing concentrations by a factor of 10 will only result in a further temperature increase of 0.5K.
The “greenhouse effect” is dominated by the absorption spectrum of H2O with a little help from CO2. At current concentrations of both gases it is inconceivable that further increases in concentrations will lead to any significant warming. Increasing CO2 concentration to 3000ppm and doubling the mean H2O level to 2% would result in a global temperature increase of 3.4K.
In short, there is no climate emergency, at least due to “greenhouse gases”.
David Coe: My day job for the last 20+ years has been developing a range of sensors for the monitoring of gaseous emissions to atmosphere using infra-red absorption spectroscopy. I thus have not only some knowledge in this area but have access to a database of molecular absorption spectra for most common gases, particularly CO2 and H2O. I am the founding director of the company Codel International Ltd, based in Bakewell, Derbyshire.
*Climate Sensitivity
Climate sensitivity is a term introduced to characterise the impact on global temperatures of a
doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. Various complex atmospheric models have indicated
climate sensitivity values varying between 1.5 and 5degC (from the Intergovernmental Panel
for Climate Change IPCC).
Transcript of Paper:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/co2-the-miracle-molecule-22637.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1fZEB6Vi2xBioBwn-agQ0VSLZW45WUFWaWf2uyK9eh0KfJfCMFiGXJ6m0
I would like to mention that in two days’ time my direct debit to Octopus Energy increase from £92 per month for gas and electricity to £233. I am not in the mood for further subsidies to questionable Green Energy schemes that only work half the time and involve payments to companies with their head office somewhere offshore. I don’t think the rest of the electorate are going to be amused either. If I were you, I’d make sure the Telegraph has a consistent, honest and believable narrative for the next few years or I suspect there are going to be major problems for this or any other government.
Kind regards,
Simon
AEP has already replied to me, so I am hopeful we might sort something out!
It looks as if the better-financed organisations are ploughing ahead with electrification:
https://motortransport.co.uk/blog/2022/03/28/amazon-uk-adds-five-daf-cf-electric-hgvs-to-fleet-in-european-first/?utm_campaign=Executive%20Brief%2001042022&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Executive%20Brief%2001042022
https://motortransport.co.uk/blog/2022/03/29/sunswap-wins-3m-award-to-boost-use-of-solar-powered-transport-refrigeration-units/?utm_campaign=Executive%20Brief%2001042022&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Executive%20Brief%2001042022
There are links at the bottom of each article to further stories.
Daily Mail trying really hard to sell heat pumps:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10675685/Heat-pumps-CHEAPER-lifetime-gas-boilers.html
Usual “could” qualifications and, indeed, it starts off with a qualification:
“The lifetime cost of a heat pump for a UK home is now about the same as a gas boiler … for sufficiently insulated homes …”
They also major on a heat pump being a longer-lasting product than a gas boiler. Really?
Hi Ambrose,
As Telegraph International Business editor, I’d be interested to know of your view of Ireland’s energy policy. One would assume they pretty much have the same climate as ourselves. The Telegraph seems to be offering enthusiastic support[?] for Boris’s floating wind turbines in the Irish Sea.
Despite the Irish government’s apparent backing for ‘renewables’, and presumably average wind velocities and windy days which equal or exceed the best in the UK, their energy mix is a very interesting contrast:
Only 10% of Irish electricity consumption comes from wind generation. 45% comes from gas, mostly imported via UK via pipeline. However the offshore Irish Corib gas field is expected to make up over half of the gas requirement as it ramps up. Perhaps [un]surprisingly, given the cloud cover, they appear to have no significant solar generation.
Ireland does have 42 offshore wind farm projects but only 2 are currently operating, none where construction has progressed enough to connect the turbines and generate electricity, none are in the build phase, and 1 are either consented or have applied for consent.
https://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/ireland/
http://ireland2050.ie/present/oil-and-gas/?q=where-does-ireland-get-its-electricity#:~:text=Ireland%20employs%20a%20variety%20of,dependent%20on%20any%20one%20source.
They do not seem to have much faith in ‘renewables’ do they?
Why do you suppose that is?
Kind regards,
Simon
From: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Sent: 30 March 2022 20:38
To: simon browne
Subject: Re: Economic intelligence
There is no Telegraph narrative. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how journalism works.
We have a claque of climate denying commentators – some of them my friends – who know nothing beyond picking up fag-ends from the internet (god help us) but also real journalists just getting on with their jobs, who have mixed views but actually talk to people at the cutting edge and keep up with the literature.
On the US v UK, the answer is simple.
The gas – and there is lots of it – is trapped in North America. There are not enough LNG plants to export it and therefore to close the arbitrage price gap.
The UK is part of the integrated EU energy nexus via interconnectors. The price instantly converges with the European TTF price, ie the global LNG price.
So unless we withdraw from that, which would be a really big deal, with consequences, UK fracking would not change prices much. It would good for jobs, tax revenues, and the trade balance, and cut CO2, ceteris paribus.
Another point, the breakeven cost of fracking in the UK is double Texas, so you need sustained high prices to make it viable.
I support UK fracking but try finding an actual investor. Not so easy. The clueless idiots out there pushing the idea obviously don’t talk to hedge funds or private equity.
Will reply to Paul Homewood in due course.
As I thought, you are a climate denialist. Fine, but I am a Conservative. Different moral philosophy.
Rgds
Ambrose
Hi Ambrose
Sorry for using the incorrect moniker, your Wikipedia entry needs updating.
Unfortunately you miss my point, Ireland is effectively the best maquette for the UK in terms of the possibility for local renewable generation. You have stressed how important local generation is. Now you say ‘Ireland is too small to matter’, the way things are going, the UK economy will soon be in a similar situation. If wind generation is so great, why is Ireland not exporting wind energy to us? If we are to become the Saudi Arabia of wind, presumably Ireland will become the Iraq of wind?
I would contend that what happens in the deserts of the world, mostly around the equator, is more irrelevant to the UK – too far away and likely to supply the Far East before UK. And not for a long time. Of course, solar [probably Concentrating Solar Power] is the way to go if you have limitless sunlight. Overnight energy storage is less of a problem. It will, of course, happen without any encouragement from ourselves. And it won’t happen here.
We all know what France and Germany are doing. You have accepted my figure that wind energy currently supplies less than 4% of total UK energy, how do you expect Germany to supply 100% of their energy requirement from renewables in any reasonable time frame?
The question is whether Europe will start fracking – and we wait, as usual, till they start?
Kind regards,
Simon
From: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Sent: 03 April 2022 10:16
To: simon browne
Subject: Re: Economic intelligence
Simon,
I am world economy editor.
Is the Telegraph offering enthusiastic support for floating wind? Most commentary is on the other side.
No idea what Ireland is doing. Too small to matter. Also irrelevant . It is solar that counts globally, not wind.
I know what China , India, Egypt, Australia, US, Germany, France are doing.
If you think the world is turning against renewables, you are misinformed. Putin us accelerating the switch.
Rgds
Ambrose
Hi Paul,
A weird thought just struck me – but has anyone that you know of ever modelled the effect that wind turbines and solar panels have on the atmosphere? I am curious – after all if you put up a windfarm to get something from the atmosphere (energy) it must have an effect on the atmosphere itself. Same for solar panels – huge swathes of land put into permanent shadow with no direct sunlight has to have an effect on the ground underneath does it not? The amount of energy reaching the ecosystem underneath the panels must be reduced to near zero so what effect in the long term is that going to have on the land?
I am just curious I have only ever seen references to raptors being chopped up by wind farms but nowhere have I ever seen what the loss to the atmosphere is (and how that shows up) when the energy is being used by wind turbines. After all Newton’s third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction and, I think the energy we end up gaining is only a percentage of the energy that must be taken from the system.
Mick Wenlock, There are some scientific papers out there if you google. There is certainly a now commonly understood position that wind farms ‘eat each other’s wind’, so that if another wind farm is too close its wind output is reduced because of the wind taken by the upwind original wind farm. I also read a recent paper that looked at the effect of wind farms on the North Sea and there was a shift in currents, surface water flows and local winds around some wind farms in the North Sea, which could have an impact – ultimately – on marine conditions. Lastly, I do recall reading something that too many wind farms paradoxically makes recorded global warming worse, because the wind farms act to stir up the air, and at night time cooler air ordinarily sinks, so there is a stratification of cooler air near the ground and warmer air further up – wind farms break this down so that temperatures recorded at ground/ human level are slightly higher than they otherwise would be.
End of the conversation…
Simon,
I did not miss your point.
I have no reason to assume that your assertions about the energy debate in Ireland are accurate. I suspect that many in Ireland would argue otherwise. I simply don’t have time to dig deep into the Irish energy debate to verify your claims because that tiny island is too small to matter, and I have more pressing issues to deal with..
In any case, my interest is the late 2020s and early 2030s, not what is happening today, which tells us very little. Technological disruption always starts slowly and then goes exponential, and the pattern is that people don’t believe until it is staring them in the face. We are at the inflection point from one to the other right now.
I also think the UK is largely irrelevant too in the global context.
The point is that the world is most assuredly going for very cheap solar and other countries will undercut us on energy if we cling to fossils longer than strictly necessary. If we did so, we would become a backwater, even a pariah state, unable to export because of carbon border taxes. (Which are coming).
You are wrong to think that Sahara solar will not affect us directly. North Africa is going to be covered with solar and wind, with cheap molten salt overnight storage, creating baseload power through long cables to North Europe (and the UK), or used to make green hydrogen in situ and piped north, as SNAM is aiming to do on a vast scale.
Look at the deal just reached between Andy Fortescue and EON to ship green hydrogen (as ammonia) from his 200 GW planned solar and wind zone in Australia to Germany. Simply amazing. This is where the world is going. There are a lot of Fortescue style projects on the drawing board.
MY fear about North Sea wind is that it could be rendered uncompetitive in the 2030s, not by fossils but by cheap Sahara and Andalusia energy. So the anti-wind brigade may be right, but not for the reason they think. Those turbines may indeed prove to be white elephants, though the EPR nuclear reactors will be even worse.
Things are moving very fast, and Putin has pulled it forward. Just look at what ARPA.e is doing in the US. Amazing.
Can’t reply to any more emails. Got to get on with work.
rgds
Ambrose
If he wants to depend on solar power from the Sahara, he is crazier than I thought!
Ah Paul, his get out clause, like much of this Green-wash, is that he is forecasting for the future, the late 20’s and early 30’s is just far enough away that non of us will remember by then! By that point Boris may have covered the country in [soon to become obsolete] windmills and solar panels…. Any joy with a piece for the Telegraph from yourself?
I swapped a few emails with AEP, but not heard anymore since. I suspect he is worried about being challenged!
2020 and 2030’s, we have the problem now and it is no use muttering about whether his crystal ball prophecies will come true then, we have an energy deficit now which can only be resolved now by coming up with rapid solutions ie gas.
You don’t tell starving beggar that in 20 years time he will be in the land of milk and honey, he needs it now.
Stand by for more ‘last chance’ histrionics that the ‘scientists’ all agreed on, eventually.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60959306
Not quite the end…
Ah, land based wind..
I am NOT in favour of that in the UK.. Entirely different story.
rgds
Ambrose
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 10:44, simon browne wrote:
Hi Ambrose,
Thanks for the conversation, and just in case you missed it, today’s Blower cartoon… Looks like you are right, not all Telegraph staff are keen on windmills…
Kind regards,
Simon
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/telegraph-cartoons-april-2022/
Paul,
One garbage head quoting other garbage heads.
Now or never from your “mate” McGrath of the ever so PC BBC
“Climate change: IPCC scientists say it’s ‘now or never’ to limit warming”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60984663
No Mr McGrath. the opinions of all kinds of political “scientists” are taken and twisted by political hacks in the IPCC and then published. They are NOT the product of empirical data based scientific study but the output of wrong models and then the P1 extreme from those wrong models promoted by people who do not know what they are talking about.
“First, the bad news – even if all the policies to cut carbon that governments had put in place by the end of 2020 were fully implemented, the world will still warm by 3.2C this century”.
TOSH McGrath!
So does this mean if we do noting now then he will shut up and go and do something productive with his life?
Regards
Jon Scott
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/04/05/oxford-start-up-claims-major-nuclear-fusion-breakthrough/
It must be a goer, as the Chinese are on it:
In February the company raised $45m from backers including the Chinese tech giant Tencent.
Apparently cats kill more birds than wind turbines, even the birds that kill cats.
https://www.westernjournal.com/wind-energy-company-pay-35-million-mass-killing-bald-eagles/
If you haven’t got a smart meter yet, don’t be tempted or bullied:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/04/08/pay-power-peak-hour-surge-pricing-plans/
“But Mr Kwarteng claimed the current approach leads to unnecessary costs. He also suggested localised pricing for different areas could be looked at but that this was likely to be more technically difficult.
“Mr Kwarteng said: “A world where you have quite rigid national prices, which stay the same regardless of demand or supply at any single point, that’s quite a rigid system and it builds quite a lot of cost into the system.
““Whereas a world where you have more nodal pricing, I don’t know about the technicalities of that… but it should be looked into, where you have more localised pricing or you have more continuous pricing, which reflects the supply and demand for electricity at any moment.””
£13 billion and counting, and still not totally effective. Still, it’s only money.
If onshore wind is unpopular, what about lithium mines? The Greens have a lot to answer for:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/04/12/britain-fighting-become-lithium-powerhouse1/
Lies, damn lies and statistics:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/04/13/wind-turbines-set-new-record-power-production/
Coal is consistently there at so small a rate that it surely can’t be needed as pure generation, so I assume it’s either because of a contractual minimum take or for balancing or both. I also assume Drax is inertia-heavy generation. Is there a minimum of this type of generation to keep the grid stable?
Hydrogen 11 times worse than CO2 for climate, says new report
https://newatlas.com/environment/hydrogen-greenhouse-gas/?utm_source=New+Atlas+Subscribers&utm_campaign=21b8e3a8c5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_04_12_08_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-21b8e3a8c5-92281965
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1595484/energy-crisis-new-tech-solar-liquid-lifeline-bills-climate-change
Could be some scaling up problems.
It used to be so simple:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/04/14/national-grid-could-pay-power-stations-turn-queens-jubilee/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/04/24/project-napkin-rolls-royce-heathrow-partner-supply-hydrogen/
“… when zero emissions aircraft become a reality.”
Yeah, right! This is classic wishful thinking.
Promoted by those that cannot see beyond the end of their noses and the end of an exhaust pipe.
I wouldn’t normally waste time on this, but this surely can’t be true?
“If land is being dedicated to grazing, it is not being fully utilised to soak up carbon dioxide.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/25/eating-crickets-instead-beef-can-help-beat-global-warming/
Paul – in another context I have been referred to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study as supporting the hysteria around climate change/global warming. Do you have any comments on this and any relationship to data sets like HadCrut?
Thanks
Here we go again:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1601465/energy-crisis-lifeline-welsh-tidal-project-uk-world-leader-green-exports
“… described tidal energy as being far more predictable than solar and wind …” But still varying from max to zero and the peak varying over the lunar month.
““The UK has had a number of sites that have been investigated over the years, including the Dee Estuary, Morecambe Bay and the Solway Firth, the Severn and Mersey.”
and:
“…. the UK has an “enviable position” and can generate “large amounts of limitless energy …”
A claim that (like the wind always blowing somewhere) the movement of tides round the UK means that generation will be happening somewhere at all times, has been debunked at least once (and reported on this site?).
The Cardiff Bay version was going to need 1.6m tonnes of Cornish granite. Not clear where their fill is coming from, but it won’t be “carbon-free”.
Is it still 1st April?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2022/04/27/face-masks-cows-could-help-save-planet-one-burp-time/
The device fits over the cow’s nose, so when chewing the cud, unless it’s a student of etiquette, will chew with its mouth open, so totally ridiculous.
Well, it’s a start!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10758361/AxeDrax-eco-zealots-douse-government-department-orange-PAINT-Stop-Burning-Trees-protest.html
in case you missed it … last night’s episode of “Inside no.9” Greta Thunberg meets the Wicker Man – quite a good p*ss take of climate zealous teachers
Another report on the Sahara-t0-UK solar project, this time making it clear that it’s smoke (vapourising birds) and mirrors, not solar panels.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1603136/energy-crisis-uk-morocco-worlds-longest-undersea-cable-xlinks
Haven’t I read somewhere that this type f project hasn’t been all tht successful? Do the new investors know something the others didn’t?
Another old established UK form on the way out, and one which should have a bright future. Why isn’t the government taking an interest?
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/johnson-matthey-shares-soar-us-131555052.html
More brilliance from our leaders:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/01/electric-tanks-warships-lasers-qinetiq-boss-battles-future/
It starts off OK:
“Russia’s war in Ukraine has shattered age-old assumptions about warfare. Vladimir Putin’s tanks have been repeatedly blasted by the likes of Javelin anti-tank missile launchers, that have gained cult status in Ukraine, which is fighting with a comparatively small military.
“Increasingly, it is becoming clear that new technology is needed in the modern age of fighting.
“One company at the forefront of that shift is Hampshire-based defence tech company, QinetiQ. As far as chief executive Steve Wadey is concerned, the battles of the future will not be won with old-fashioned Cold War artillery, … ”
So far, so good, then he ruins everything:
“… but equipment such as electric-powered tanks …”!
The USP of these brilliant pieces of kit is:
“Each electric tank will have two to four motors, meaning it can continue operating for longer periods of time if some break. ”
Really?
The comments on the article are hilarious.
Perpetual motion if you use electric vehicles on the motorway:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/03/cars-shropshire-motorway-light-nearby-towns-streetlights/
He doesn’t give up, does he?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/05/climate-change-crisis-will-dwarf-cost-living-pain-says-mark/
Commenters not impressed.
Here’s somebody else who can’t add up but knows where the funds are:
https://motortransport.co.uk/blog/2022/05/03/overhead-charging-cables-the-cheapest-and-most-effective-way-to-decarbonise-long-haul-hgvs-new-study-finds/?utm_campaign=Executive%20Brief%2006052022&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=Executive%20Brief%2006052022
Lies, Damn lies and statistics:
https://mailchi.mp/9acb2763fed7/welcome-to-cens-newsletter-6076493?e=5be682573f
Is Boris going to ban earthquakes, or is it one rule for fracking and another for mother earth? http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/recent_events/20220506103133.html#page=summary
Is this real? Got an email earlier headed:
[Subscribe] Confirmed subscription to posts on NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
I haven’t recently made any such approach.
One for your diary, Paul. On 9 June there’ll be an event to celebrate heat pumps at The Venue at 7pm, where “an expert and local users will share their experiences”, all as reported in this week’s local paper letters page.
Another hydrogen initiative:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/08/inside-yorkshire-plant-putting-britains-hydrogen-future-test/
The already-established problems with commercialising the process get a mention nbut, hey, we’ll find a way round them.
“Matthew Foster, business development manager, argues it makes sense to run on blue hydrogen rather than just capturing emissions from the existing natural gas-fired plant, for commercial and practical reasons. ”
You can’t fight logic like this. Bottom line, though:
“New hydrogen and carbon capture systems are likely to need support from bill-payers or taxpayers to get off the ground.”
Just in case you missed this Paul. Well done.
BBC climate editor whose sister is an Insulate Britain fanatic made false claims on global warming including worldwide deaths are rising and Madagascar is on the verge of famine, inquiry finds
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10799153/BBC-climate-editor-false-claims-global-warming-Panorama-broadcast-inquiry-finds.html
Paul,
it would be interesting to understand the growth in membership of notalotofpeopleknow that over the last few years, especially as you have getting published regularly in WUWT, GWPF, Conservative Woman and the Daily Sceptic etc.
I’ve signed up for this webinar. I may learn something to challenge my prejudices:
https://email.roadtransport.net/linkapp/cmaStart.aspx?LinkID=pageid100424832nfxqh~znqztjtq~qxfzqt~9n9jn9~z~f~f~f~n
They’re flogging this one hard:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1609213/energy-bills-octopus-worlds-longest-undersea-cable-xlinks-morocco-solar-farm
“Xlinks has stated that the cable will provide clean energy at half the price of what the UK will pay for their upcoming nuclear power plant Hinkley Point C.”
Presumably gambling on not having to rely on the CfD system, like wind currently. If only fossil fuel industry could get a grip and energy prices fell back, they’d be toast, like the wind offshore farms?
““Freeing ourselves from volatile fossil fuels was already important to help combat climate change, but it’s now clear we need to do this for affordability and security.”
‘Volatility’ in fossil fuels is a lot easier to solve than the impossible-to-stop variability of renewables, given the will.
“The country’s proximity to the equator also means that, even on the shortest winter day, Morocco receives over 10 hours of sunshine, providing a consistent source of electricity year-round.”
As it’s on the same longitude (more or les) has the same winter problem as in the UK.
More evidence of the stupidity of govt. policy:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/heat-pump-costs-soar-britains-radiators-small/
End comments confirm they don’t get it.
This seems a bit perverse:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/15/national-grid-slashes-gas-shipments-meant-tackle-energy-crisis/
I’ve been campaigning for moths to get planners and our MP to get a grip on the risks associated with large scale battery installations, being fobbed off with platitudes. The council has just announced the arrival of an energy industry company and the announcement includes this paragraph:
In addition to the new distribution hub, XXX is also later this year due to complete the construction of a second YYYY site. The 40 megawatt (MW) Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), built on land near Hopewell Street in ZZZZ, will support the UK’s power network with the flexibility services crucial for accommodating renewable energy generation and boosting the national grid’s resilience.
This location is nestled into a terrace of housing and small commercial units, which would be seriously affected by an out-of-control fire.
Hi Paul, long time reader and avid supporter of your work! I’m a ship’s pilot on the Manchester Ship Canal and recently saw the article below which was promoted by my union – the UKMPA. I wondered if you’d be interested in debunking most of the nonsense contained within!
I’m pretty sure the sea level (Mersey Estuary) where the Manchester Ship Canal meets the sea at Eastham has not changed since the canal opened in 1894 as the original lock structures are exactly the same as built!
https://www.imarest.org/themarineprofessional/interactions/6448-is-climate-change-affecting-pilots-and-ports-today
What’ll they think of next?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/18/pavement-parking-should-scrapped-net-zero-drive-will-fail-charity/
“Just over half of people want to see more investment on walking and wheeling compared with just under a third who said more money was needed for driving.”
I wonder how much that answer depended on the question.
Absolutely typical Londoncentric view. Do they not think that many people live outside of large cities. Good luck with walking and wheeling in rural hilly Pembrokeshire or relying on public transport.
OT, but an important petition, a subject on which my MP, a scientist, is strangely silent:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/614335
USSR had its tractor targets, here it’s heat pumps:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1612169/energy-firms-fine-heat-pumps-beis-gas-mike-foster-whitehall
Is it still April 1st?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1612047/energy-solar-panels-power-night-radiant-infrared-heat
Just one small snag:
“At present, the thermoradiative diode supplies about 100,000 times less power than a conventional solar panel — in fact, the team said a major challenge was detecting such a small current — but that it should be possible to increase the output 10,000-fold.”
My council is going to trial vehicles powered by Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO), which they claim reduces CO2 emissions from 120 to 12g/km (not clear how much this varies with vehicle size/type. The manufacture of HVO is described as “HVO takes fatty acid feedstock such as vegetable oils, waste fats like from animals or cooking, and some alternative oils like jatropha or algae, and puts them through a hydro-processing treatment.”
Shouldn’t the energy required for this processing be taken into account?
Oh dear:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/21/betting-french-will-not-keep-britains-lights/
Somebody who knows my views sent me this. I won’t be joining.
https://fb.watch/d8XPUKlMQo/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1613808/energy-crisis-lifeline-edf-uk-offers-heat-pump-deal-slash-costs
They should stick to nuclear power stations. But wait ….
This is more like it:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1613866/heat-pumps-poll-results-gas-boilers-banned-netherlands-uk-mandate-spt
But it was the Express. I wonder what the same poll in the Guardian would yield.
The must be LOTS of money in renewables, but it’s all getting a bit messy:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/21/blow-wind-power-revolution-grid-struggles-keep/
“Roisin Quinn, director of customer connections at National Grid, says there is about 130GW of capacity currently contracted to connect to the transmission network – almost double the UK’s entire installed generating capacity and enough to meet net zero “comfortably”.
“It might even turn out that he is asked not to export all of his power all of the time, due to the system constraints. “”
““If you are trying to run a business, these are impossible parameters, and it’s not value for money for the consumer,” he said. ”
Who cares about the customer?
Paul,
BBC climate porn posted yesterday by Ben Tobias clearly qualified to offer balanced reporting on this with his BA in Russian studies and linguistics.
Spain heatwave brings record May temperatures
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61533719
What is most shocking about this is the fact that they actually say what the cause is, quote: “Spain’s unseasonably warm spring weather is a result of hot air coming from North Africa, causing temperatures to rise by up to 15C above average for this time of year”.
Who has not failed to notice the red dust on their car in Springtime in years previous to this?
Therefore this is weather not climate!
Absurdly we are given the opinions of a road sweep and an American tourist NOT a named scientist explaining anything. Instead we also are treated to the BBC’s ubiquitous faux seal of authority, “Scientists say”.
The very fact that they can openly quote weather facts and call them climate shows the confidence with which they now peddle their propaganda. Facts are there to be mangled and used out of context because truth no longer is relevant when an agenda is being pushed. Where were the responsible adults with suitable qualifications advising him?
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul,
Australia is now touting its self as a nation of willing masochists.
Australia election: Anthony Albanese signals climate policy change
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-61539426
You could not make this stuff up.
Regards
Jon Scott
Could this be a useful dress rehearsal for the UK, giving time to adjust before it’s too late?
Paul,
From the BBC. When propaganda does not seem to be giving the result you want, just lie…in support of your dangerous left wing cause.
>Future foods: What you could be eating by 2050<
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61505548
"Climate change is increasing the risk of severe 'food shocks' where crops fail and prices of staples rise rapidly around the world".
Notice the weasel words. "Increasing risk". This does not mean it is happening. This does not mean it will happen, but based on their wrong models it "might possibly maybe could happen". Normal people glancing at that statement will see that it IS happening that we are entering a crisis but the complete opposite is occurring.
During warmer times more of the Earth's surface is available to agriculture. Together with an increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere from starvation diet to very lean these two factors have produced year on year records for production. But that is not what the impartial BBC wants you to think. Why do they totally ignore the year on year production records we have had and instead focus on the product of wrong models about the future. That is lying by omission. To ignore hard empirical data and promote modelled outcomes. Now, where have I heard that before?
What does the data say?
1850-2016
Grazing land 2.08 bil ha increase . Relative Change +174%
Cropping land 1.01 bil ha increase Relative change +174%
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-over-the-long-term?time=1850..latest&country=~OWID_WRL
Crop yields are only recorded from 1960 -2018. Choose your commodity. Yields are increasing year on year for almost every single commodity. Yes fertilizer has a part to play in this but that is only in the most developed parts of the world. The rest we can only guess at.
Source
https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
The BBC has been pushing this scare story for a while. If you look at what is happening in California the distorted left wing ideologs are actively preventing farmers producing more food by limiting their access to water forcing their "wish" to come true. During Gavin Newsom's dreadful tenure he has repeatedly blocked plans to capture more water preferring to let it run off into the sea. I begin to see a incredible and deliberate plan to create food shortages, the BBC fearmongering is just the van of what that movement is dreaming about. These twisted fools actually want food shortages. Why else would they not only not celebrate hard data showing how the world is becoming more bountiful, but ignore it and replace it with a portent of what they want to come which I suggest they will deliberately manufacture because nature is not doing as it is told!
London bus explosion: Five electric buses go up in a fireball – smoke seen for miles
FIVE electric double decker buses have exploded at the Potters Bar Bus Garage near London.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1614242/London-bus-explosion-electric-bus-battery-pack-fire-latest-update
Very timely. Similar reports in several news outlets. I’ve been trying for months to get my MP and local Planners interested. If this doesn’t wake them up, nothing will.
More nonsense
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1613487/energy-crisis-uk-squanders-billion-year-wind-power-storage-security-strategy-kona
See also the Telegraph report above.
About time!
https://netzerowatch.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=2472e0c46e&e=6384b6057a
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/25/power-cost-south-local-price-plan/
What could possibly go wrong?
On Talk Radio News this am, a Mr Mike Foster was interviewed about the energy price cap story, noting that we’ll be OK when we switch to hydrogen. See below. This seems to be the story behind it:
https://www.eua.org.uk/where-do-i-start/
Gravy train approaching the buffers:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/funds/investors-hit-windfall-tax-wipes-226m-value-green-energy-firms/
Boo-hoo!
Businesses aren’t rushing to get on the green wave so much as the green gravy train:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/26/jaguar-land-rover-threatens-shift-electric-car-production-europe/
“Government sources suggested that the proposals were a negotiating tactic. An insider said: “They are using this as a way to extract more money from the Government.””
Which they’ll get, naturally.
As I was saying:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/26/capitalists-certainly-not-climate-cynics-ones-actually-solving/
““We can generate solar at a levelized cost of three cents a kilowatt,” said Sumant Sinha, founder of India’s largest renewable company ReNew Power. “That is a fifth of coal-based prices that utilities are having to pay today in the merchant market.””
So why are so many coal-fired power stations needed?
Oh dear ! Next week Justin Rowlatt has five (mercifully short) slots all to himself on BBC Radio 4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00180cc/episodes/guide
On the strength of his previous appearances on Radio 4 they’re likely to be highly speculative, albeit presented as definitive.
springwatch bbc2 tonight (at about 15 minutes in) .
Packham talking about a swift’s nest and how they were a little earlier fledging this year compared to last year due to last spring being wet . Fair enough.
However he then refers to an annual tit survey started in 1947 which compared the date eggs were laid by the tits in 2021 to 1947 and shock horror it was 3 weeks earlier last year (mid April and mid March) and of course this is a sign of global warming etc etc ..
Now wasnt there something unusual about spring 1947? oh yes – the big freeze. winter didnt end until a mid march thaw. Of course Packham didnt mention that did he!!!
Lies, damned lies and the BBC
but surprisingly, later that evening on BBC4 repeat of a nature programme about UK butterflies. The narrator waxes lyrical several times about how a little warming of the climate will be wonderful for butterflies. clearly an old programme.
Following on from “How will Climate Change affect Pilots?” here is some more madness from the maritime industry.
https://afloat.ie/port-news/ferry-news/item/54668-strait-of-dover-ferries-will-go-electric-say-operators
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cross-channel-ferries-will-go-electric-say-operators-p862kvm8d (paywall)
Electric Ferries on the Dover to Calais route…not hybrid but fully electric! The articles correctly state that crossing time on the route is 90 minutes, but fail to take into account that ferries are regularly disrupted by storm force winds and industrial action (especially in Calais). This requires many hours afloat waiting for the wind to abate or for a suitable berth. Additionally, these ferries also have an annual dry-docking which involves a long sea passage to Falmouth, Rotterdam or even Gdansk.
The articles claim that “existing bunkering facilities will be removed” but fail to mention that such “facilities” consist solely of a small tanker vessel, approximately 100 metres in length which can refuel a large ferry in just an hour, and then move onto the next one.
The current Spirit Class (Spirit of Britain / France) operating with P&O are powered by 4 x MAN B&W diesel engines, rated at 7,600 kW EACH, for a total of output of 30.4 mW. I’m not sure how many batteries would be required to match this power, but it would be a lot. Another potential risk would be of these catching fire, given what happened to the car carrier full of electric cars recently.
Disclaimer – I was a Chief Officer with P&O Ferries working on these ships from 2014-2018 so have direct experience of the delays encountered and manoeuvring the ships themselves.
Paul,
This article, if it goes through, should throw a spanner into the net zero proposals currently about. The loonies seem to be so loonie that they work against themselves.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/top-producer-albemarle-risks-shutting-german-plant-if-eu-declares-lithium-hazard-2022-06-07/
Paul
A search for ‘notalotofpeopleknowthat’ on DuckDuckGo no longer brings up your site.
Have you been shadow banned?
Richard
I can confirm this has happened to me today as well.
search still works on Firefox
It’s true. I also use DDG and get the same result. But the few pages I checked on the site have no occurrence of the search string. They do have 1 occurrence of the similar string with the spaces added in the title. So no surprise that there are no hits with this string.
What does hit are sites that discuss Paul’s site using the actual domain name which includes the search string.
Google however does get it right with the same search string.
I believe DDG uses Bing as the underlying search engine and removes information about the actual user before submitting the search request. If you do the search with Bing you get the same results as DDG at least for the first few.
Interestingly, The spaced out version does not succeed using DDG with or without quotes. Again possibly because there are so few (1) occurrence of the search string in each site page.
It might be time for Paul to add this key phrase on each page a few more times. In days long past the search engines counted the strings in the header tags like Title, Keyword or Description but not any more. Too easy to spam.
Conclusion – This is why so many folks use Google. It’s damn smart.
Yes, I just thought it strange that last week the same search would bring up lots of results for Paul’s site but this week nothing. Perhaps Bing has updated their algorithms.
Hello Paul,
I don’t know if you are aware that your website (Not a lot of people know that) does not appear in the Bing (Microsoft) search engine. This has occurred in the last week or so?
Paul, two things.
Firstly I notice that notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com has disappeared from Microsoft Edge searching. Did you annoy someone?
Secondly, a nice piece by Prof Ian Plimer:
in of all places the Catholic Standard! ” Exposing the Green Religion” Page 11
Good to see he picks up on my point that there exists no statistically significant empirical data of any kind which supports the claim that humans are responsible for global warming. If there is no data then there is no science, end of!
https://en.calameo.com/read/00262878042d586de24b4?mc_cid=2888e0b46f&mc_eid=6e6c09ffcb
Hi Paul,
My name is Molly and I am a student at Lancaster University studying Environment, Culture and Society MA.
My masters dissertation is focusing on the controversy surrounding the Woodhouse Colliery in Cumbria – specifically looking at the narratives that make up the different sides of the debate.
Would you at all be interested in partaking in a quick, Teams interview with me at some point in the next two weeks in order for me to collect primary data for my work?
I hope to hear back from you soon!
Kind regards,
Molly Fowles
Good morning Paul,
Have you seen this? Another example of low information journalists uncritically regurgitating green alarmism. No explanation of how the current sea level rise of 2mm per year will accelerate to produce 35cm of sea level rise over the next 30 years. Note also 2 familiar culprits – the Tyndall Centre and Climate Central!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10916167/Nearly-200-000-homes-businesses-England-risk-lost-sea-level-rise-2050s.html
Saw this today. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/11-areas-of-the-uk-that-could-be-underwater-by-2050-if-sea-levels-keep-rising/ar-AAQj46Q?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=644597bdfb34433782a475fe5eaf760e
Paul, today’s TCW has a piece from me about the possible warming effect of oil/surfactant spills and lipid release from oleaginous phytoplankton fed by humanity’s farming and sewage run-off. Unfortunately it has been trimmed severely, greatly reducing its impact.
I have seen and photographed a smoothed area of ocean literally thousands of square miles in extent, which will have reduced evaporation and the production of CCNs from breaking waves. This must increase warming.
Most frustrating is the lack of the image I took of the big smooth and the numbers I got from observing it. My estimate is that waves were suppressed up to about force 4 on the Beaufort scale. It’s not a particularly good image but it shows that I’m not making it up. Numbers equals science and I have found some. I wish someone would look.
If you’d like a look please let me know.
Rgds
Julian Flood
Paul,
something from over the Pond I suspect few people are aware of. In the same way that the overturning of Roe/Wade sent the abortion question back to individual states, West Virginia vs. the Environmental Protection Agency might do the same thing.
“Believe it or not, overturning Roe v Wade may not be the Supreme Court’s most dramatic decision this year. Instead, its ruling on West Virginia vs. the Environmental Protection Agency could prove far more consequential. It could literally upend how our government works.
For the better.”
https://www.toddstarnes.com/opinion/liz-peek-this-coming-supreme-court-ruling-could-be-bigger-than-overturning-roe/
Potentially highly significant.
Hope it’s useful.
HotScot.
A new, interesting, philosophical angle to the Climate Change Agenda:
https://mises.org/library/fossil-future-alex-epstein
Hi Paul, I just heard a Radio 4 programme ‘Plant Based Promises’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0018x5c
Lots of activist enthusiasm to apply ‘True Cost Accounting’ to beef to make it more expensive than vegetable substitutes. Given the cost of living I thought it was stupid in the extreme. Great another way to distort the market – ‘crony capitalism’ to save the planet!
Give it a listen but expect to be annoyed.
Jules
This has just been (re) published.
Does anyone respond usually?
The CO2 problem in six easy steps (2022 Update)
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/07/the-cos2-problem-in-six-easy-steps-2022-update/
MG
All well and good and very pretty graphs which suggest all the talk of “consensus” and “97% of political scientists agree”. Evidence is divided into empirical, anecdotal and infernal models. Question the first, IF it is a slam dunk as the fancy graphs suggest then why has the IPCC NEVER EVER correctly predicted the rate of warming? Secondly it is all fudge factors. One look at the electromagnetic spectra of CO2 and Water Vapour should be a warning flag that “if” the theoretical greenhouse effect plays a part then water vapour is the most common and way more absorptive component of the atmosphere than CO2. Have you ever wondered for example why with all that heat claimed to come from CO2 it is freezing cold in the desert except when there are clouds and guess what the clouds are made from? So much is made of Arrhenius but all he observed is can absorb not how much and the devil is in the detail. The IPCC ( a political not a scientific organisation ) wilfully avoid the issue of water vapour for a good reason because given it’s absorption properties right across the infra red part of the spectrum as compared to much less present CO2 which is limited to the ultra low end of the infra red spectrum. Physicists I pay attention to like Freeman Dyson and Will Happer put the whole greenhouse effect at the loose change end of the heating budget and I tend to agree with them because we have geological history which offers empirical evidence to refute the CO2 control knob claims. Remember the greenhouse effect is not proven which allows them to room to speculate. There have been 4 warmings in recent human history. Minoan, Roman Medieval and the present. Analysis of the Greenland Ice cores puts the emergence from the Little Ice Age as the coldest time during the past 10000 years. Indeed it puts the medieval and roman warms as significantly warmer than today. Where was climate melt down then? We know figs were grown around Colchester in Essex during Roman times and grapes in Yorkshire during the Medieval warm, neither of those are possible today. Also in Iceland, Greenland and Europe evidence of human activity is emerging from beneath receding glaciers. If geological history is considered we have access to reconstructed temperature profiles and also CO2 concentrations historically and several surprising pieces of information appear most important of all being that there is ZERO correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature, NONE. In real science, empirical data is considered always ahead of model results yet in the climate world it is just ignored. If this were a court of law, empirical data are the facts and what comes from models is hearsay and third party tittletattle I could go on but the case for the CO2 control knob relies on a wilful misuse of data and a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Paul,
An interesting observation on the unacceptable language of climate porn from supposed sober scientific government organisations and the fact that it was not always that way so why the change?
https://lauradodsworth.substack.com/p/the-forecast-is-nudging-to-net-zero?utm_source=email
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul,
from the BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62169184
NHS facing surge in demand amid extreme weather warning
Notice the lack of words like possibly or maybe. The deliberately chosen language the BBC are using is to give an air of certainty, indeed something which is inevitable regarding to something which is not certain at all.
Not being content with lying about average “weather” calling it climate change the BBC are now giving headline billing NOT to the NHS actually having dealt with large numbers of heat related patients they consider speculation now is as good as facts especially when they are desperately reporting anything which can be speculated to be “due to climate change”
Hi Paul
I notice on my Met Office local weather forecast that they are giving the ‘feels like’ temp as three degrees below the actual. While I get how this works on a cold winters night, the mechanism doesn’t seem to fit with the high daytime temps forecast. Am I just getting paranoid about the Met trying to influence people into thinking that the temperatures are higher than they feel?
Hive to axe cameras, doorbells and other smart devices by 2025 – attributed to moving to Net zero.
Hive, which is owned by British Gas’s parent company Centrica, says the decision to discontinue its security and leak detection sensors is because it wants to focus on products that are better for the environment and bring the UK closer to achieving “net zero”.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2022/07/hive-to-axe-its-cameras-over-the-next-few-years–meaning-they-ll/
Hi Paul – someone has just posted this on FB – I know it’s wrong but do you have an alternatibe – https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=5115961005146414&set=p.5115961005146414&type=3
It comes up with an error message
Paul,
Firstly your blog is not available in a search on Microsoft Edge. The user has to reach it via a stats website. I wonder why?
Secondly from our legendarily impartial friends at the BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/62212604
UK heatwave: How do temperatures compare with 1976?
Notice how they focus only on temp, not duration. It is absurd to ignore the duration of a heatwave which in 1976 was over a 2 month period focusing instead on an absolute temperature recording which we can all discuss the validity of.
Notice at the beginning they are claiming that warming is accelerating. Really?
Secondly completely ignoring TWO MONTHS of continuous heat as less important than one or two day spikes is disingenuous to say the least.
Also they quote an average from the 1970’s with one from the 2010s. Are they comparing the same set of stations?
As usual when met office and the BBC get together something starts to smell.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Ed Miliband maintains that the world is hotter now than than it has been for 125,000 years. I don’t remember that being etched in the ‘Edstone’.
https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/07/climate-change-welcome-to-the-inferno
My apologies – I omitted this link in my previous comment
More wishful thinking on aviation…
Jet Zero strategy: delivering net zero aviation by 2050
The framework and plan for achieving net zero aviation by 2050.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jet-zero-strategy-delivering-net-zero-aviation-by-2050
I doubt much of this is true, and probably not worth the time researching the BS, but this is what’s travelling around the world, in the name of ‘climate science’.
https://newatlas.com/environment/bridge-insulation-foil-uk-heatwave/?utm_source=New+Atlas+Subscribers&utm_campaign=6c93e283fc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_07_20_08_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-6c93e283fc-92281965
This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Great Smog of London, which occurred between 5-9 December 1952.
The event was of great significance in the history of public health, resulting in the passing of the Clean Air Act of 1956, which regulated the use of air pollutants. The type of fog, containing poisonous sulphur dioxide, was common in London at the time, arising from the widespread use of coal. The smog of December 1952, however, was particularly severe. The fog was so thick it stopped public events and the use of transportation. Its lethal effects were unprecedented: it is estimated that more than 4,000 people died in the immediate aftermath and a further 8,000 died over the course of the following year, mostly caused by respiratory tract infections.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/the-great-smog-of-1952/?utm_source=emailmarketing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_mailer_21_july_22&utm_content=2022-07-21
Paul,
From the BBC climate propagandists today
Once again, the BBC wilfully push one narrative
The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696
The only “audacious plot” is the one being conducted by the BBC and their partners in crime to perpetuate this garbage
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul and Followers:
I have been following this discussion for a long time because GHG theory and Government action to control CO2 is challenged.
My book, POLAR BEARS IN THE HOT TUB, published in the US in 2018 is available in England at abebooks.com. There is a lot of basic science, written for most of us, using data to explain why CO2 has not and never will affect climate. Coal power plants produce CO2, which is a big benefit to growing plants and fish, but also produces SO2 and NO2 which are very harmful gases but can be and is being scrubbed out successfully.
I am about to publish a sequel because I have found the source of the recent 1.8 degree rise in temperature. That source caused the little ice age when half the people of Europe died of starvation and freezing. That source is cooling off and we are entering an ice age!
Check the maps of Arctic and Antarctic ice at nsidc.com; Antarctic ice surrounded with sea ice now. Arctic Sea ice surrounded Greenland and reached half way to the equator last winter.
Paul,
This is hilarious. It had to come, it was only a matter of time.
“Environmental activists in the swing state of Nevada are pushing back against the Biden administration’s opening of new Lithium mines — a key component for electric car batteries — as the White House attempts to forward its green policy agenda at all costs.”
https://dcenquirer.com/biden-midterms-gas-prices-green-energy/?utm_source=89382
An interesting piece from vice.com – not a haven of climate skepticism –
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7vdyx/corporate-carbon-offset-company-accidentally-starts-devastating-wildfire
I enjoyed: “While a contractor was working on forest restoration in the area, a spark from one of the excavators started the fire,” the company wrote in an earlier press release.”
Paul,
UK heatwave: Weather forecasters report unprecedented trolling
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62323048
from the new Vbc (victim broadcastiong corp) today
How truly pathetic they are. in their attempt to show their distain and thin-skinned nature they are now calling people who call out their rampant climate propaganda as “trolling and abuse”. Like all of the rest of the Leftie nonsense which this is just part the last thing they want is dissent because their tissue of lies will unravel in double quick time if real discussion is allowed to occur, so they have to shut it down by any means possible. I see where this is going. Challenging their climate propaganda will become a hate crime! Next they will give the names of people who dare to do that to their friends in the ever so PC Police. I already called them out on the outrageous amount of personal information they demand if you want to complain to the BBC (The BBC has never responded to my questioning this eventhough I ticked the box for a reply). How thin skinned and truly pathetic these people are.
Who could ever accuse them of changing the colour of land from green to red of wanting to sexing up the message is it which I note their continental counterparts have also joined in on the conspiracy.
The examples they show are not personal and seem reasonable frustration regarding the REAL way in which the BBC is deliberately sexing up weather. Those must be the worst of the lot otherwise they would show more. How pathetic and duplicitous these people are.
I move on to one more example of how well the KGB have trained their BBC operatives. I refer to the map they show of the UK which tells oh no oh no oh no 100% proof the BBC are right and the planet is going to evaporate off into space! One single temperature reading can have many causes as they will know so WHY I am asking do they deliberately avoid showing more data like for example: from Wiki
1* 40.3 °C (104.5 °F) 19 July 2022 Coningsby
2* 38.7 °C (101.7 °F) 25 July 2019 Cambridge
3* 38.5 °C (101.3 °F) 10 August 2003 Faversham
4 38.1 °C (100.6 °F) 18 July 2022 (provisional) Santon Downham, Suffolk[6]
5 37.8 °C (100.0 °F) 31 July 2020 Heathrow
6* 37.1 °C (98.8 °F) 3 August 1990 Cheltenham
7 36.7 °C (98.1 °F) 1 July 2015 Heathrow
8* 36.7 °C (98.1 °F) 9 August 1911 Raunds
9 36.6 °C (97.9 °F) 2 August 1990 Worcester
10 36.5 °C (97.7 °F) 19 July 2006 Wisley
It is compelling to see that of the top 10 hottest days in the UK the Joke weather station at Heathrow shows twice as does the “interesting” station in Faversham which is right next to a concrete road. Also you have to go back to 1911 to find the one from Raunds. This “record breaking” fashion has to be called out for what it is. It is meaningless (maybe that is why they use it)? My attention was caught by the BBC putting so much effort into playing down 1976 where we had and I quote from Wiki again ” During a 15 day spell of hot weather temperatures exceeded 32 °C (89.6 °F) at several weather stations within the United Kingdom every day and the town of Cheltenham had eleven, including seven successive days from 1 July – recording 35.9 °C (96.6 °F) on 3 July. This “instant record” fad they promote is simply sensationalism, nothing more. The fact that they and they and their partners in crime at the MetOffice make no attempt to explain that BOTH 1976 and 2022 were caused by rare aggregations of weather conditions. Why not we should ask but then clearly to do that they want classified as hate!
Pathetic!
Regards
Jonny Scott
Paul,
More from the Midwich Cuckoos infesting the BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220728-the-town-with-the-cleanest-air-in-the-world
The ever so impartial BBC, news you can trust, incredibly are selling Svalbard with polar bears and a temperature range of +7degC – -21degC as the place to be because clearly we have such bad air and they have oh so clean air.
Strange with all the talk of “record temperatures” by, that the BBC omit to mention about the records for cold being set around the world. Svalbard interestingly had a new record for cold from March 2020 of -30.2degC
https://www.worlddata.info/europe/svalbard/climate.php
I really do not know why the BBC are pushing the pollution meme so hard. The West has and is dealing with the issue of pollution. The way they talk it has never been worse (heard that one before somewhere). Strange also they do not acknowledge the 79 year (males) and 84 females which is a RECORD given their obsession with records.
Nothing seems to make any sense anymore that they push where they “fight” wars which are already either won or being won but there again we can see parallels in their “impartial” reporting.
Regards
Jonny Scott
Paul,
the virus has even infected the BGS
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/news/increased-risk-to-the-public-from-rockfalls-as-a-result-of-the-forecasted-heatwave/
OK so rocks expand and contract due to a number of factors only one of which is temperature. The main problem of instability was investigated back in the 1950s in Sweden where it was discovered from mine stress measurements that rock falls in mines was actually not caused by the ceiling coming down but rather by the walls exploding inwards and as a consequence bringing the ceiling down. Horizontal expansion is the greatest problem when rocks are exposed at the surface due to expansion. This is because the Earth’s crust is under significant compression (Horizontal compression up to 4 x vertical load). That is why attempts are made to control this with large metal bars screwed into cliffs overhanging roads. The term “P155ing in the wind” comes to mind. Yes, it has an effect, sort of but it does not solve the problem because it only superficially addresses what are massive forces.
So back to the handwringers in the BGS. They used to be all big hairy blokes with beards, how times have changed. Anyway, in terms of magnitude of effect, after expansion due to pressure release comes the problem of freeze thaw which water gets into small cracks during the day and freezes at night and by expanding prizes the rock apart. Come next morning this “glue” melts and the prized away slab falls. This is a very big problem here in Norway.
I cannot even think in terms of relative important the heating we are talking about here will have any effect. It will be limited to the top few cm anyway. At best all it can do is cause flakes to come off which were already on their way.So the surface of the rock may get 5 degC warmer for a day or two. So what!
Given the unavoidable aspects of gravity, walking anywhere near a cliff is problematic even if it is granite.
What is worst for me about this article is the habit of lying by omission. It is unacceptable for the BGS to “forget” to balance this puff piece for climate alarmism with the above information. 20 or more years ago, they would be laughed at and rightly criticized for not reporting on all processes ranked by importance and instead focusing on something which is to all intents and purposes irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul,
From the BBC
Commonwealth Games: How climate change is changing life around the world
https://www.bbc.com/sport/commonwealth-games/62334755
Why the Commonwealth Games is mentioned at all baffles me. This is just one more example of the egregious way the BBC sets out knowingly to manipulate its readership.
Other than that, it is a bunch of “feelings”. Why the feelings of athletes should be worthy of note also baffles me.
On other issues I see it as an important observation that the BBC did not include their grudging acknowledgement of “good news” on the Great Barrier Reef on their Climate page which if you read it is just a list of “oh no its worse than we thought” stories.
Why would they limit its publishing to the Australia section? Surely, they know that will limit its audience or is that the intention.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-62402891
The cynic in me calls that a deliberate act to limit its exposure. Even then they filled the article with climate doom porn.
This act shows the lack of respect that the BBC has for the ability of the general population to make up their own minds and also shows just how weak the arguments are they incessantly push that they deliberately limit the audience exposure to good news which clearly contradicts their narrative.
The BBC are after all masters at lying by omission but then that is the cornerstone of the “work” of the IPCC.
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul!
Hot off the press!
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1651532/uk-energy-crisis-Norway-power-supply-Britain-EU-update
Relying on Interconnectors is all well and good…..until….
Hydro is brilliant if you have the right topography tucked away in a corner of your country, but it is also dependent on rainfall and that depends on WEATHER as well as climate.
Dare I ask what is the UK governments backup plan, or should I punt a more basic question, do they have a plan of any kind or is virtue signalling to a very small minority of screechy activists whenever they “activate” the governments idea of a good plan?
Mvh
Jon Scott
Paul,
May provide a moment’s mirth.
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul
From our impartial friends at the BBC
UK heatwave: Heat health-alert to begin across England
‘https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62472926
More climate propaganda under the guise of the nanny state
The BBC trumpeting the Met Office absurd “hot weather” warning as if we never had it before and..hey it is summer. They really are trying to push the meme that warm is bad as hard as they can. They called two wonderful days last month “a heat wave”!
Not to be outdone the BBC (News you can trust) cannot help themselves so have padded the piece out with well-worn and unsubstantiated climate propaganda.
I had to smile when I read the BBC calling the IPCC the “UNs climate science body”! Interesting therefore to read them claim that currently we are living in the “hottest” period for 125,000 years. Not the use of the word “hottest” rather than warmest to describe a world with a global annual temp of 14degC! Also strange they are offering us to assume that it is scientists saying that when the Greenland and Vostok ice cores tell another story. Perhaps the “scientists” they quote are political scientists because the IPCC is full of all kinds of hangers on with no relevant scientific education whatsoever.
Regards
Jonathan Scott
Paul,
Daily climate porn from the BBC (news you can trust) Today you get 2 for the price of 1!
1.
Wildlife under stress as dry spell shrinks rivers
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62465805
Notice a common theme being developed by the BBC? Incredibly they are pushing that warm is bad is the narrative. I mean who ever heard about fluctuations in British weather OR that it gets warm in the summer?
Note the mealy-mouthed handwringers lining up to “worry”.
2.
UK heatwave: Four-day extreme heat warning for parts of UK
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62465805
Oh no it gets warm in the summer! That never happened before AGM!
I laughed out loud at this absurd statement:
“The amber alert is the longest the Met Office has issued since it introduced the warning system in 2021 and is lower than the first-ever red warning in July, when temperatures exceeded 40C for the first time”.
The longest amber alert, since last year!!!! This is pure desperation and also bad journalism. Also, they try to spread the 40degC temperature from Coningsby around but using the plural of temperature.
The narrative runs through both documents showing the message not the facts are most important to the BBC.
Again, they push the narrative that warm is BAD! They throw in a 14-year-old drowning and wildfires and a farmer threatening to kill his cows ( notice he has not done this but leftie politics is performance art so worrying about what might happen now is proof).
This is all calculated to deliberately get people to associate bad things with warm weather. Have these people no morals?
“Driest year since 1935”. They say this for dramatic effect being too stupid to realize that it undermines their climate argument. If it was WORSE was 85 years ago then it is NOT climate change today but weather! This is how little those writing these shills for the religion understand what they are writing about
We can always rely in the captured National Trust to support the BBC narrative:
“The National Trust has warned that bats, lichen and stately gardens have been hit hard by the hot summer weather, with its climate change adviser describing the impact as “stark”.
“Stark”!
Oh yes…. summer is bad and weather fluctuations are “proof” of man-made climate change is the inference.
We are told what to do when it gets warm, again pushing the narrative that warm weather is to be feared.
FINALLY, after the audience has been softened up with all of the above the priests of climate hit us with the big message:
1.”A heatwave is defined as above average temperatures being reached for three days or more. Heatwaves are becoming more likely and more extreme because of human-induced climate change.
2.The world has already warmed by about 1.1C since the industrial era began, and temperatures will keep rising unless governments around the world make steep cuts to emissions.
3.We are living in the hottest period for 125,000 years, according to the UN’s climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
1. There is no proof to support that statement
2. That is typical BBC with its misleading statements. The world has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. To refer to the start of the industrial revolution as if it was a global phenomenon is simply absurd, but they keep making that connection.
3. Whoever they are quoting from the IPCC is not a scientist (well maybe a political scientist) given that there is significant evidence to show that the three previous warming periods ( Minoan, Roman and Medieval) were global events and warmer than today.
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul,
Fish and Foul
Three lessons from a massive research misconduct case in marine science
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/fish-and-foul?utm_source=email
Well worth a read. Have people finally woken up to the corrupting influence of the availability of easy money for those willing to pursue the climate change meme.
If you can earn a good living saying “I found problems” why is anyone surprised that the easy money has created a monster and totally distorted science research to the detriment of us all?
Falsifiability and avoidance of bias are two of the fundamental challenges of scientific research. I cannot count how many articles and papers I have read from the “oh no it is worse than we thought” brigade where I find myself speaking out loud reading just the introduction.
Mention is also made of the scandalous treatment of Dr Peter Ridd who questioned research standards.
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul,
an article from the DT in 2012 explaining the EU’s deliberate policy to make water scarce and expensive for us all.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220810100127/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9261122/Keeping-the-country-short-of-water-is-now-government-and-EU-policy.html
Paul,
The BBC is excelling its self right now with climate propaganda..
1.
They give column inches to and publicise the actions of any climate activist group and specifically never ever voice opinion about their activities.
Climate activists fill golf holes with cement after water ban exemption
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62532840
This is a deliberate act by the BBC to promote the activities of these people by giving tacit approval. They are very quick to provide opinion pieces on a range of subjects but never ever to they voice opinion of climate activists for whom the BBC is a free publicity machine.
2.
Drought hits Germany’s Rhine River: ‘We have 30cm of water left’
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62519683
This is outrageous reporting by the BBC and their intention is to deliberately mislead.
To understand the actual situation the body of the BBC report has to be read and then we find:
“It’s no joke,” he says as he navigates the water which sparkles in the summer sunshine. “We have 1.5m [5ft] of water and our boat sits 1.20m deep. So we have 30 centimetres of water left beneath us.”
So the water is not 30cm deep but 1.5m deep.
This is the BBC at it’s best(worst) promoting climate porn.
What is the intention of that headline except for being totally and deliberately sensational?
What is worst about the way they sensationalise this and other “weather events” is that they actually give the game away in their piece.
I quote: “”It’s quite extraordinary, particularly for this time of year. July and August are usually quite wet months with lots of rain and good water levels.”
So then this is NOT climate change! It is a weather event.
Then we are treated to the quote from the ever ready nameless “experts” the BBC seems to have in abundance. “Experts have warned that the low water could significantly damage Germany’s economy. Surely what is important is IS not COULD? When the BBC does not have a real climate crisis they speculate on the future.
Finally, we are treated to this statement which is not only ambiguous but is classic BBC climate propaganda. No qualification is provided for the second half climate religion propaganda which seems to infest all outpourings from supposed scientific and purely data driven organisations.
The government agency which monitors the levels say that the current low water may just be part of a normal pattern. But, they note, such events are becoming more intense as a result of climate change and they say the situation will worsen in the second half of this century.
The only graphics I have found of course only look at data for the past 5 years! How is that representative but of course they use that because the level has been low during that period that is why.
Now onto the BBCs partners in crime.
3.
Lying by the Guardian
On Friday 12th August the Grauniad, that rag read by at least three people said the following:
“Rhine water levels fall to new low as Germany’s drought hits shipping”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/12/germany-drought-rhine-water-levels-new-low
There is no room for ambiguity in that statement trumpeting that the water level at Kaub “has fallen below 40cm. I think I see the game the Grauniad is playing. They mean “this year” but they deliberately make it ambiguous. Do the BBC and Guardian share the same political commissar?
Yet, here is an article from 4 years ago.
Historical low water levels on the Rhine – Extra surcharges
https://container-news.com/low-water-levels-rhine-surcharges/
“The low water situation on the Rhine River remains unsustainable and the water level at Kaub has reached a new record-low (<30 cm) last week, severely impacting operations to the extent that barges are no longer able to pass the “Kaub” measuring point".
How can the Grauniad be claiming a "new low" at a level around 10cm higher than it was four years ago?
I have been searching for historical data for Kaub and I found this:
https://undine.bafg.de/rhein/pegel/rhein_pegel_kaub.html
It is a bit confusing because they are more interested in flow and only show depth for the past month. However, there is a relationship of course between flow and depth as can be seen on the two graphics.
Regards
Jon Scott
From: David Craig
author: THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS
I attach a link to a short (3 minutes) YouTube video I have made based on my latest book THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS.
It’s a bit basic. But maybe some of your readers might find it mildly amusing?
Be interested to know what you think? I think we cr need to start commissioning coal fired power stations once more asap, and start fracking asap. Fossils Fuels first and Nuclear, no 1 priority.
There is indeed no “Warming Planet” now. There was warming after 1980 but that trend has ended and the planet is in a cooling phase that will likely be disastrous. Starvation from lack of food only requires shortening the growing season a few weeks in spring and in fall; result – no ripe fruit or grain.
Congratulations on publishing a book; it is not easy.
I published “Polar Bears in the Hot Tub” (2018 ) explaining CO2 could not cause the warming shown in NOAA data. Now I am working on another book explaining what caused the warming, and why there is a cooling trend – due to complete in a week or two.
Will look for your book.
Art Krugler
125 Sparrow Circle
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Just returning to this site after a period of hibernation for my mental health. I’d removed the bookmark so had to search for a new one. Strangely, the site isn’t directly visible in a Duckduckgo search and the link produced is not secure. I had to pick up the link from an email notification of a post on this page.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=not+a+lot+of+people+know+that+website&t=h_&ia=web
Paul,
I know it is bad on the other side of the pond but this is worrying to say the least.
Is it not the job of “teachers” to teach the curriculum not their private political opinions?
Secondly what the hell is a “UN accredited climate change teacher”? Given that the UN own that discredited bunch of political scientists called the IPCC I would hardly consider any accreditation by them as being founded in science.
Thirdly what the hell are we doing even going anywhere near such subjects with 7 year olds? This is an open invitation to hysterical lefties like this Meryl Batchelder who appears to need a psychological assessment because she is clearly psychologically unstable, and I question her suitability to be allowed within 100 yards of anyone’s children!
Worst of all this barnpot has a PhD in Geology!
How did she pass the exams to achieve a bachelor degree and then perform research for a PhD where she must have been bombarded daily with compelling empirical data contradicting her developing psychosis? I know how, I have watched such people who can achieve high marks in a subject they know nothing about, people who are clueless as to the meaning and application of what they have just regurgitated at exam level. As for PhDs, well sorry to say, as much as I wanted to do one, they are mostly degrees in librarianship.
Shocking!
Even NOAA now show the Planet is cooling !!
show this to all your warmest friends …
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/all/1/2016-2022?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=2016&endtrendyear=2022
Paul,
I still have not recovered from the assault on my senses sitting in an airport lounge yesterday morning being treated to BBC’s morning climate porn section. They had about 30-40 sec of traumatic video which they kept recycling and recycling in the background while telling in deep tones with furrowed brows that there is no thing called weather anymore, it is all climate change.
If that was not enough, I discovered this from who else but the BBC putting a truly absurd spin on the Russians flaring gas. Forget about the fact that people are going to die this winter and businesses are going to collapse, helped along by them at the BBC offering an unquestioning platform to every climate freak Its going to melt the arctic! No, the BBC even went as far as putting CLIMATE CHANGE in the headline to tell us what the real danger lies!
Climate change: Russia burns off gas as Europe’s energy bills rocket
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62652133
If this was not so serious it would be funny.
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul,
New political party launched on the day Liz Truss announced as PM.
“A new centre-right political party [The Climate Party] has launched in the UK, with the stated aims of significantly accelerating the decarbonisation of the UK and ejecting net zero-sceptic Conservative MPs from their constituencies at the next general election.”
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2022/09/new-climate-party-vows-to-take-on-truss-at-the-next-election/
Plans unveiled for South West hydrogen hub
Energy infrastructure developer Carlton Power has unveiled plans to build a major hydrogen hub in Devon, the first in the South West.
New H2 2 terminal planned – details here
https://www.planningportal.co.uk/services/weekly-planning-news/planning-news-8-september-2022?utm_source=PPQ+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ac7345a876-Newsletter_11072019_HTML_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_734e0b63a9-ac7345a876-7062809#plans-unveiled-for-south-west-hydrogen-hub
Paul,
The World stops because the Queen has died except, no it has not, the BBC propaganda machine MUST keep pumping out the effluent of their never ending as ever unnamed trove of “experts”.
Three ways climate change makes adventure tourism riskier
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-62850313
“Wildfires that threatened campsites in southern Europe and the US, and landslides and floods affecting South American rafting rivers” It seems none of these ever happened before their fantasy of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Gravity just did not bother us and every day of every year was just like every other day. Clouds did not move and yet rain magically fell in “just the right amount” never too much, never too little UNTIL…… the curse of AGM!
Freeze thaw never happened before and “unstable” glaciers ( as if glaciers ever were stable) is a sure sign of global nonsense intensified.
Companies, public institutions and government now abound with Vroomfondel and Majikthise wannabes, worthless people who to keep their jobs have to take basic common sense precautions and blame every possible outcome on an adventure tour as more dangerous because of their invented crisis. Ice melts faster we are told…..
I could go on, it is oh so stupid and people are being employed to promote this crap.
Regards
Jon Scott
The BBC are the real climate deniers because they deny there was any climate change prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Tip.
Linked from Guido’s blog
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/exposed-the-97-of-scientists-agree-with-manmade-global-warming-lie/
Paul,
the best one hour and twelve minutes you will ever spend.
A detailed description of what the world needs to dispense with fossil fuels.
“The quantity of metal required to make just one generation of renewable tech units to replace fossil fuels, is much larger than first thought. Current mining production of these metals is not even close to meeting demand. Current reported mineral reserves are also not enough in size. Most concerning is copper as one of the flagged shortfalls. Exploration for more at required volumes will be difficult, with this seminar addressing these issues.”
Assoc Prof Simon Michaux
Can’t seem to get a direct connection to Paul’s website:
http://websites.milonic.com/notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
Sorted, though I don’t know how.
This is ridiculous:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/homes-paying-thousands-pounds-green-power/
Good Morning Paul,
I don’t know if you’ve heard but PayPal have cancelled their service for two organisations founded by Toby Young, the ‘Free Speech Union’ and the ‘Daily Sceptic’, along with his own personal account. As you take ‘tips’ via PayPal and your website is, refreshingly, counter the official narrative will you be next?
Also I would very much like to contribute but I will not use PayPal. Can I send you a donation via BACS?
Many thanks for all your excellent work.
Robin
As a great fan of, and (funds permitting) occasional contributor to Daily Sceptic, thank you for highlighting the PayPal situation.
Subscription cancelled. It’s a pity there isn’t a “Why are you leaving us?” box to fill in.
Enter a paypal complaint at https://www.paypal.com/uk/smarthelp/complaints
I have, saying the FSU are being discriminated against
Great stuff! Thanks.
I haven’t used PayPal for a good while now. I try hard not to use Amazon too and consider it a failure if I do use either.
FYI, PayPal and the credit card companies have been cancelling the accounts of anyone they don’t like for many years now, especially revisionist authors, researchers and scholars of WW2 history. Amazon followed suit in 2017 with a mass burning of online titles.
Few noticed, let alone had any concerns. Such is the nature of the totalitarian tip toe …
I follow Toby Young’s work too, but think it mildly amusing that the founder of the Free Speech Union chooses to complain now when the censors affect his interests, yet has remained silent on the above events …
Justin Rowlatt was at it again on last night’s BBC News at six pm. In his report on fracking in the UK, he simply stated that allowing fracking wouldn’t make any difference at all to UK gas prices because gas is sold at the world price and there isn’t enough shale gas in the UK to make a difference to supply. Now there may be some truth in that – though I expect there is more to it than that – but he didn’t quote anybody or refer to any sources. He just stated it ex cathedra, and viewers were left with the impression that it is a Known and Indisputable Fact that could not be challenged.
Spiro, you are right. This unchallenged stupidity just echoes ever onward. I read this canard yesterday from this idiot. I get annoyed because “journalists” do not challenge assertions as long as the assertion is in line with their accepted narrative. It is apparent that such journalists have no idea how energy markets actually work. They seem to believe that energy companies pop down to the local “electricity ‘r’ us ” store for a bucket of electrickery.
The idea that markets are there to secure FUTURE deliveries and supply just whiff right over their pointy little heads. Anything which contributes to security of future supply works to settle the market.
Lost my bookmarks again due to a W11 set up glitch. Had to find an email notification of a comment in About to get Paul’s website. No chance using a web search, which threw up a lot of negative stuff.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1675571/musk-germany-tesla-gigafactory-fire-berlin
No, it wasn’t a battery fire, AFAIK, but:
“Back in 2020 for instance, local residents concerned about water contamination and the deforestation which was required to build the plant delayed its construction …”
If this was being built locally (like the biggest EVRI depot in Europe), the planning application would have included phrases like “mitigation” and ” sustainable construction”. Works every time.
Paul,
From our friends at the BBC
Australia vows new plan to stop mammal extinction crisis
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-63126430
Banning extinction is as asinine as claiming to be able to control climate. Knutian nonsense.
The whole issue of extinction is poorly understood and for these charlatans to claim they can control it just shows how addicted aspects of pointless science have become to skewed funding.
Of course as our society matures thanks to hydrocarbons we are able to alter our behaviour and minimise our impact on the environment. This must be tempered by the real pressures brought on the ecosphere and all that inhabit it caused by the current and unsustainable exponential human breeding which is occurring centred on Africa, the Indian subcontinent and Asia using countries like Australia as an overflow. However, the asininity that pretends that extinction is a largely man made “crisis” is at best disingenuous and at worst lying for dark political purposes.
Extinction is a critical part of the evolutionary process. To pretend otherwise is to leave the field of science and enter the world of dogma and politicoreligion. Mankind is NOT God and it sets a dangerous precedent to allow people to pretend and convince the public that they are!
If the chattering liberal city dwellers want to make less of an impact on biodiversity where they live then they should get rid of their domestic cats for starters….the single worst predator of small mammals and birds in the urban environment.
Regards
Jon Scott
I’ve been pestering my MP and local council for a long time about the dangers of large battery systems. Possibly as a happy coincidence (I don’t care), Maria Miller has a ten minute rule bill on the subject:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-09-07/debates/FB0D6FE6-CF3E-4D2B-AA92-FCAE0A5B0B17/Lithium-IonBatteryStorage(FireSafetyAndEnvironmentalPermits)#contribution-6A633C2F-B454-4246-A757-3C6EE182B19F
It doesn’t cover mobile installations, so has a big hole in it, but it’s a start.
Interesting article here:
https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/media-lying-about-climate-and-hurricanes
Goes on to say:
Media Lying About Climate And Hurricanes
All of those claims are false.
The increasing cost of hurricane damage can be explained entirely by more people and more property in harm’s way. Consider how much more developed Miami Beach is today compared to a century ago. Once you adjust for rising wealth, there is no trend of increasing damage.
How silly can you get?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/man-shares-genius-light-bulb-hack-to-provide-light-during-potential-winter-blackouts/ar-AA12JttG?cvid=7d7eaf9895e54df89f8608db721fc3b8&ocid=winp2sv1plustaskbar
“A pack of four Laborate Lighting Rechargeable LED light bulbs with battery backup, emergency LED bulb, LED 60-watt bulb are available at Amazon for £72.79.”
I’d be looking at other sources of off-grid lights first. May have to if our politicians fail us in the next few months.
I have lived at this address now for almost 17 years. It is in the York Outer Constituency, and the current MP, Julian Sturdy, has a pretty safe seat. Opposition by the Limp Dims, the Labia party a poor third.
Sturdy has opposed some of the sillier Covid tyranny but I’m unsure what his position on ruinable energy and ‘Net Zero’. He doesn’t reply to my emails.
Today we were treated to the first leaflet that my wife and I can remember from the Labia Party. Reasonably well printed, decent paper, in colour.
24 carat, weapons grade nonsense about fracking. There is no way that Labia in York Outer has resources for a mass leaflet drop around the constituency. I doubt anyone in my street would vote for these clowns. So who is paying? Vlad? Xi? Dale Vince? Octopus? Bill Gates?
I’m happy to send scans but aren’t sure how to do so.
Can you let me know? I have the email address that I send my modest PayPal contribution to but don’t want to risk messing up your system.
Still using Paypal, Martin? Besides that, from my local rag (edited to protect the guilty). How’s this for local democracy? This same council presides over one of the biggest fuel poverty populations in the country:
[Labour] Council has ruled out seeking licences for fracking on its land – despite the government performing a U-turn on a ban …
At last Thursday’s full council meeting, cabinet spokesperson for regeneration and culture … confirmed [the borough’s] land will be protected and answered ‘no’ to a question from Coun … {Libdem] about whether the council would pursue licenses for fracking operations on its own land.
{Libdem] called on [borough]Council to go a step further and formally condemn the government’s U-turn.
“We understand that all planning authorities will be bound by this dangerous change to the legislation,” she added.
“These proposals from new Prime Minister Liz Truss fly in the face of scientific evidence – they ignore the risk of damaging seismic activity and water contamination and lay bare their denial of the reality of climate change.
“Extracting shale gas has a significant detrimental impact on climate change and will not tackle the current energy crisis.
“It’s both disappointing and concerning that [ruling] Labour have refused to join us in condemning this outrageous move by this unelected Conservative Prime Minister which she has no mandate to implement whatsoever.”
Hi
Not sure who, how, or where to contact regarding the following, any advice would be greatly appreciated.
The MSM, energy companies, etc, claim that Wind Turbines in our countryside are the answer to any issues with regards to supplying energy to people here in the uk, from combating climate change????, a net zero future????, clean energy???, making renewable energy accessible and affordable????, reduce carbon generation????, create jobs???, etc, etc.
If someone was sceptical about these and other claims, and there was a prospect of wind turbines (along with solar panels and battery storage facilities) being erected on nearby mountains, what advice or information could you offer that may be a counter argument to what they are calling a “renewable energy park.”
I’ll be honest just the thought of seeing these wind turbines everyday, spoiling the landscape, and effecting my appreciation for the nature around me, and how that benefits my health already is upsetting.
Thanks in advance for any help you may offer.
All the best.
Apart from ethsetics, onshore wind turbines kill birds, bats and loads of insects. On average they only produce 10-15% of their rated output are expensive to install and, unless the government takes action, make huge profits for non uk companies. As they take energy from the wind they can cause condensation/mist downwind. They noise tgey make can upset people. Google these points and you’ll find plenty of information e.g. https://stopthesethings.com/
Thank you.
Apart from ethsetics, onshore wind turbines kill birds, bats and loads of insects. On average they only produce 10-15% of their rated output are expensive to install and, unless the government takes action, make huge profits for non uk companies. As they take energy from the wind they can cause condensation/mist downwind. The noise they make can upset people. Google these points and you’ll find plenty of information e.g. https://stopthesethings.com/
What’s the “status quo” they’re challenging?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/11/guardian-readers-climate-coverage-responses
Sorry, I don’t understand your reply.
As far as my experience goes, it’s climate sceptics who are challenging the status quo, not Guardian reader types.
Sorry, not familiar with these forums I was just reaching out for some advice/guidance about any factual concerns and negative impacts of such things as wind turbines, solar panels, battery storage facilities (i.e. installation of an EDF renewable energy park on nearby mountain.) Please see comment dated on October 10, 2022 7:49 pm. Thanks in advance for any assistance anyone can provide.
More troublesome climate alarmist nonsense from the poor deluded Peter Stott:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001cxxv
Are ALL the power companies struggling? On 1 October, I logged on to Scottish Power to input my meter readings to be faced with a new, what looked like temporary, page for fuss-free meter reading input. I was impressed – here was a power company anticipating the 1 October chaos. Well done!
Since then, it’s proved extremely difficult, often impossible, to log on to my account. When I have managed to get there, I’ve seen that the records haven’t been updated with the information submitted, so the input web page doesn’t seem to have been integrated well, if at all.
I’m not too concerned because I have a fixed price contract, so it’ll sort itself out eventually. Hard luck for those not in such a fortunate position, though.
I guess we can forget about fracking, when Tory MPs had to be bludgeoned into the Noe Lobby on Labour’s fracking vote this evening, trying to kill their own policy! Who needs Greta or the Chinese?.
Sheffield City Council, notorious for its anti-car policies, has just published a £15m plan (our money) for updating the desolate city centre, complete with planters. Will they never learn?
On a related matter, I hear that Grant Shaps is going to use his DfT experience to convert a lane of the M2 into a cycle path, all the way from Dover to London. Expect lawyers to demand bikes, PPE and training for their clients.
Climate emergency suspended? All the major networks, the ones usually hand-wringing about imminent disaster, were quite happy to send up helicopters to monitor prime ministerial journeys to and from Buck House. Hypocrites.
There is a guy trying to get elected to Legislature in California known as Joe Collins who would like to provide a twenty-five percent boost in shell out for coaches and deal with our education and learning organization! Our educational institutions are overcrowded, our school staff are over-worked, and our kids are plummeting far. Mr. Collins Education and learning venture states that it’s supposed to fund to improve our educational facilities, reduce some of the class sizes, raise financing for special education courses and NONE of these other regretful political figures have plans to aid our children, we got to give this guy a chance! Joe’s website is joeecollins3.com vote for Collins
Germany Is Dismantling A Wind Farm To Make Way For A Coal Mine!!!
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Germany-Is-Dismantling-A-Wind-Farm-To-Make-Way-For-A-Coal-Mine.html
Paul, Have you seen the IEA World Energy Outlook for 2022. I have in the past peer reviewed some of their work , but not recently. This latest missive takes some reading as it stretches the bounds of reality and conveniently ignores the laws of thermodynamics. I do not know what planet these clowns are on.
“The installed capacity of electrolysers reaches 720 gigawatts (GW) in 2030 and 3 670 GW in 2050 (existing electrolyser capacity is around 510 MW)”.
Untried and tested immature technology fed mainly by renewable power.
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022
Page 136 onwards makes for some amusing reading.
As you say, what planet are they on; Certainly not one controlled by laws of thermodynamics !!
Have any of these ‘ex-berts’ ever been near a book on physics ?
AEP seems to have bought the numbers:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/27/britains-frackers-have-treated-horribly-time-has-come-gone/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1691226/edf-energy-crisis-britain-blackout-lifeline-superhub-power-100000-homes
Phew! That’ll protect us for how many minutes?
Take a look at this section of the latest Newswatch, starting at 8:30. Audience members and viewers alike were astounded that JHB was allowed to get away with claiming that “it’s just weather”. She said nothing that wasn’t true but the terror on the faces of younger audience members showed how deep the propaganda’s reached into society. The BBC’s position is that HER views were robustly challenged.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001dvd3/newswatch-04112022
We have a local hero/nutter (depending on your point of view) who is one of the Just Stop Oil mob. In a report on his latest arrest in our local rag, he claims:
““The police, too, see our viewpoint and support is growing for the cause as the result of not doing anything truly will be catastrophic.”
I’ve asked my MP to check this out.
Would it not be more effective to mock the idiot through the same local rag; always assuming that said rag will publish anything against the ‘official narrative’? I guess your MP will be like ours. If they respond at all it will be a cut & paste of the ‘climate crisis’ bovine faeces.
Hi dbb,
I do occasionally get stuff printed in the Letters section of the local paper, the last one just recently:
“We recently passed the 3rd anniversary of the Declaration of the Climate Emergency and publishing of the Zero40/45 policy (quickly watered down to NET Zero 40/45, which shows how much thought went into it!).
“Are we going to see a report confirming the progress made since then, eg how offsetting the construction and use carbon emissions of the multitude of large sheds approved in the last three years has been achieved (never mind making a start on the pre-existing level of emissions)? What’s the cost so far and predicted? Have Xxxxxx’s emissions actually been reduced, and by what amount?
“But then, you know it’s all just hypocrisy when a Council professing to be concerned about high levels of poverty (fuel poverty in particular) dismissed out of hand a possible opportunity for reduced energy costs for tenants, with the enthusiastic support of the Lib Dems. The Tories could have questioned this undemocratic action but appear to have bigger issues elsewhere. Will historians looking back from 100 years hence applaud this virtue signalling gesture or condemn the callousness of it?”
Nobody gets involved because they’re too busy having a life (for now). The council just keeps taking the money. I’ll be writing to the editor asking him if he’s going to check with the police on the claim made by the said nutter, but not with much hope of action. A serious lack of imagination in the local press.
It gets worse!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/08/just-stop-oil-protesters-have-point-says-minister-block-m25/
“Mel Stride, the Work and Pensions Secretary, discussed the protesters during an interview on Sky News. When asked if the environmental protestors had a point, he said: “Well, they do in [a] sense. ”
Hasn’t this dickhead just validated ecoterrorism?
161,000 electric vehicle charge points needed across the North to support decarbonisation
The north of England must install 470 electric vehicle-charging points a week between now and 2025 to meet its decarbonisation ambitions.
This means a rise to 620 installations a week between 2025 and 2030.
The analysis is set out in Transport for the North’s (TfN) regional Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure (EVCI) Framework.
https://www.planningportal.co.uk/services/weekly-planning-news/planning-news-10-november-2022?utm_source=PPQ+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8356c1c8b1-Newsletter_11072019_HTML_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_734e0b63a9-8356c1c8b1-7062809#161000-electric-vehicle-charge-points-needed-across-the-north-to-support-decarbonisation
No mention of distribution system upgrade requirement?
A fool & his money are soon parted !!!
Jeff Bezos Plans To Give Away Most Of His Fortune — To Fight Climate Change
https://dailycaller.com/2022/11/14/jeff-bezos-give-away-fortune-fight-climate-change/?pnespid=qaM5Vz1LbL8K2ODJtyvkQpmFvkirUoUpcre3y_FkoR9mch.krr5Bda440X7cEgjNpfEG9Lkh
Two things spring to mind here:
1. His wife chose a good time to divorce him
2. Does his new younger squeeze agree with his plan? But there again I’m sure she married the multi-billionare for his looks, not his money (shades of Debbie McGee)!!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9a797d80-640e-11ed-9ccc-9d160947f622?shareToken=25591fe06bcef7ff0afd0b439e89c04c
Australian bushfire real cause.
COP27 were championing the idea of going vegan and eliminating red meat, meanwhile … the Climate Summit Boasts an Opulent Beef & Seafood Menu
VIP attendees came in 400 private jets
Rules for thee, but not for we !
https://dailycaller.com/2022/11/16/un-climate-summit-lavish-vip-menu/?pnespid=sbw9AjtVL6ECweGbuW_kS4CRvxvwD4JpJLbmzbN6oAdme94JtVw6Pyox.nOaULHgAK8hLobz
Paul.
Look at this from the BBC
BBC News – Staying warm: What does an unheated room do to your body?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-63602501
This reporter needs to speak to their climate reporters!!!
Explicitly says more deaths from cold than warm snaps!!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/18/cooking-oil-could-fuel-fighter-jets-raf-completes-first-net/
Just a small problem:
“The fuel, which is commercially available, presents a challenge of being available in large quantities.”
Just imagine how many fish shop fryers would have to be emptied to fill the bulk storage tanks at the large fuel depots. It’s not going to get any easier, either, with fish and chip shops going out of business by the day due to the energy crisis.
Paul,
The Consumers Association (Which) latest ECO news letter, they discuss “Differences between green energy suppliers”.
They state:
“Three energy companies were given exemptions from the price cap on default energy tariffs because they proved to energy regulator Ofgem that they have higher costs because they support renewables, that they support renewables beyond existing subsidies, and that customers have actively chosen to buy them.
All three applied to Ofgem to be allowed to charge more and their tariffs are typically among the priciest available.
These companies are:
Good Energy
Ecotricity
GEUK”
So, renewable energy costs more! Who knew??????
The article is here:
https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/energy-companies/article/green-energy-suppliers/differences-between-green-energy-suppliers-aN19W0B8B2Mc
It contains quite a few gems…
Steve
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/11/20/south-pole-hits-record-cold-november-temperatures/
“Inexplicably, these records have escaped reporting in the mainstream media.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/22/warships-could-fail-warming-seas-mods-climate-tsar-warns/
How on earth did we get through 1939/45?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/features/new-euro-7-emissions-regulations-threaten-premature-end-petrol/
Includes such gems as:
“Indeed, last year we made a very constructive proposal for a new Euro 7 which would bring a major reduction in criteria pollutants, thus improving air quality. Unfortunately, the environmental benefit of the Commission’s proposal is very limited, whereas it heavily increases the cost of vehicles [and] it focuses on extreme driving conditions that have hardly any real-life relevance.”
And:
“… the real time, over-the-air reporting of emissions required by Euro 7 …”
Part of monitoring where and how we drive?
A gem from WUWT: https://twitter.com/i/status/1598215498336202757
Hopefully thy left the handrail glued to these idiots after they got them outside?
Readers will probably have seen this WUWT post about Oxford:
This rang a bell, as my council is obsessed with cycle lanes and “active travel”, which I thought was just a product if virtue signalling and free money. What if they’re all planning an Oxford-style coup?
There used to be a major psychiatric hospital (a.k.a. lunatic asylum), the Fairmile, on the outskirts of Oxford. I’m sure the place has been sold off to developers as part of the ‘Care in the Community’ scheme. Such a shame, as every single councillor who supports this harebrained scheme should be sectioned.
The Guardian does a hatchet job on the Cumbrian Coal Mine:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/07/uk-first-new-coalmine-for-30-years-gets-go-ahead-in-cumbria
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/07/what-is-the-cumbrian-coalmine-and-why-does-it-matter-woodhouse-colliery
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/07/cumbria-coalmine-approval-shows-sunak-does-not-care-if-he-is-seen-as-green
Mind you, it’s claimed in the articles that the coal is high sulphur and thus no use for coking coal for steelmaking, leading to UK steelworks saying they’ll not use it, so what’s the point, if true?
Another irony-free article in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/dec/07/dna-from-2m-years-ago-reveals-lost-arctic-world
“… a time when the Arctic region was 11-19C warmer than the present day.”
Another Tory policy success!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/electric-car-demand-falls-first-time-since-pandemic-electricity/
If all else fails, try common sense?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/13/coal-rail-deliveries-surge-77pc-britain-turns-fossil-fuels/
Sounds promising – common sense at last?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/19/governments-hydrogen-boiler-plan-unrealistic-warn-mps/
But HMG isn’t listening:
“A Government spokesman said: “A low carbon hydrogen sector here in the UK will be critical to delivering energy security, economic growth, and our net zero ambitions.”
More wishful thinking:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/19/how-biggest-ever-jet-engine-built-rolls-royce-paving-way-era/
Apart from the affordability of the “sustainable” fuel, what about the cost of redesigning every large aircraft to avoid the 737Max issues? And it all assumes CO2 is a problem anyway.
Then there’s this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/19/silent-majority-car-industry-concerned-electric-vehicles-says/
“[T]he company’s president … said that many concerned senior figures are reluctant to say what they really think because of the pressure to go green.”
That doesn’t worry the “expert” who thinks concentrating on anything but 100% electric means they’ve missed the boat. Commenters, though, ie those who’ll actually be buying the cars, aren’t as sure as the “expert”.
We have to understand that very senior corporate leaders in Japan communicate in their classic, extremely polite, no controversy, style. ‘Translating’ his statement into the English vernacular would be as follows: “Anybody who believes the future lies in EVs is completely, barking mad”
Paul – with regard to the recent laser driven fusion announcements you might want to check out Steve Trivett’s (New Energy Times) 12 minute debunking on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZb-P5C_08g
Not only is the overall energy loss (including driving the laser) still more than 99% ref total input power, the reaction requires tritium which can only be made (in small quantities) in fission reactors. So there is currently no hope of getting enough fuel for meaningful substitution of fossil fuels even if the laser reaction eventually got to a net energy gain.
I think there’s a decent article for your blog here 🙂
The EU Plans To Impose Direct Carbon Taxes On Individuals
http://endoftheamericandream.com/the-eu-plans-to-impose-direct-carbon-taxes-on-individuals/
Have a great Christmas Paul and thank you for all you do for us!
Hear hear!
Hi Paul. I was giving you some money each money on paypal – but after they cancelled people for stupid reasons (ie blocked use of paypal for political reasons) I cancelled my account with them. Can you please let me know how else I can contribute like with a direct debit straight out of my account? Thanks. jamesgarethmorgan@gmail.com
That’s all OK, then:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/uk-handed-energy-jackpot-as-scotland-s-huge-goldmine-could-export-25bn-a-year-to-eu/ar-AA15I1QO?cvid=aaebe852131b4a7a9d982cb9fd1db1e4&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1711383/sse-builds-underground-hydrogen-storage-energy-site-swerve-national-grid-blackouts
“[T]he Hello Hydrogen collective” doesn’t think the Science and technology Committee will win out:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/27/heat-pumps-alone-wont-save-us-freezing-winter/
“We are made up of the UK’s gas networks, boiler and heat pump manufacturers, and energy organisations. All agree that continuing to use natural gas will not be an option if we are to reach our carbon emission targets.
“But we also know that we must bring consumers along with us if they are to embrace a future that no longer uses the blue flames we’ve been used to since the 1970s.”
They alo know that HMG is keen to throw money at them.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ftse-lower-european-natural-gas-prices-fall-to-pre-ukraine-war-levels-090549135.html
Sounds good – when will energy costs follow? As a benefit for business, why has FTSE 100 fallen?
Paul,
Shame about the strange voice of the narrator, but worth listening to the Scottish politician lay out his plans for restriction of car use, which no one voted for.
See:
Very timely. I tried to get a transcript but got lost in the SP system. It would be worth reading if available.
Paul,
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-63822899
Happisburgh: The Norfolk village crumbling into the sea
The garbage headed leftie humanity graduate climate experts spout twaddle again!
Notice they blame it on climate change without providing ANY evidence of any kind?
There are MANY causes of coastal erosion, some seen some unseen. The first glaring issue here is that the cliff is made of soft unconsolidated sediment. 2 long shore drift. What has been going on down the coast or off shore? Currents are not constant, they change.
They also fail to mention that the coastal plain is so flat because……. it was under the sea then sea level fell.
Successive governments have claimed there is no money to even slow this down… strange how they have money a plenty when it comes to housing illegal immigrants and wrapping them in cotton wool as an advertisement for even more to come.
They even capture most of the problem here! ” Happisburgh, home to about 1,100 people, is so susceptible to erosion because the cliffs are made from boulder clay which slumps when wet. The narrow beaches give less protection against the powerful waves, which increase in energy as they travel across the North Sea”.
WHERE is the evidence to link anything going on here to climate change?
Where is the BBC’s legendary impartiality?
Just more from the propagandists for climate fear to force people to accept giving up more and more of their personal freedoms to incompetent lefties who would not organise a drinks party in a brewery!
and we are to be treated to a whole week of BBC biased propaganda every morning https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001gk5d . I can remember when the BBC had a constitution which required it to be impartial; now they ban anyone who disagrees.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/31/bbc-shows-breached-impartiality-guidelines-despite-pledge-end/
Their response appears to be “So what”?
Hi Paul, you may be interested in this article in the Graun
“https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/01/rebound-effect-cancels-out-home-insulations-impact-on-gas-use-study”
The actual study is here dated Jan 2023(!)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988322005643?via%3Dihub
It makes for illuminating reading. Firstly it is clearly written by people who couldn’t wire a three pin plug nor solder up a pipe joint.
More to the point it is basically saying insulation measures (loft and wall insulation principally) are not meeting the “ex ante” expectations (computer models) of energy reduction. Thus it must be the fault of the consumers who should be “directed” into “behavioural change”. Obviously it could not possibly be that the ex ante predictions are totally wrong!
It suggests to me (and more importantly from practical professional experience) that the claims for insulation measures reducing energy consumption are fundamentally flawed and/or grossly exaggerated. This makes it quite a problem for heat pumps hence the regular cases of consumers finding huge cost increases on adoption. Essentially the claims made for the efficacy of much insulation is bogus…and they know it.
I am confident quite a few of your subscribers can contribute data, examples, anecdotal and real world hard evidence to support this.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/energy-crisis-lifeline-as-huge-windfarm-that-could-power-5million-homes-on-cards-for-uk/ar-AA15Tg6o?cvid=313575efd32a4a8ba2a082dc2937cae9&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
It’s a pity MSN can’t afford fact checkers:
“Dan McGrail, the CEO of the clean energy trade body RenewableUK, has previously said: “Every unit of electricity which we generate from cost-effective low carbon sources means one less generated by expensive gas imports which have sent consumer bills through the roof. Renewables are cutting people’s bills, helping hard-pressed families when they need it most.”
“Meanwhile, analysis from experts at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has shown that wind is the cheapest form of power, although currently the price of the electricity it generates is tied to gas prices, which are costly.
“But Jess Ralston, head of energy at ECIU, has said: “Every swoop of a wind turbine blade means less expensive gas needed to be burnt in a power station, bringing down the price we all pay for our electricity.”
If this could be interpreted as recycling, the Telegraph could claim eco-credentials:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2022/12/27/gas-touted-future-how-heat-homes-potential-pitfalls/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/hydrogen-port-trial-is-a-uk-first-for-immingham-as-eyes-firmly-fixed-on-4b-uk-production-prize/ar-AA15XU2v?cvid=ea2580dcf903453fc23f3a6aad08ba7f&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
“[P]ilot at Immingham Container Terminal, having received funding through Innovate UK’s Hydrogen Innovation Initiative. It followed an initial feasibility study as part of the Department for Transport’s Clean Maritime Demonstration Competition.”
and
“[G]overnment support was important to incentivise the switch.”
Our money, as usual.
Hi again Paul, a different news story that is both quite interesting but in some ways depressing. A new Molten Salt Reactor design is now formally going through the UK Generic Design Assessment of the ONR procedure as of today.
It is a breeder design also using unpressurised heavy water and the almost holy grail of Thorium. Amazingly, despite the cover of using UK in the name it is actually a Danish company – Copenhagen Atomics. Almost as if the UK is now so technologically neutered we can no longer do these sorts of things but small bit part players like Denmark can!
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Copenhagen-Atomics-puts-forward-SMR-design-for-UK
The GDA process is very expensive so these guys must be serious. Some of the claims they are making are either very foolhardy or they are on to something.
https://www.copenhagenatomics.com
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/antarctica/how-antarctica-has-become-worlds-newest-over-tourism-battleground/
“Concerns about the spread of avian flu mean it’s currently not possible to sit down or leave bags on the ground at landing sites. A study published last year in the Antarctic Science Journal also suggested tourism activities could be disturbing colonies of gentoo and chinstrap penguins. ”
So it’s not just climate change. I wonder how may of the commenters supporting the industry are climate warriors in their spare time.
Hi Paul,
Is is possible to have this About section in reverse chronological order?
I usually use my phone, and it’s taken me over 10 minutes to scroll down to the end to see the most up-to-date posts. Or the monthly summary could be put at the top: any way of making it easier to read the latest posts.
I had the same issue before some competent contributor posted this link, which shortens the chain considerably:
https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/27436983/posts/2
As we start a new year, we should all remember this from Richard Feynman …
“I would rather have a question that cannot be answered, than an answer that cannot be questioned “
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/08/gigantic-sunfish-washes-norfolk-beach/
“We don’t have the evidence to say it’s related to climate change but no one’s denying the oceans are changing.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/08/aeroplane-hobbyists-putting-thousands-risk-cancer-thanks-lead/
“… experts have warned.”
Not of interest to most readers, but could be the last nail in the coffin of a once great city?
http://e.examinerlive.co.uk/_act/link.php?mId=RI6191138641990915zzzzz64850d08806417e2c76c05ae302257299b29354b1a276d8ca660f49704d52871c8&tId=8679076
Another success story?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/council-buys-electric-bin-lorries-but-can-t-charge-them/ar-AA1698wl?cvid=5553734995364e548cde8d040a62f25d&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
It sounds like incompetence nut really, they’re being very canny:
“The spokesperson said there was no charge for storing the vehicles at Harewood Whin, as the council had agreed on a deal with waste management company Yorwaste.
“They added: “It is also important to note that the cost and demand for electric vehicles is rising so quickly that should we have waited for the infrastructure, the inflation would have driven the cost significantly higher, indeed the vehicles in storage are already more valuable now than when we purchased them.
“”Also, and possibly most importantly, if we waited for the infrastructure before ordering the vehicles then we would be waiting around a year for vehicles to arrive, such is the lead in time for EV commercial vehicles.
“”That’s why we took the decision to order so they were ready to deploy as soon as possible.””
The revolving door at work:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/former-tory-minister-quits-the-party-and-brands-it-overcome-with-ideology-and-self-obsession/ar-AA1696Sd?cvid=7161e4e59d3b43d8c0654ca6c68c37ad&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
Apparently, even this Tory administration isn’t left wing enough, but she lets the cat out of the bag:
“She went on to be appointed managing director for climate and energy at the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, where she remains.”
Joining a long list of ex-MPs, not all Tory.
This sounds very scary, but I had to read right to the end to get th standard alarmist warning.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/news/utah-s-great-salt-lake-is-on-the-verge-of-collapse-and-could-expose-millions-to-arsenic-laced-dust/ar-AA16bPMX?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e6b2f5ee7a5244d3b9048e3068573b94
Does anyone have any experience of Ripple energy?
The basic idea is you fund Ripple Energy some amount from £25 or more for a partial ownership of a wind farm project, and then over the next 25 years after operations begins, you receive a savings on your electricity bill!
https://rippleenergy.com/
Sounds all too good to be true if you ask mw!
Sense at last:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/coal-power-facility-to-stay-open-for-extra-two-years-in-blow-to-net-zero/ar-AA16em7U?cvid=47553eb58bc6445cbb180e9e6d362a13&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
Mind you, disappointing to learn that Ratcliffe has German owners!
At the other end of the credibility scale, Dale Vince https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Vince has twice, on recent news programmes, got away with claiming that the Grid management is happy that they can run the grid entirely on renewables.
More propaganda:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/turbines-set-new-british-wind-power-record/ar-AA16e6rf?cvid=d10d2ce3a11a4a84989f71991293c20a&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
I note that, even with these record outputs, coal has bene used throughout.
And more:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/full-scale-of-british-wind-power-laid-bare-as-charts-show-uk-doesn-t-need-putin-s-gas/ar-AA16fPzE?cvid=6586419235954524a56a54b2b733f2b2&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
“On Wednesday, Dan McGrail, CEO of trade association RenewableUK, said: “Throughout this blustery winter, wind is taking a leading role as our major power source, setting new records time and time again.
“”This is good news for billpayers and businesses, as wind is our cheapest source of new power and reduces the UK’s use of expensive fossil fuels which are driving up energy bills. With public support for renewables also hitting new record highs, it’s clear we should be trying to maximise new investment in renewables to increase our energy security.””
Spinning as fast as the turbine blades. Still, the lie told by Dale Vince of 100% renewable output recently is exposed.
Saturday funny:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/chain-rear-end-collision-the-phantom-braking-of-a-tesla-model-s-involves-8-cars-in-a-tunnel/vi-AA16jm3X?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
Paul,
ExxonMobil: Oil giant predicted climate change in 1970s – scientists
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64241994
When the BBC is listing something as Science and the Environment it would be reasonable to see something scientific and also something presented by someone with a knowledge of science . This article is neither.
This is a scurrilous hit piece on Exxon from the BBC penned by one Georgina Rannard who is labelled “Climate and science reporter”
Looking her up on Linkedin: (38) Georgina Rannard | LinkedIn I find her education strangely listed as an MA in Modern History and a PhD in History!
The first question is obvious. Being unqualified in any form of science, how is she qualified to critique purported science, how can she possibly do more than regurgitate uncritically anything put in front of her which is in any way “sciencey”? Perhaps that is the BBC’s intention?
Could it be in woke BBC world that people qualified in atmospheric physics report on ballet? It seems the BBC is deliberately populating their science reporting with people with no ability to be scientifically objective while at the same time being willing to support and promote a political narrative.
Serious allegations are being made by the two individuals supported with relish by Rannard.
She is withering in her attack on Exxon based on what knowledge of what exactly? Hardly the writing of the impartial journalism the BBC repeatedly claims for it’s self.
I have tried to write comments but the complete asininity of the outpourings attributed to dumb & dumber, the two “professors” defeats me. Someone cannot even write English in a way which makes sense.
Under the usual BBC conclusion leading headline and emotional heading foto is written the following:
“Climate change is making extreme weather including flooding more likely, scientists say”.
That is NOT what empirical data acquired over a questionably short period over a dangerously sparse grid says. Who are the nameless scientist who claim this and what about the scientists who do not? This History graduate clearly does not understand that the issue is what data says not what people say or claim!
1
“One of the world’s largest oil companies accurately forecast how climate change would cause global temperature to rise as long ago as the 1970s, researchers claim”
Oh! So physics has been wrong all this time? Brownian motion creates heat? If physicists had consulted modern history graduates. Does she even understand what the 4.5 billion year old continuous process of climate change is and how heat drives it, not the other way around? See how much climate change there is at -273 deg Kelvin
2.
“Corporations including ExxonMobil have made billions from selling fossil fuels that release emissions that scientists, governments and the UN say cause global warming.
Notice it is all about what people say. With the help of other arts faculty graduates we have successfully departed the Enlightenment and now inhabit the time of Harry and Megan like personal truths. No mention of the fact that there exists no statistically significant empirical data of any kind to support this outrageous statement by this history graduate science expert.
If I was Exxon I would sue her the BBC and the two socialists from the US for this scurrilous accusation.
Note how our sanctimonious history graduate conveniently omits to mention the benefits that she included has received from fossil fuels.
3
“ExxonMobil’s private research predicted how burning fossil fuels would warm the planet but the company publicly denied the link, they suggest.
The academics analysed data in the company’s internal documents”.
Private research? She is trying to imply something here. How did these “scientists” get access to “internal documents” which means they are not public?
3.
“”It really underscores the stark hypocrisy of ExxonMobil leadership, who knew that their own scientists were doing this very high quality modelling work and had access to that privileged information while telling the rest of us that climate models were bunk,” Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science at Harvard University, told BBC News.
Ah MODELS. So we are NOT talking here about statistically significant empirical data but some models!
Also, Professor of history of science? So not an atmospheric physicist?
“The findings are a “smoking gun”, suggests co-author Geoffrey Supran, associate professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami
Supran works with the other mentioned hero of our piece, Oreskes
Smoking gun? Go away with you Supran! Another “impartial expert” (not if you read either of their Linkedin profiles).
The BBC hides itself from accusations of bias behind claims that it is only reporting what others say and that these are not the opinions of the BBC.
Why then does the BBC not inform us that these two are not impartial?
4.
“”Our analysis allows us for the first time to actually put a number on what Exxon knew, which is that the burning of their fossil fuel products was going to heat the planet by about 0.2C of warming every decade,” he said.
“Knew”? So models are now facts? What special information exactly is it claimed that Exxon had which is still NOT available to the bankrupt IPCC and their cast of thousands of rent seeking bought scientists world wide?
5.
The chart
“ A chart that researchers say compares ExxonMobil’s predictions of temperature rise with actual temperature increase”
I speak English as a native. That sentence makes no sense. “Researchers say” indeed!
There are TEN curves displayed on this chart, but only two labels exist. Clearly our intrepid modern history expert is impressed but I am only confused. I asked two colleagues to try to point out which pastel curve is the Exxon one and they suggested the lowest. Also this is a graph of prediction into the future. What is her point.
This is a classic example of a non-scientist trying to make sense of an article she patently does not understand cutting and pasting what she thinks are the important bits and failing embarrassingly.
6.
“”Their excellent climate modelling was at least comparable in performance to one of the most influential and well-regarded climate scientists of modern history,” Prof Supran said, comparing ExxonMobil’s work to Nasa’s James Hansen who sounded the alarm on climate in 1988.
Another meaningless statement. Just read that statement…the model “performance” is compared to a person!
James Hansen? That fraud?
6.
“Prof Oreskes said the findings show that ExxonMobil “knowingly misled” the public and governments. “They had all this information at their disposal but they said very, very different things in public,” she explained”.
“Knowingly misled the public and governments”? So they made models…..so what? Prof Oreskes needs to calm down or is he /she/ or it touting for funding?
What information did Exxon have which is not available to scientists anywhere else? Does she not understand the difference between empirical data based research and modeling?
Also notice how natural warming no longer exists in the minds of the intellectually challenged history of science rent seekers or the BBC history graduate science expert. In their simplistic and sadly it appears political world, all warming is man made and specifically made by fossil fuels. CO2 is to blame and even then, they do not bother themselves with the issue that man can be held responsible for only an estimated 3% of the annual flux in CO2 which is taken to be natural.
7
“Previous investigations have unearthed Exxon documents that suggest the company sought to spread doubt about the science. One internal paper set out the “Exxon position” to “emphasise the uncertainty in scientific conclusions” about the greenhouse effect.
What? The Greenhouse effect is still only a theory and the magnitude of it’s effect has not been demonstrated empirically so what is this twaddle? Science only exists where there is empirical data based evidence. Where is it? There is none so there is no science only theory. So apparently Exxon are not entitled to an opinion unlike our libellous pair of heroes from Miami?
8.
“Their scientists also correctly rejected the theory that an ice age was coming at a time when other researchers were still debating the prospect”.
Correctly rejected? What is she talking about? The planet is in an INTERGLACIAL. It is IN a very welcome lull in the middle of an ice age, Ice at the Poles is the clue. The second part of the current glaciation will assert its self. Exactly when no one knows, like the actual cause of warming and cooling of the planet, no one knows
9.
“Prof Oreskes and Prof Supran carried out the research after journalists in 2015 uncovered evidence suggesting ExxonMobil’s knew about climate change, but were accused by ExxonMobil of “cherry-picking” the truth.
A. “Cherry Picking the truth” Seems Prof Oreskes would not recognise the truth if it jumped up and bit her. A bit hypocritical given she gains her livelihood from an industry which lives by cherry picking!
B. There is a typo. ExxonMobil(‘s) Who is her editor?
C. “ExxonMobil’s knew about climate change”. More meaningless prose. What did they know about climate change? That it is 4.5 Billion years old? I know that also!
What is important and this is where the climate industry deliberately fails to produce evidence is concerning rate of change of climate change. Where is it and where is the empirical data which pins that squarely on man alone?
If that lot does not have you looking in a mirror to check reality and that we do not inhabit some parallel universe check these self entered details from Oreskes and Suprans Linkedin profiles.
Naomi Oreskes Linkedin Page
“So excited to see our forthcoming book, The Big Myth, rated a top ten book for 2023 by Kirkus Reviews. (Available for pre-order now)”.
This from someone who supposedly writes about the empirical world? Crowing about a hypothetical top 10 rating in the future for a book which has not even been published yet?
If that is not enough to have you contemplating self harm then you need to read the following and the puff piece about her.
https://ciuhct.org/en/agenda/2022-10-naomi-oreskes-harvard-university-big-myth-how-american-business-taught-us-loathe-government-and-love-free-market
How can a supposed scientist write publicly about about 1. Anthropogenic Climate change and 2. Scientific consensus on climate change and not be laughed out of any form of science based employment?
Point 1 has no basis in any empirical data based science of any kind. It is a claim no more.
Point 2 is a political statement. Consensus does not exist in science. Science is not furthered on the basis of committee meetings. It is furthered solely on the basis of statistically significant empirical data produced by falsifiable methodology(s).
The fact that she is touting herself on the basis of non-science speaks volumes about what she is.
And as if that is not enough
Geoffrey Supran’s Linkedin page
“Geoffrey Supran is a Research Associate in the Department of the History of Science at Harvard University. Working alongside Professor Naomi Oreskes, he investigates the history of global warming politics; particularly the climate communications, denial, and delay tactics of fossil fuel interests”.
Good to see he does not dirty his hands with empirical data based science. “Denial” indeed!
I will now take a well earned glass of anaesthetic
Regards
Jon Scott
Story tip 17/01/23
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/live-bus-bursts-flames-temple-8039377
The slogan on the bus (pic @ 10:58 ) states –
“Gas Powered for Cleaner Air ”
As we can see in the picture @ 10:47 from ‘wjenkins’, showing smoke from the fire !!
Cookin’ on gas!
Something else to blame on Brexit:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-to-save-britain-s-wildlife-mps-must-kill-the-brexit-bill/ar-AA16r4CF?cvid=fbb55a5661b64957e16903b87f1dbdfd&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
If only we had a forward-thinking Tory government:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/alex-brummer-britain-s-dreams-of-being-a-global-leader-in-green-energy-are-rapidly-evaporating/ar-AA16scVr?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=558ca0f2208d41cda5d4515fc55ff49d
And another one Brexit can be blamed for:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-to-blame-for-collapse-of-britishvolt-says-ex-tory-leader-william-hague/ar-AA16u5vh?cvid=fb292025a08148bba2a19a687b09786b&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
From that well known, objective newspaper the Independent!
When the Windsters are bragging about the high % of wind last month they forget to mention this:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/national-grid-spent-82million-on-wasted-power-last-month-despite-blackout-warnings/ar-AA16tLca?cvid=1676537303c94599a32e90564c87d62d&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
Straight Talk from an Insider on Global Energy, Climate, and the Shale Revolution, on January 18, 2023 (60 minutes)
Chris Wright, Liberty Energy CEO, joins Heritage to discuss the shale revolution and potential for human betterment provided by energy-intensive fuels
https://www.heritage.org/coal-oil-natural-gas/event/straight-talk-insider-global-energy-climate-and-the-shale-revolution
In a post on this:
I referenced a proposed ten minute rule bill by Maria Miller. This appears to have fallen by the wayside but I’m advised that the MP will “be making representations to the government about how these issues can best be tackled in the Energy Security Bill which is anticipated to be introduced in this Parliamentary session. ”
This has to be a golden opportunity for a general attack on the issue.
Only in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/24/net-zero-by-2050-in-england-and-wales-equals-extra-2m-years-of-life
Modelling again. They don’t consider the poor health outcomes from living in cold, damp housing die to high fuel prices.
That’s about right:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/wind-farms-paid-to-switch-off-as-households-cut-back-on-energy-use/ar-AA16K1J8?cvid=7a1324b3caf34918e2b9b44b6f144d35&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/news/outrage-as-prince-william-continues-to-build-his-father-s-garden-city-1/vi-AA16JdNM?cvid=aa1e7299f45143d98fd2f7b449b88676&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
Aren’t there any brownfield sites in Cornwall? What about all those tine mines and claypits?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1727064/hunt-hidden-gem-energy-crisis-uk-wind-power-record-national-grid-eso
“Mr Hunt hailed the UK’s renewable energy industry as a “big growth area”, which he estimates could be worth a trillion pounds by the end of the decade. ”
Guess where the £trillion will come from.
another electric dust bin lorry tale. Couldn’t happen to a nicer council:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/green-council-s-new-electric-rubbish-trucks-leave-bins-overflowing/ar-AA16QzQ9?cvid=642c7a3955494c9190a928b42f1c5c36&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
Labour – friend of working people – not:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-set-to-block-no-10-s-just-stop-oil-slow-walking-protest-curbs/ar-AA16RdQn?cvid=9e36108870da49fed966bf3091a03869&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
Somebody is off the reservation with this one. NOT blamed on climate change:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11692811/Huge-crack-emerges-cliff-Jurassic-Coast-experts-warn-collapse-moment.html
Great news for fossil hunters, though.
Here we go again:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/31/almost-600m-english-coastal-homes-could-lost-sea-2100/
“Almost £600 million of coastal homes in England could be lost to the sea by 2100, according to a climate action group.”
And:
“A campaigner in Hemsby, a Norfolk village in which dozens of homes are at risk of falling into the sea, said the situation had taken a huge toll on people’s mental health.”
Is there any wonder?
Another minister preparing to board the g ravy train?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/shared-strategy-for-north-sea-renewables-signed-up-to-by-uk-after-brexit-loss/ar-AA16Z0J6?cvid=ce7e5e3c0e8d4bd7b71b580874fd9a0b&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
Another blow for EVs?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/interest-rate-rises-will-put-end-britains-obsession-flash-new/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/uk-s-3-main-challenges-hinged-on-the-6bn-heat-pump-pledge-which-needs-to-come-sooner/ar-AA16VYKg?cvid=e48ccc2f12ba4f11bd98a9a69968e3c5&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
“The think tank also found that the UK needs a further £3.4billion in subsidies to be introduced to ensure that the Government was meeting its target of installing a minimum of 600,000 heat pumps every year from 2028.”
Where’s the money coming from? A new house building target of 300000/year would see the Govt halfway to their target, but these houses won’t be built. I’ve also seen stories about planning consents for housing with conventional heating, so even worse. Even if 300000 new houses could be achieved, it still leaves 300000 for existing properties, many of which will never be suitable. A totally unachievable target but, hey, it’s only money.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/europe-s-best-supercomputer-predicts-27-of-life-on-earth-will-be-dead-by-2100/ss-AA171xML?cvid=e4061555e156486c937819afe9322766&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover#image=6
What are the odds of the “worst case scenario” happening?
Oh Well then all the virtue signalling is a waste of time. So now the new god is a supercomputer programmed by…..ohhh climatistas! Shit in shit out.
There is a real extinction event coming in a little over 1 million years from now unless we revert to the Enlightenment and leave behind this renewed view of the world based on a made up religion. For 160 million years there has been a linear decline in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere cased by the evolution of marine organisms which sequestrate CO2 and combine it with calcium to make hard shells. The decline is real and during the depths of the first part of the current ice age the level feel to 180ppm, around 20ppm above the death of plants…and the anti CO2 lobby want to get back there as quickly as possible?
@theduran
This affects ALL news.
What looks, acts and smells like a Global News Cartel and just got hit by an Antitrust lawsuit…
By Jo Nova
What if the news media formed a global monopoly to control the news?
Media pollution
Imagine if the media and tech giants of the world banded together behind-the-scenes to rule certain stories were “misinformation” and all their agencies thus reported the same “news”?
…
TNI practically told us that in 2020:
The Trusted News Initiative (TNI) was set up last year [2019, just in time, eh?] to protect audiences and users from disinformation, particularly around moments of jeopardy, such as elections.
Nearly everyone’s on board:
Core partners in the TNI are: AP, AFP, BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Financial Times, Information Futures Lab, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, The Nation Media Group, Meta [Facebook], Microsoft, Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post, Kompass – Indonesia, Dawn – Pakistan, Indian Express – India, NDTV – India, ABC – Australia, SBS – Australia, NHK – Japan.
Which is a handy list of “where not to get your news”.
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/02/what-looks-acts-and-smells-like-a-global-news-cartel-and-just-got-hit-by-an-antitrust-lawsuit
It’s worth reading: all of it.
It also links to:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/media/2023/02/the-company-their-abc-is-keeping
which has more details.
Oh no! It’s worse than we thought;
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/clue-to-rising-sea-levels-lies-in-dna-of-4m-year-old-octopus-scientists-say/ar-AA176Vr8?cvid=d66c4b431e43485a86e9932f0046799c&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
More nonsense from James Cook University
Hilarious (or, it would be if it wasn’t so tragic). This evening saw a “debate” on GB News between Boris’ dad and Brian Catt (?) about the “climate crisis”. It turns out Boris’ dad’s go-to reference on the subject is Prince (as he as then) Charles Ladybird Book on the subject! You couldn’t make it up.
I expected more from GB news.
Ian, science has been reduced to performance art. The great unwashed have been conditioned to receiving their science from leftie activists, celebrities, politicians, educationally compromised schoolgirls and now someone’s dad.
Not a real scientist in sight and this is deliberate.
And what’s even worse, this “someone’s dad” has a position of influence through an accident of birth, who has lived his whole life in a gilded cage with a consequent lack of intelligence and awareness of the real world.
Have you seen this?
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/dozens-scottish-power-wind-turbines-29135763
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/uk-forks-out-60bn-for-gas-imports-in-four-months-as-cheapest-energy-source-wasted/ar-AA179PtX?cvid=a713936ff22d4b48ace16d69c1dffd0e&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
“Highview Power CEO, Rupert Pearce said: “Renewable energy storage is essential to powering a cleaner, cheaper, always-on Britain.
“”By capturing and storing excess renewable energy, which is now the UK’s cheapest, most secure and most abundant form of energy, we can power Britain’s homes and businesses with renewable green energy, taking millions of tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere and ending a culture of reliance on expensive foreign imports.
“”Long-duration energy storage can underpin the UK’s world-leading position on renewables, accelerate the energy transition, create thousands of British clean energy jobs and skills, cut UK consumer bills and reduce our dependence on foreign gas.”
Simples.
You can’t say that! It’s off script.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/hydrogen-fuel-could-double-your-energy-bills-and-isn-t-as-green-as-you-think-research-warns/ar-AA17aBNE?cvid=13badc8576a446c8c7ae1fc13a4eb9a5&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
Not the first to make this point:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2023/02/07/TELEMMGLPICT000324598170_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqnY32puTRmJBD0IQz1kt_ZW6qMEuv0qSVyX1bNcDmagk.jpeg?imwidth=1280
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/uk-to-face-power-cuts-as-drax-power-station-workers-to-go-on-strike/ar-AA17ffjH?cvid=bbac4a2b91e54fa2a79ea5c3344d0713&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
Last time I looked the whole of biomass, which I assume includes Drax’s non-coal output, was 5.3%. Is it irreplaceable?
Here’s the next bullshit to force smart meters upon us. Anyone know how to resist this?
“We Need to Upgrade Your Meter
Hello Sir,
We’re getting in touch to let you know that your electricity meter is no longer certified (we’ll explain this below) meaning that it’s time for us to upgrade you to a smart meter.
This is a legal requirement, and something we need to do as soon as possible.
You can book your free smart meter upgrade by clicking on the link below. We really need to get you booked in, so please do follow the link to arrange your slot. If you need assistance, you can respond to us via this email and a member of our team will be more than happy to help.”
I would be asking for the documentary evidence to support their “legal requirement” claim
Yeah, its a craftily written non-sequitur to make you think its a legal requirement to have a smart meter.
I will be complaining including the “legal requirement” bit, plus asking for the evidence of certification etc. I will be involving Citizens Advice and I intend to embark down the route of buying my own replacement meter and asking their authorisation to have it fitted. Should be interesting to see what they say to that, because I don’t think they can legally refuse. And you can get a reconditioned replacement for £19:
https://www.electricmetersales.co.uk/product/actaris-ace1000-smo-single-phase/
Our local Gatwick anti noise group has gone full ‘Climate Emergency’ as you can see from one of it latest fantasy emails…
The CAA seek to remove your right to question airspace changes and make it cheaper and easier for aviation to push ahead with airspace dominance and growth, whilst ignoring the impact it is having on our planet and communities.
You are invited to attend the CAGNE online AGM at 7.30pm on Thursday 23rd February
Guest speaker – Climate Emergency UK – as the May elections loom the council scorecard shows how they are doing and how they could do better. Find out the latest on Gatwick 2 vs the health of the planet.
Book here to attend
AGM Agenda click here
Sign the petition to make aviation declare emissions like a cigarette packet or food contents – let the consumer make an informed decision. https://chng.it/SCzYcFVn
Take part in the consultation – closing date 5th March – Take part in the Civil Aviation Authority consultation on airspace change.
The CAA seek to remove your right to question airspace changes and make it cheaper and easier for aviation to push ahead with airspace dominance and growth, whilst ignoring the impact it is having on our planet and communities. In particular no consultation when it comes to a ‘trial’ linked to a full airspace ‘bridge’ to be permanent.
Here are some guidance notes you can use
And the CAA Consultation is here : Consultation on the Revised Airspace Change Process Guidance (CAP1616) is here:
https://consultations.caa.co.uk/safety-and-airspace-regulation-group/acp2022/
The statutory body, GATCOM stop democracy and prevent open debate – see the CAGNE letter here requesting transparency for all communities.
We are asking MPs to support the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill – known as Ella’s Law – please write to your MP urging support for the Bill.
The 15th February will be the 10th anniversary of Ella Roberta’s death due to air pollution and 24th February will be the 2nd reading of the Bill.
We ask MPs to sign the Early Day Motion; ask the Government to support the Bill; and ask all political parties to include it in their manifestos. Suggested letter to send to your MP
Why are CAGNE supporting #EllasLaw? It is because the small particles also come from airfields as Dr Gary Fuller of the Imperial College reported when he spoke at our environmental talk in 2021 (Time is Ticking). With the proposed increase in aircraft movements (35%) and passengers and freight on our roads by Gatwick Airport seeking a 2nd runway this issue can only increase particles and reduce air quality for us all.
People living in areas with high levels of air pollution from traffic are more likely to have multiple long-term physical and mental health conditions, according to a new study. Researchers at King’s College London have found that exposure to traffic-related air pollution, specifically fine particulate matter, and nitrogen dioxide, is associated with an increased risk of having at least two long-term health conditions, with both physical and mental health affected.
https://www.nursinginpractice.com/clinical/cardiology/air-pollution-linked-to-multiple-long-term-health-conditions/
The most observed conditions include neurological, respiratory, and cardiovascular conditions, as well as anxiety and depression.
CAGNE is supporting the push to have Ella’s Law approved and passed through the House of Commons (second reading 24th February), having already topped the Private Members Bill ballot in the House of Lords, the Bill completed all five stages (2nd December). It has now moved to the Commons and will sit (sadly!) behind all other private members bills there unless the Government allocates time for it to be debated.
Conservative Environment Campaign news was so short-sighted. As another airline folds Flybe (one that is subsidies not just by not paying VAT or duty but also by the current PM halving domestic air passenger duty) why do they think that this is a sustainable job creator when time and time again we see airports, Gatwick Airport in particular, suffering major downturns due to recessions, COVID and now cost-of-living crisis. Instead of supplementing a luxury industry, shouldn’t the taxpayer’s money go to those that need it the most?
Our planet is priceless and yet government seems to think local economy comes before the health of the planet. It was very disappointment that our elected member place little value on our planet and believes the spin from aviation that must continue to grow.
Government spends another £9.2m of taxpayer’s money on the modernisation of airspace (FASIS) that benefits aviation. ‘There are several initiatives assessed as having ‘major issues, in part because of COVID recovery and the complexities of the airspace changes in the London cluster. However, formal acceptance of the Airspace Change Organising Group’s (ACOG is an industry body) Masterplan Iteration 2 in January 2022 was a critical milestone for aviation. This was enabled in part to £9.2 million funding by government.’
May Elections – make sure you vote for someone that opposes Gatwick 2!
NET Zero Will Impoverish Britain and Help China, but it won’t Save The Planet – Ross Clark, on The New Culture Forum with Peter Whittle
But all will be OK, the government has created a ministry, not of silly walks but of something even more stupid – Net Zero and Energy Security. Have all these humanities graduates among the slithering serpents and politicians not come across the word ‘oxymoron’ before?
They stopped at Moron, which is where Grant Mr Cycle Lane Shaps comes in
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/02/11/grant-shapps-faces-tory-mutiny-hydrogen-levy-plans/
An ‘oxymoron’ is …
a brain damaged person that has been deprived of oxygen.
More fantasy maths:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/essential-and-urgent-electric-car-changes-could-be-introduced-to-slash-driver-costs/ar-AA17q0F9?cvid=6e5784f7c1ae4e5e8151cc9f2a563b76&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/uk-delays-planning-decision-on-orsted-s-hornsea-4-windfarm/ar-AA17q6N8?cvid=60a34029803c4c01b702937025eb542c&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
“The planned 2.6 gigawatt windfarm and the Endurance carbon capture and storage projects are caught in a standoff over this overlap zone due to the risk of boats used to monitor carbon leaks colliding with wind turbines fixed to the sea floor.”
Another overhead they take care not to mention, and what happens of they discover a leak? They can’t exactly shut it down.
I would hope that the boats being used would have experienced skippers; who could use radar and know how to keep a lookout? Thus the risks of collision must be miniscule to none. The precautionary principle gone mad again?
Somebody didn’t get the memo:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/02/13/hydrogen-pumped-main-gas-pipeline-2025/
Australia’s Biggest Renewable Energy Project Grinds To A Halt
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/02/australias-biggest-renewable-energy-project-snowy-2-0-grinds-to-a-halt-with-a-stuck-bore
“As the proportion of green power on our grid grows so does this inconvenient truth.”
I’m wondering whether the journalist has some unrevealed knowledge, subtely referencing a well known 2006 documentary film.
Sorry, my last comment is in the wrong place 🙂
Somebody else who didn’t get the memo:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/air-india-places-record-aircraft-order-that-could-change-aviation-landscape/ar-AA17uYoT?cvid=684495ecb70d43beb61f30f935f54af4&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/uk-built-hydrogen-electric-truck-manages-350-miles-on-a-single-tank/ar-AA17vKBp?cvid=1c7e7461f59e4814bcfe991bdc244bc1&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
“Engineers stopped to refuel at Element 2 in Teeside as well as a site in the Midlands to top up. Only slightly longer than a petrol or diesel vehicle, …”
Really?
Ian, it should only take ~ 5 mins (same as LPG);
Element 2 H2 Hub is in Teeside airport
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.fuelcellsworks.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F01%2Fimage002-6.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=1a426dcb65c8c586ca3fe3b530e7d45728dfa7a6993d6c183d10462548e99b52&ipo=images
& uses a ‘HyQube’ dispenser.
Click to access HyQube+datasheet.pdf
The hydrogen is produced elsewhere & delivered in cylinder packs .
I may have used the wrong quote. I was thinking of range, not fill up time. 300 miles for a large Diesel truck?
Not a large Diesel truck … It’s only a 7.5 ton box van.
A Diesel 7.5 ton box van @ 15mpg has a range of ~ 300 miles with a std 90l tank.
So all good so far … but they don’t mention the huge amount of energy lost making the H2.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/we-need-to-take-indoor-air-pollution-seriously-but-don-t-blame-our-log-burners/ar-AA17wS5z?cvid=c36c37d8575140079c117895692a1503&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
However did we manage before the Clean Air Act. The NCB also have a lot to answer for, providing free coal to mineworkers. Class action anyone?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/15/antarctic-sea-ice-hits-record-low-climate-crisis
I thought that I’d read recently that Antarctica has been cooling in recent years.
More smoke and mirrors:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/octopus-energy-unveils-heat-pump-that-costs-the-same-as-boiler-with-new-breakthrough/ar-AA17nVta?cvid=f8e479ae2ed04d51a0d5f3a7ff1e977c&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
“Octopus Energy unveils heat pump that ‘costs the same as boiler’ with new ‘breakthrough'”
But, further down:
“Octopus Energy noted that once the Government grants have been factored in, households can install their newly designed heat pumps at prices starting at £2,500.”
This ignores the fact that a new gas boiler can be had for £1500 and would not need the extra hot water tank, new rads, etc. Should be reported to Trading Standards.
Paul,
Not sure if you saw this appallingly disingenuous outpouring from who else but the IPCC
Headlined with “Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying – IPCC”
heady PRESENT TENSE stuff until you start reading and find that actually future tense so it is NOT as their headline claims
https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/
The are also using sleight of hand to push the meme oft pushed by the BBC that the start of the industrial revolution started global warming even though for years they stated man cannot be considered to have had an effect until AFTER 1945. So, one guy making iron from Black Band Iron Ore in the Midlands all on his own started man made global warming.
Where is the data? What about the inconvenient warming which actually began around 1820 marking the end of the Little Ice Age?
Keep up the good work even though it must be demoralising at times!
Regards Jon Scott
Also Paul,
From the good old BBC which is where the above link came from
Just drink in the absurdity that the BBC considers is “news”
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230220-is-a-4-day-workweek-good-for-the-climate
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230215-should-future-generations-have-climate-rights
Promoting unsubstantiated claims often now replaces science as a source of facts.
I kid you not and no it is not April 1st!
Regards
Jon Scott
Here we go again:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/uk-handed-untapped-highest-energy-goldmine-to-swerve-blackouts-with-reliable-power/ar-AA17D4wB?cvid=d3c2601069b04ff393a477a1a9a0f5e5&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover
“He said: “There’s a lot going on at the moment, and we believe we have the best solution in the world for renewable energy. Only tidal range provides base load, and can produce power from a single site 24/7. TPGen24 is the only real solution.””
He’s lying, surely? Last time I looked, the tide came in and went out and there were dead zones (can’t remember the technical term). That’s for one site. I’m sure I read that all available sites in the UK had been checked against claims that the single-site issue could be smoothed out and the result was that this wouldn’t be possible.
” Last time I looked, the tide came in and went out and there were dead zones (can’t remember the technical term). ”
‘Slack water’; approx 30mins to 2hrs either side of top/bottom of tide depending on tidal range & moon phase.
Look for the tidal curve of the area of interest’
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/p-o-ferries-spends-230m-on-hybrid-ships-that-cannot-be-charged-at-dover-or-calais/ar-AA17XypW?cvid=845ebb2ae8eb43fa95c75212b21e4ee7&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=22
Oops!
One more example where Virtue Signalling rather than common sense was clearly at the top of the list for the worthies on the board of directors.
Royal Society published two reports on sustaniable aviation fuel ( a joke). Quite well done but their cost estimates are far too low. Even with their cost estimates its a no go.
Click to access net-zero-aviation-fuels-policy-briefing.pdf
Click to access synthetic-fuels-briefing.pdf
If you need any help with the definitions or tech then email me.
The RAC used to be a motorists’ organisation. When did it become an organ of the CCC?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/use-ved-to-push-car-buyers-towards-electric-cars-and-discourage-petrol-and-diesel/ar-AA1828S8?cvid=22ddb02f01ee4156fe584eb87daeab0f&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=6
H/T to NZW
Challenging NET Zero with Science – Lindzen & Happer
The great unwashed have more common sense that those purporting to lead us:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/01/village-wont-forced-give-gas-switch-hydrogen-government-says/
“The only reason why we are here tonight is because some residents have pushed against the one-sided Cadent information machine and demanded a full range of evidence and opinion to help us make our decision,” resident Karen Cross told the meeting. “Cadent would never have willingly done this.”
Paul,
Scotland first to ban environmentally harmful anaesthetic
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64347191
Just take that headline in. Where did “environmentally harmful” come from? Where is the evidence for this ludicrous claim and why are doctors and patient health now in the firing line for the climate people haters?
From the anti human climate zealouts in Scotland excitedly broadcast by that most reliable propaganda outfit, the “impartial” BBC
As usual we are treated to “authority figures”…doctors, so shut up and listen. Now we have doctors spouting personal opinions and received wisdom- gibberish about climate all eagerly printed word for word by the BBC without qualification or opinion.
Seems health is bad for the planet. No mention about any proportionality just a morons straight comparison molecule for molecule with CO2.
“NHS data suggests the gas, used to keep people unconscious during surgery, has a global warming potential 2,500 times greater than carbon dioxide”.
Note the impressive pointless comparison to a none proven claim against CO2. even if the effect is real it is actual global effect which matters not molecule for molecule effect but then the BBC is in the business of propaganda, not disseminating information and knowledge in a balanced way
Even if there was a problem (there isn’t) the fact they do this anti human health act at the drop of a hat speaks volumes about how out of control the climate zealots are. Maybe killing humans will soon be “good for the planet”? Do these people ever stop and think even for one nanosecond? This is no more no less than virtue signalling with health.`
How long before the Maoist people haters start pushing rationing of every aspect of health care”to save the planet”? These people are not only out of control but they are a danger to mankind.
A couple of quotes from doctors. This is unacceptable that their unqualified opinions are being presented to the public by the BBC
“Dr Kenneth Barker, anaesthetist and clinical lead for Scotland’s national green theatres programme, said he was shocked to find the anaesthetic drug he had used for more than a decade for many major and routine operations was so harmful to the environment”.
Harmful to the environment? Where is the evidence unqualified person and BBC?
it gets worse.
“Dr Helgi Johannsson, vice president of the Royal College of Anaesthetists, told the BBC: “More and more anaesthetists across the UK have become aware of the sheer extent of the damage the gas can cause to the environment and have chosen to stop using it – and I am proud of that.”
What “damage”? The only “damage” is caused when the personal opinions of unqualified people like this are promoted by the climate propaganda arm at the BBC.
Regards
Jon Scott
2,500 times sod all is still sod all
You may have seen a related story – Entonox (O+N)) is no longer to be given during childbirth because of risk to nurses. They don’t say what the alternative would be. This story is also confusing because this risk of using NO was recognised 40 years ago and a British Standard written for extraction systems. The system designers may not have applied the technology to delivery suites, though.
Yes, I was wondering what. 2500 * 0 equalled. 🙂
And then I remembered that the effects are variable, according to the initial concentration. One (CO2) is pretty much maxed out, the other is, hopefully, starting at zero, but is in very small quantities (compared to the Earth).
The worry should be about the effects on the medical staff (and patients) that might be repeatedly exposed because of their job, but they are only human, after all. And the survival of the Earth is much more important. (I wish I was joking.)
Here is a Geophysicist explaining how it is possible to predict earthquakes. It starts off with some quick explanations and follows it with some impressive graphics:
He doesn’t mention the weather, but it shows that the Troposphere is greatly affected, which does affect the weather. His earlier videos go into the explanation in much more detail. There’s lots of Physics 🙂 , a bit of necessary Geology, but no mention of CO2! 🙂 And no Politics!
Another nail in the BBC’s coffin (how many does it take?):
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/07/bbc-took-charity-money-fund-david-attenborough-documentary/
Nails in the coffin are ineffective. A wooden stake through the heart is esential
He’s at it again:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/07/coming-ev-batteries-will-sweep-away-fossil-fuel-transport-without/
Sounds good but, even if (big if) it can be commercialised, doesn’t address the issue of where the charging power will come from.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-11830589/How-heat-pumps-leave-homes-cold-owners-having-ripped-out.html
good takedown of the functionality and economics of heat pumps linked from yesterday’s Daily Mail
Another climate saviour:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/08/how-multi-million-pound-geothermal-plant-cornwall-could-help/
Commenters have noticed it’s OK for thermal to generate tremors but not fracking.
All part of the continued stupification of the the masses by the mainstream media on behalf of their masters. Given the low population density in the area a common sense approach would be to build large scale greenhouses on top of the site and to use the heat there. Oh sorry we can’t do that, we have to re-wild the countryside to intentionally cause a food crisis which is another part of the plan enthusiastically embraced by the useful idiots. Strange isn’t it that we still need greenhouses with all the “runaway global warming” cooking us which the tax payer funded arts graduate “experts” hyperventilate about on a daily basis.
Re recent pieces you have done on Svalbard, just noticed this one regarding the Global Seed Vault.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/03/global-seed-vault-svalbard-virtual-tour-aoe
This unit must be gobbling up lots of electricity generated by the local coal fired power plant that is closing in 2025. So what is going to power “The deep-freeze, designed to last for ever,” thereafter?
I also note the article’s reference about conspiracy theories, well given the immense size shown from the virtual tour, you do start to wonder what it’s all about.
Halleluja! Looks like we’re gonna make it;
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/scientists-discover-superconducting-material-that-could-bring-total-revolution-in-energy-and-electronics/ar-AA18njG2?cvid=b89b15b872a04c3b922e6f1267f9413f&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=10
But wait – “To work, the material still requires being heated to 20.5 degrees Celsius and compressed to about 145,000 psi.” Bugger!
Have you seen this article from Dutch News (English language) Paul?
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2023/03/electricity-grid-cant-cope-with-demand-households-face-supply-issues/
They seem to be getting a message but not the message.
Most people here knew that 15 years ago.
But it is only our opinion, of course. 🙂
Interesting:
The influence of solar-modulated regional circulations and galactic cosmic rays on global cloud distribution
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-30447-9
How to two interesting signals can cancel out each other.
Hi Paul. I hope you agree with my letter to an Oxford newspaper about their 15 minute city! Regards
15 Minute Neighbourhoods
The UK’s annual contribution of CO2 to the world total is about 0.0064 parts/million (ppm). If we assume that there are 60 million people in the UK this means that the annual CO2 increase/head is in the order of 1 x 10-10. Hence, Oxford councillors, in the interests of limiting climate change, are abolishing the rightful ability for Oxford residents to move freely around their city because each Oxford resident represents an annual CO2 increase of much less than:
0.0000000001 ppm/annum
To put this into perspective, consider a stadium has a capacity of 100,000 people. A daily increase of 1ppm/annum would be equivalent to 1 person in 10 full stadiums. Hence, for one Oxford resident the annual increase in CO2 would be equivalent to 1 person in more than 1000 stadiums each holding 100,000 people. Not very significant is it?
How excited and self-satisfied must the Oxford councillors feel about the enormous contribution they are making to limiting climate change and thereby saving the planet from total destruction? Ignoring the fact of course that global CO2 can be doubled to 800 ppm with only a very limited effect on global warming! (See my note https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-1Ve5j-X8bA8Byhxi-P0xrf1E2LAnhB9&authuser=jerrywr%40gmail.com&usp=drive_fs )
As Einstein said “There is a major difference between intelligence and stupidity. Intelligence has limits”! The councillors of Oxford epitomise the stupid in our society.
Yours faithfully
Although your comment wasn’t addressed to me I hope you don’t mind me saying that I liked it a lot. Having watched the Clarkson’s Farm programmes it seems that Oxford suffers more from idiotic councillors than other parts of the country!
I came across two unrelated but important references today:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0f78bzd?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
Pretty diverse topics, no? In the first one, about the famous Sheffield tree felling, it transpired that a non-expert official misread a report about the 17000 trees lining the streets, assuming “mature” meant “past it and about to fall down”. He included a proposal for felling these trees which was a small entry in a big document that a key decision maker admitted he didn’t pick up, and the rest is history.
The second one, about PM2.5 pollution, suggests a lot of people, some perhaps innocently, have used incorrect or unchallenged information to determine inappropriate anti-pollution policies, like London’s ULEZ. Of course there will be some, like Mayor Kahn, who wouldn’t have wasted time looking for backup evidence, but that doesn’t excuse the opposition.
More information on that dreadful, long lasting, incident:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11845933/How-Labour-council-brought-stamp-jackboot-British-city.html
Here we go again:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/rolls-royce-mini-nukes-project-at-risk/ar-AA18sXKs?cvid=11c3470148344e4aa2f7beb1b92f9a08&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=13
Energy security? Who needs it? What would Germany or France do? Not this. Another sign that UK politics is dead.
Paul,
From our most trusted source of impartial news on all subjects.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230309-climate-change-the-sea-level-rise-locked-in-east-antarctica
Oh look! We are back to tipping points.
They haven’t recycled that meaningless crap-term ( sorry Thomas) for at least a couple of years. How intellectually bankrupt they are and how bare their shop window is of ideas. Sea level, ice, barrier reef, polar bears, “sinking” Athol’s, sexed up weather models, (non) acidification of the oceans.Notice how the climate industrial complex never goes anywhere near the frightening issue of having to show empirical support for their claim against CO2 because these frauds all know they cannot do that. For all the money that has been wasted, is not time this ship of fools was shown the door?
My question HAVE we reached/ past a tipping point or not? “May have” is not good enough. “Do not know” in any other still credible area claiming to have a scientific basis would produce silence, but of course that does not secure the next tranche of research grant millions that the bloated universities desperately need to pay all their higher echelons six figure salaries.
Also WHY not even a single reference to the volcanoes under the icesheet as a heat source at least to discount it as would any “normal” scientists?
Just to show you how ridiculous this piece is I quote the following section from this News of the World like sensationalism. Remember, this is supposed to be about sober science.
“Then in March, when the brief austral summer had already waned, a heat wave brought mind-boggling temperatures to East Antarctica. An extreme atmospheric river of water vapour stabbed into the heart of the continent, followed by a high-pressure “heat dome” that kept this warmth from dispersing”.
Mind boggling? Stabbed into the heart of the continent?
It is but deliberate and totally unacceptable that the BBC repeatedly promotes the totally disingenuous idea that somehow everything on the planet has been in stasis until you and I , the curse of the planet started doing our Saturday supermarket shop in our SUV’s. Nothing stands still yet the way the grant seeking “researchers” and their publicists the BBC would have you believe this is all recent and our fault. “Oh no, it is worse than we thought……we need more money to study just how bad we can model it to be”.
Regards
Jon Scott
A slightly more trivial sign of the times:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/caravan-parks-unable-to-cope-with-surge-in-electric-cars/ar-AA18xlpa?cvid=33451c47c95f4375a33fdd7517c16508&ocid=winp2fptaskbar&ei=7
The “countryfolk” in the Ambridge area will be OK, though, as there’s a planning application in for a charging station, assuming NIMBYs don’t win.
What’s surprising is the suggestion that a lot more electric cars are towing.
Not really. 🙂
While their car is being charged, they need somewhere to stay.
I think this may cause a few issues.
4. Fossil Fuel based energy generation installations will no longer be acceptable for the purposes of grid supply. However, they will be acceptable in principle in the form of backup emergency generation for buildings that need security of supply, as agreed by the Council.
This is from the Teignbridge Council Local Plan.
Not sure what extra Electric Car Charge points are and heat pumps are going to be powered by.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/886263da07bb42ee830c2d06041b67d6
Hi Paul, as a relative ignoramus I have been reading about fuel cell electric vehicles. FCEV.apoarently to make the fuel cell work, it needs an electric current to stimulate the process. Plus presumably some pumping to provide the air and hydrogen at the right pressure and volume, they are pimped as being super efficient, but my mind wondered what is the relationship between energy in and energy out, can it provide its own electricity to operate?have we finally come close to perpetual motion?
“have we finally come close to perpetual motion?”
No … moved further away !!
At first glance Hydrogen (H2) appears to be ‘the new wonder fuel’ –
Abundant, Light, Clean-ish, No Carbon, High Mass Energy Density; what’s not to like … LOTS … the devil is always in the detail … & there are a lot of unintended consequences !!!
Hydrogen (H2) is NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE, …
it’s an energy store (like a flywheel, a spring, an elastic band ),
you always have to put more energy in, than you’ll ever get out.
( the laws of thermodynamics can’t be changed just to suit the latest popular ‘magic thinking’ !! )
Commercially available electrolysis equipment uses ~ 50 kWh of energy to convert 9 kg (= 9 litres) of water into just 1 kg of H2 (plus 8 kg of O2). And 15 kWh to compress to 700bar for for storage total input ≈65 kWh.
But that 1 kg of H2 will only produce around 14–15 kWh of electricity in most 50% efficient modern car-sized fuel cells.
So … you use ~65 kWh of electricity to make ~15 kWh of electricity
77% losses !!!! You’re better off using the electricity direct.
Much more energy will be needed to operate a hydrogen economy than is consumed in today’s energy economy.
Switching from natural gas to hydrogen is a “no-brainer” …
in the sense that someone who thinks it’s a good idea, must be missing a brain.
FCEVs are hybrid cars; the fuel-cell replaces the engine.
The systems do require a small amount of ‘electrickery’ to operate.
Thank you for your helpful explanation, your final comment was the answer I sought, presumably the battery supplies initial power to start the process of the fuel cell after which the requirement for electrickery just becomes a drain on the cells output.
So basically the fuel cell acts as a generator to feed the battery.
If I was forced to have an EV. I would prefer a diesel Genny in the boot .
1saveenergy
Great explanation – thank you.!! (and h/t for the Catweazle ref!!!
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/09/weather/la-nina-el-nino-forecast-hurricane-season-heat-waves-california/index.html
Some moderately intelligible analysis stuffed up by the last para:
“The El Niño and La Niña phenomenon occurs naturally,” the WMO said. “But it is taking place against a background of human-induced climate change, which is increasing global temperatures, affecting seasonal rainfall patterns, and making our weather more extreme.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/lower-quality-gas-to-be-pumped-into-households-to-boost-energy-security/ar-AA18Lskt?cvid=b4f18a46a1414701f25953669b1da073&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=6
Will my gas bill include a reduced conversion factor cum:kWh automatically?
No, but there will be an automatic surcharge for energy security !!!
This is a video about the Climate Emergency by Joanna Haigh, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Physics Imperial College, London, and Jonathan Pie, a fictional character created and portrayed by English actor and comedian Tom Walker:
I can’t believe how bad it it, though, maybe I can as she was a co-director of the Grantham Institute – Climate Change and Environment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Haigh
Dear Paul,
I found the following comment in this article particularly amusing:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-64964294
“People might think it’s 10 months because of the limitations of the car, but it’s not. We’re travelling in 10 months because we’re going from season to season.
“So summer season in the Arctic, we’ll benefit from the sun for solar, and in Antarctica the expedition season is December. And that’s 24/7 daylight as well, which helps us with the solar.”
So – it’s because of the limitations of the car, then…
Regards,
Mark
More modelling:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/weather/topstories/the-earth-has-tilted-on-its-axis-differently-over-the-last-few-decades-due-to-melting-ice-caps/ar-AA18Tzak?cvid=b0d5662e7be74397d1fe645842820e16&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=12
Here we go again:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/features/could-vertical-farming-solve-food-crisis/
BUT, apart from the cost of power:
“There’s just one problem: man cannot live on cut herbs and “microgreens” alone. This is the main argument of vertical farming’s critics – that it’s not much more than a gimmick to grow garnishes. Could lower-value staples like onions and potatoes be farmed vertically? What about cereal crops like wheat and barley, which take months to grow? “We’ve grown [them], but we’re about 30 years off making that work commercially,” says Lloyd-Jones. “We need a way to make growing them shorter, faster and overall cheaper.””
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/one-meter-for-your-home-another-for-your-ev-how-the-eu-s-new-energy-system-could-save-you-money/ar-AA193A9T?cvid=8da2d0c709a040d7a2dd6cf373849da2&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=14
New metersfor different consumer units. What could possibly go wrong? ANd what;s it cvost so far for just one smart meter?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2023/03/25/car-firms-forced-sell-electric-cars-next-year-net-zero-plans/
This not the USSR and these aren’t tractors, but may as well be.
Paul,
from the usual suspect, the impartial BBC.
“Swiss court case ties human rights to climate change”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65107800
Oh how predictable. the impartial BBC promoting more climate (non) science.
As they have proven themselves incapable of offering up scientific evidence they have to go to courts and go with emotional evidence
So now it is no longer about the science!
I quote ” The Swiss women – who call themselves the Club of Climate Seniors and have an average age of 73 – say climate change is putting their human rights, their health and even their lives at risk. Their evidence to the court includes their medical records”.
Clearly financially comfortable fools with nothing real in their lives to think about, certainly not worried about paying the electricity and food bills!
THEY HAVE AN AVERAGE AGE OF 73! For F’s sake!
“The European Climate and Health Observatory says that projected increases in average temperature are likely to have “serious impacts on public health” across Europe, particularly among elderly people.”.
Pure emotion and MODELS again! What is something around 1 degree going to do exactly?
Read these weasel words carefully
“The European Climate and Health Observatory says that projected increases in average temperature are likely to have “serious impacts on public health” across Europe, particularly among elderly people.
In the last 20 years, heat-related mortality in people older than 65 in Europe has increased by more than 30%, it says.
“Projected means models and has not happened. so in the next sentence they say “has increased”. Data please. Where are the figures on mortality from cold?
All of this crap is from models about the future for pitifully small increases in temperature when we have people suffering real energy poverty and dying from cold. This is the ultimate deflection from the real recorded ACTUAL problem for old people which is COLD!
Here is the BBC at there wickedest and most disingenuous:
“World temperatures are rising because of human activity, and climate change now threatens every aspect of human life”.
More baseless emotion. So these nutters would prefer an ice age?
A footnote regarding this absurd group of (spinsters and widows) with an average age of 73. Exactly HOW MUCH of anything is going to change in climate before 2050 when the absurd NetZero plan by the communists party of China is enacted? Their average age then when their lives will be in klymutt danger will be 100! This is pure theatre but then that is all the climate fraud is. Is it just me or is pantomime the left’s interpretation of science or fact which was also how they behaved during the short on facts, long on theatre Jan 6th committee hearings.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/29/hydrogen-boiler-trial-will-not-enforced-u-turn/
“A community in Whitby, Ellesmere Port, had been told it would have to switch to hydrogen, or be forced to install a heat pump, if they were chosen as the location for trials starting next year.
“But gas network Cadent, which is bidding to run the trial, is now planning to build a parallel grid under the area to allow households to opt out, The Telegraph understands.”
What’s the betting it’ll involve ripping up recently laid tarmac?
https://www.mediafire.com/file/iwy1b7caawva4kt/Shapps.jpg/file
Here’s Sandi Adams, from just after 5:15, talking about Agenda 2030 and what is behind it at a Glastonbury Town Council meeting (17 mins):
And here she is talking to Richard Vobes (30 mins):
The Green Agenda is only a means to an end, and it’s nothing to do with the Natural Environment.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/california-lake-reappears-after-100-years-and-causes-havoc/ar-AA19pxOd?cvid=7356c994983843d5bb82d534c89f7df6&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=8
OPh dear! Could this be a clue: “historic lake bed”?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/lake-mead-defies-projections-as-water-levels-rise/vi-AA19v5Kv?cvid=66f7000b72b648cceea2334d13af4168&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=5
Good news? But more lazy journalism: “Lake Mead has already dropped an estimated 1,043.06 feet.”
But a quick internet check shows: “Continuing a 22-year downward trend, water levels in Lake Mead stand at their lowest since April 1937, the water level at Lake Mead in Nevada, USA, was 1046.07 feet above sea level and 173.53 feet below Full Pool as of its last reading on 04/01/2023”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/major-national-grid-changes-needed-to-prevent-uk-missing-key-wind-power-targets/ar-AA19vVaI?cvid=81f9f31fee724af782af68ef6bd4c5b2&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=8
Energy generation in the wrong place, ie not down south. Perhaps they should make the April Fool idea a reality:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/01/bt-tower-tall-buildings-become-wind-turbines-net-zero/
Paul,
from your favourite “impartial” BBC reporter.
Climate change: Fossil fuel emissions from electricity set to fall – report
Published 7 hours ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65240094
Ember which claims to be independent( independent of what and who), is a climate activist run website which they absurdly claim is run by 100% renewable energy……Exactly what form of magic other than that acceptable to 7 year olds and the mentally challenged are they pushing here? That sets the tone for the real world thinking that they produce based in facts! Just more meaningless misleading weasel words from the well funded charlatans.
I am also taken aback by the shear arrogance of these “think tanks” which are invariably full of lefties having the effrontery to see themselves as policy makers.
WHY does McGrath not tell the public Ember are not an independent but a biased energy analyst? This is both deliberate and unacceptable. Who expects them to spout anything other than their activism?So now the weasel word manufacturers have added “Turning Point” to their science free “Tipping Points”.
More wind coming out of the absurd McGrath than drives their infernal bird killing hydrocarbon dependent erratic windmills.
Why no mention from McGrath that China is commissioning new coal powered generation plants each week? Why no mention or criticism of China for this? The BBC cannot help it’s self but gush over China. never any criticism. WHY? Compare and contrast that to their criticism of Western countries and in particular the UK over trivia.
Statistics used come from where? So this “report” is are the opinions of climate activists. Why does not tell us this? They are deliberately misleading but what do you expect from a shill for the climate industrial complex.
“Planet Friendly Energy” indeed! What the h@ll is that when it is at home? According to the self proclaimed moron McGrath, CO2 is bad for the planet!
Regards
Jon S
Who do you believe?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/17/victims-of-air-pollution-include-unborn-babies-study/
How boringly predictable to see the pathetic lefty cult of victimhood expanding its membership to those who do not even exist yet!
Not much snooker, but a climate report instead:
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/othersport/1759337/World-Snooker-Championship-match-abandoned
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/government-considers-proposals-to-make-renewables-greener-and-more-innovative/ar-AA19XvtX?cvid=d152a5681dea4abfb52833c54decb2d3&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=24
“At the moment renewable energy projects are awarded so-called contracts for difference (CfD) based purely on who can build at the lowest price.
“The system has been seen as a major success story, helping to reduce the price of new offshore wind power by nearly 70% in just seven years to less than £40 per megawatt hour (MWh) for the cheapest projects.
“For comparison the electricity which will be produced by the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant when it completes costs £92.50 per MWh in 2012 prices, not counting for inflation.
“The contracts for difference promise an electricity producer a fixed price for the energy they produce for 15 years. They then sell their electricity at market rates, but get a top-up if that rate is lower than their guaranteed fixed price or pay back some of the profit if it is above.
“With recent spikes in gas and electricity prices, wind farms and others have been returning millions of pounds to households as a result of their contracts.”
Forgot to mention that there’s no obligation to take the CfD terms, and the consequences.
Even worse:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/coal-mine-ban-backed-by-peers-in-parliamentary-defeat-for-government/ar-AA19XXoT?cvid=e1424f4d9db14c2090dccab9c22837e5&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=12
Lord Deban said, ““You can’t ask the Indians and the Chinese to move away from coal if you are providing the means of an extension for coal.”
Are they doing that: moving away from coal? 🙂
OT slightly, is this story:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1760269/womens-rights-miriam-cates-rosie-duffield-trans
She’s reported to have said (in response to an attack by a Labour MP): “When someone can only engage on an emotional level it means that they have got no counterarguments to your facts.”
I’ve written to her and suggested that he next challenge is the so-called “climate crisis”. I don’t expect a response.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/20/interest-in-electric-cars-slumps-by-two-thirds/
“EV owners with a home charger can save up to £130 for every 1,000 miles by charging at off peak overnight rates, according to AutoTrader’s analysis. However, the savings reduce to just £40 for those using public chargers.”
It looks as if the payback period on EVs is even worse than on ASPs.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/net-zero-fuel-failure-triggers-train-chaos-across-south-west/ar-AA1a9b0Q?cvid=e83f8b2c856a402f8b8a37eec060342d&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=7
That’s creation of green jobs, of a sort.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/04/21/sarah-ferguson-fergie-climate-change-terrified/
Aren’t we being punished enough?
Exactly the sort of intelligent commentary to be expected from the ex-wife of the pub
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/sadiq-khan-approves-2m-spending-on-repairs-at-new-city-hall-meaning-30m-has-now-gone-into-project-to-save-taxpayer-money/ar-AA1a65f1?cvid=ef681995f55c442f9506b1352321c5bb&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=14
“According to a City Hall report, this cost has been incurred because of … and the difficulty of retro-fitting systems to an existing building, including electrical problems and “fluctuating temperatures” in the building.”
Has this any significance for the claims by the eco-zealots about insulating our way out of the energy crisis?
Why do we need insulation anyway? Are we not being incessantly browbeaten by the climate zealots that there is runaway global warming unless of course……..
Paul,
Apologies if you have already seen this but the Law Society has issued new guidance purporting to advise solicitors of their role and responsibilities in dealing with the “climate crisis”..!
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/climate-change/impact-of-climate-change-on-solicitors?sc_camp=C7F0003414AA4230C6194004E418ACD4#h4-heading3-7
The whole thing is dreadful but I particularly direct your attention to 4.3, which states “Some solicitors may also choose to decline to advise on matters that are incompatible with the 1.5°C goal, or for clients actively working against that goal if it conflicts with your values or your firm’s stated objectives.” In other words, firms may decline to act for those they deem to be horrid deniers of planet wreckers.
I am ashamed to be a member of the Society. Another case of Conquest’s Second Law in action!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/huge-north-sea-cable-connecting-britain-and-netherlands-to-power-two-million-homes/ar-AA1aeRem?cvid=7073e3a48c534b80b7026282becd713a&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=8
“‘So in case there is a surplus of wind generated electricity, it can be shared instantly to locations with a shortage of power, and vice versa.’”
Just one problem with that ….
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/carbon-dioxide-removal-the-tech-that-is-polarising-climate-science/ar-AA1ajJja?cvid=357722da999345f4a3305457cb7341b9&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=4
No wonder the kiddies are scared to death and otherwise sensible young adults are deciding not to have children.
This is hilarious:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/uk-s-first-dutch-style-roundabout-which-gives-cyclists-priority-sees-increase-in-accidents/ar-AA1an3UP?cvid=7ed02148b00744ec84734e383d1c855e&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=10
Or, it would be if it wasn’t so expensive (£2.3m) and DANGEROUS! My hard-up council has one planned for a busy but cycle-less roundabout, having no cycling facilities on any of the approaches. I’ve sent them this article and asked them if they’re sure they want to do it.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/blow-to-government-s-plan-for-more-oil-and-gas-drilling-as-high-court-grants-legal-challenge/ar-AA1amLEl?cvid=994d5ca9e1b94123b45a8127edc7bf69&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=8
About time the government gotoff the fence.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/record-ocean-temperatures-put-earth-in-uncharted-territory-say-scientists/ar-AA1anx0J?cvid=ea7d005971e5416c9156064897912558&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=22
In the Guardian, immediately suspect. Isn’t “The dataset is interpolated to fill gaps on the grid and create a spatially complete map of sea surface temperature. Satellite and ship observations are referenced to buoys to compensate for platform differences and sensor biases.” just another name for modelling?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/take-off-eu-agrees-binding-green-fuel-targets-for-aviation/ar-AA1anrY7?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=1ffd8a86b7484ca0bf5298ea4a2e0c06&ei=35
” For now, these fuels are produced in tiny quantities and are far more expensive than conventional aviation fuels.
“Fuel suppliers must ensure that two per cent of fuel made available at EU airports is SAF in 2025, rising to six per cent in 2030, 20 per cent in 2035 and gradually to 70 per cent in 2050.
From 2030, 1.2 per cent of fuels must also be synthetic fuels, rising to 35 per cent in 2050.”
Anybody who has the Flight radar app and zooms out to fit in a whole country or continent knows what a nonsense this is.
This is a cynically planned slow death for mass travel.
Those responsible “think” that if they turn on their marxist strangulation of our society in stages we will not notice…..After all they already befuddle those who are already adult with the message via the captured LeftStream media and are desperately brainwashing the next generation not to notice anything.
Where is the cost benefit analysis of this action? How many units of klymutt sheynge do they GUARRANTEE will this prevent? How many parts of a degree of the current warming does it currently contribute to that they GUARRANTEE will be removed or not be allowed to increase? If they do not have those numbers then what was the basis for the sanctioning of this?
Final point. Do any of those involved in this think ice ages are “cool” for humans? During warm periods the climatic zones broaden. We have an exponentially grown world population. Where are they all going to go “if” their Canutian ideas worked and the climatic zones narrow as they will do when part two of the current ice age kicks in?
Have they actually thought any of this through or is it as a suspect, just one more wolf in climate change clothing?
Thought this would be of interest, an extract from Bannon’s War Room today.
Only 19 of the world’s nations are bought up to Net Zero.
https://t.me/gatewaypunditofficial/29010
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/grimsby-start-up-to-generate-electricity-from-the-road-on-the-journey-to-net-zero/ar-AA1aDcvs?cvid=8e01570616754986ba5ef81d2ac06a63&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=10
Cost per kWh not stated as far as I can see. Scalable?
Fun times are ahead:
London, 4 May – Campaigning group Net Zero Watch has warned the Government that its ban on fracking is now a direct threat to national security and has called for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to change course as a matter of urgency.
It has been reported this week that NATO officials are extremely concerned that Russia may have mined gas pipelines and windfarm cables in the North Sea.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/net-zero-watch-calls-for-emergency-restart-of-fracking/
When reality dawns on businesses without a massive stake in the green dcam:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/09/ryanair-places-biggest-ever-order-for-boeing-jets/
Check out the wording of the URL for this story. The headline’s been changed since I bookmarked it to delete the hint of overt political interference:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/09/king-charles-whittle-laboratory-engineers-save-planet/
An email going to my MP shortly:
In PMQs today, in a reply to a question on the obscene subsidies being given to Drax (for no benefit in terms of carbon dioxide reduction), the Prime Minister included this in his response:
“We’ve seen the price of renewables such as offshore wind fall from £140/hr (sic) to £40/hr (sic). The regulation system is working to deliver lower cost renewable energy for British families”.
Apart from not using the proper units, ie £/MWh, this is far from the truth, as you well know. The actual cost to households is far greater, due to subsidies, the cost of grid enhancements and the actual prices paid to the renewable energy companies who have not signed up to their CfD contracts. Where do I complain and ask for a correction?
On the basis that all the powers that be are comitted to this ‘unreliables’ & ‘net zero’ nonsense I would imagine that a correction will never be forthcoming as it’s ‘their truth’ they’re spouting.
On a more serious note is Paul OK as nothing has been heard from him for some time now?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/climate-change-soloman-islands-rising-sea-levels/
What’s so special about the Soloman Islands?
Richard Vobes – This is so Important
00:00 – 11:30 The Hokey Dokey Virus
11:30 – 12:44 The Gas of Life
The International Covid Summit that Richard Vobes is inviting you to watch is, obviously, about Covid, but Richard adds the second topic to his appeal:
Is it April 1st;
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/us/nyc-skyscrapers-turning-to-carbon-capture-to-lessen-climate-change/ar-AA1bbPvj?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=cc1471d16a3e4ad4924ecbe41ddd94f7&ei=35
It doesn’t say what it does to the utility bills of residents, and the greens aren’t impressed anyway:
“Yet critics, many of them representing environmental groups, say building managers should be going much further: They argue that to achieve meaningful reductions in emissions, buildings should be significantly upgraded and switched to renewable-powered electricity instead of continuing to burn fossil fuels. They also express concerns about the safety of storing large amounts of carbon dioxide, an asphyxiant, in a densely populated community.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/cheaper-mortgages-heat-pumps/
“This will include allowing homeowners to use equity release, or “lifetime mortgages” to take cash out of the value of their homes to finance green improvements.”
and
“While the loans are typically marginally cheaper than the lenders’ core offerings, such deals rarely compete with the best rates on the market. This raises questions as to how popular their uptake will be.”
What could possibly go wrong?
Paul,
weekend funny: A fool and his money are easily parted.
How to extort £12m from the government by convincing them Basalt runoff into oceans is better for the environment than Nitrogen runoff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65648361
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/heavy-electric-cars-toxic-tyre-particles-petrol-vehicles/
This is ridiculous. Don’t HGVs have tyres? There was s similarly stupid story going round last week, about the weight of electric cars causing concerns about the strength of road bridges. Again, what about HGVs and other commercial traffic?
That’s a point Ian. But you may be missing a part of the equation. There are far more cars than trucks so that dense vehicle locations – parking garages for example – could be facing a much larger load than would have been envisaged when they were originally built.
As this tends to be an arena of hyperbolic rhetoric assertions from all sides need to be questioned and examined.
Thanks Mick. Noted, but it’s trucks that wear grooves in Lane 1 of m-ways.
As for car parks, we have three in our town, a new, council-run one and two old ones. I asked them if they should be looking at them v/v car weight and their dismissive reply was: Ours – we meet the codes; private not our problem.
Perhaps their insurers will be interested.
Story TIP [see what I did there (;-)) ]
Cardiff Council has confirmed it has been using diesel generators to charge some of its electric bin lorries.
“As part of its plans to reduce carbon emissions, the council said it will look to move its fleet away from diesel-powered vehicles to electric and other clean-fuel vehicles.”
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/cardiff-council-been-using-diesel-27002764?int_source=nba
“To mitigate this, the council does have portable diesel generators onsite which are being used on a temporary basis when issues occur. This is being used while we wait for portable electrical chargers, which are engineered by the vehicle manufacturer – Denis Eagle – to be installed.”
££££s – another tax on the poor.
Two Telegraph stories:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/29/british-households-energy-use-winter-national-grid/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/29/bank-of-england-spends-cash-notes-carbon-footprint/
It’s only money …
Paul.
Really interesting comments from Unions/Scottish Labour in The Telegraph over Starmers pledge to destroy North Sea Oil:
“The figures emerged as Unite, Labour’s biggest donor, said the policy risked a “repeat of the devastation” caused by the closure of coal mines in the 1980s.
Sharon Graham, the union’s general secretary, accused Sir Keir Starmer of “grabbing the headlines” rather than “developing a serious plan for renewable energy”.
She hit out after it was reported that Sir Keir will unveil a new energy policy next month pledging that he will block new oil and gas developments if he wins power in next year’s general election.”
Not too many years ago Unions and Scottish labour would have been too scared to oppose anything ‘green’ indeed, they would probably have cheered it on. Now Starmer’s getting it in the neck quite brazenly from these climate denialists……
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/01/labours-north-sea-block-annual-cost-scotland/?mc_cid=d6c9180f79&mc_eid=5f2cfb8234
Hello Paul,
Thank you for your article on Conservative woman about the gas boiler madness and the EPC folly. I surveyor came round yesterday and recommended I rip out my Victorian fireplace as the most cost efficient thing I could do to earn +9 points in order to render my house C standard sellable by 2033. And other insane solutions to a dubious problem. I’ve been frankly losing sleep over this issue as I feel it’s deepening the rental crisis, destroying our house values and with it the middle class, who are selling their assets in despair to who?
Please keep up the good work raising awareness of the EPC war on property ownership.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/how-increased-connectivity-could-compromise-energy-suppliers/ar-AA1bZF8P?cvid=49670e3c28fd483bae64067aba432c65&ocid=winp2fptaskbar&ei=18
Not only is the extent of risk not known, but the plethora of actions to deal with what is known is already an issue.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/cost-of-carbon-offsetting-could-double-by-2030-report/ar-AA1bR1f2?cvid=385b633710ae410bc3e73340bf6620b4&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=21
What happens when everybody’s buying offsets but nobody’s actually doing anything?
BBC PR job for solar panel recycling.
At least they admit there is a growing problem, I guess……
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602519
Paul,
From the impartial BBC, up to their usual tricks of using an authority figure bereft of qualifications specific to the subject.
We are given a lengthy spiel about the specific health effects of breathing in smoke by a Professor Mathew Adams from the University of Toronto. Why it has to be someone from a Toronto University spouting forth is just down to the BBC scene setting, as if only a professor on the spot can speak because of a “lived experience”.
Anyway let me show what the learned professor tells us:
**************************************************************************
Experts say exposure to wildfire smoke can cause a litany of health issues.
Matthew Adams, a professor at the University of Toronto and the director of its Centre of Urban Environments, said immediate effects of inhaling wildfire smoke include shortness of breath, an elevated pulse, chest pain, or inflammation in the eyes, nose and throat.
“On these elevated air pollution days, we’ll see an increased number of visits to hospital,” Prof Adams told the BBC. “And the people that are visiting the hospital typically have a pre-existing respiratory disease.”
But wildfire smoke has also been linked to serious, long-term health issues like cancer or lung disease, Prof Adams said, specifically for people who live in areas that experience frequent forest fires.
This is caused by small particles in the smoke haze, he said, which can enter the bloodstream and other parts of the human body, causing possible DNA mutations and other health issues.
Some studies have also shown that prolonged wildfire smoke exposure can affect pregnant women and their unborn children, Prof Adams added.
For people living in cities far away from the fires but under current air advisories, Prof Adams advised people limit outdoor exercise to avoid breathing in the wildfire smoke.
“Don’t get so concerned about it,” he said. “Stay inside and reduce your exposure.”
But in areas closer to the fires, Prof Adams recommended wearing an N95 mask outside to block inhalation of most of the smoke particles.
He also advised installing Hepa filters and better ventilation inside the home to minimise exposure”.
**************************************************************************
I looked him up and guess what, the BBC promote medical advice from a guy who’s qualification is in Geography!
Why did the BBC not tell us he is not qualified to give such advice? The BBC are guilty of repeatedly doing this, providing a platform for people with grandiose titles to perform as authority figures without ever telling us what their qualifications are and no wonder! This is deliberate. Why do they not go to a medical professor for medical advice? The reason is simple. The BBC uses authority figures to give weight to information. To my mind that is done deliberately
Regards
Jon Scott
Paul,
a good analysis of the cost of renewables from about a month ago.
https://thecritic.co.uk/gone-with-the-wind/
I got to hydrogen and gave up. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/oxford-firm-s-co2-jet-fuel-paves-the-way-for-guilt-free-air-travel/ar-AA1cfJV3?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=392e851334184341957732b60181dc26&ei=18
These people think this is a zero sum game. They display a business jet in their promo which is OK because those will be the only planes flying.
Rachel Reeves seeing the light?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/06/09/rishi-sunak-news-latest-us-ai-boris-johnson-covid-inquiry/
Hi Paul a little gem I came across on the weather stations front. Way back in 2003 the Scottish record was set at Greycrook (borders). T Channon logged it on Tallbloke’s site noting that it was a dodgy site and that “I’ve posted this article so it is on file and as an incidental where looking at record breaking sites tends to show poor sites. Curiously records or near records tend to be set followed by site cessation or sudden site change / equipment change.”
Now remember that Brogdale Faversham site set the then UK record on that same day back in 2003 but it was considered so dodgy that Philipp Eden himself ( RMSoc) visited the site and found it unacceptable and that he could not rule out interference by persons unknown.
Well today I tried to look up the Brogdale current data from the Met Office WOW site and it was NOT shown at all. I then found this twitter thread in 2019 saying that Brogdale was no longer an official site or maybe it was after all!
Well now, although it is still there, they apparently ignore its figures.
Nothing like accuracy is there? and the Met office is nothing like accurate!
missed off the link https://twitter.com/metoffice/status/1154659266948665344?lang=en-GB
It also reminds me of the ‘infamous’ site at Gravesend Broadness – a site that regularly reported ‘record’ high temperatures about 20 years ago. This was a baffling site, close by Thames mudflats that were exposed at low tide and within a semi-industrial area and also apparently in a bowl of land surrounded on several sides by embankments. That site, too, has been closed. If one was suspicious one would say that these temporary sites are being set up, not because they are representative, but because they are likely to measure extremes. A current example may be Porthmadog – located on an area of very sandy soils, which generally are known to have summer temperatures higher than other soils.
Paul,
the BBC, celebrating the greatest race on earth, Le Mans. Well, kinda.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/motorsport/65874444
The death of Le Mans was prematurely announced by the greens many years ago, and so it seemed, until this new era dawned with Ferrari winning it’s first entry in the top class (now designated hypercars) in 50 years.
Amongst returning, unfamiliar faces, were Peugeot with their drop dead gorgeous hypercar.
Next year is even more eagerly anticipated by fans like me. Three major manufacturers are returning, BMW and Lamborghini in the hypercar class and Fords Mustang in the GT3 class.
Clearly these manufacturers see a future for the internal combustion engine, albeit running on expensive and rather silly alternative fuels – Grape skin juice (roughly speaking) this year and probably for several years hence.
The point is the ICE is alive, kicking and fighting back.
Hi Paul, I am taking on the Met Office to justify the siting of many of their recording stations. {Opening a link from one of their emails infected my old email address and I have now lost my original enquiry details though I do remeber them!}
Their first fob off reply in in itself quite interesting. In full
“All our weather stations are visited and inspected by a dedicated team of inspectors on a set schedule, depending on the type of weather station. The weather stations are inspected against a set of World Meteorological Organization standards for each meteorological parameter that is measured, and assigned a “CIMO Classification” which will be between Class 1 and Class 5, where Class 1 is the highest, and class 5 the lowest. Classes 1-4 are deemed to be an acceptable standard for meteorological parameters, and Class 5 is an unacceptable standard. If the parameter is classified as a CIMO Class 5, then the data received from that site is flagged, and therefore not used in any national records until remedial action can be taken to rectify the standards.
At their last inspection, the sites mentioned were all deemed to meet acceptable WMO standards for temperature records. Trees, buildings, roads, and carparks, amongst other things, are all counted as heat sources, and are therefore accounted for in the CIMO classifications.
As well as site inspections, Quality Control is carried out on all the data that is received from our Weather Stations on a daily basis, any suspicious data is flagged and investigated.”
So the Met Office have seemingly admitted that a Class 4 site with a known error margin of up to 2°C is acceptable for climate recording purposes.
The sites I mentioned included RAF sites (Coningsby, Cranwell and Hawarden)
Walled Kitchen Garden (Floors Castle), sites delisted from CET for UHI (Botanic Gardens Cambridge removed 1931 and noted by Hadley Centre in 1991) by major electricity substations (Bingley), by Car Parks (Langdon Bay Dover and others) and generally seriously compromised sites (notably Porthmadog and Santon Downham)
It is my plan to follow up their response with more detailed notes and examples, accuse them of “marking their own homework” and calling fora genuinely independent reassessment of their sites and data from them.
Would it be possible to highlight the Met Office response to generate more input for your site please.
Regards
Ray
I hope you can easily access this article as it highlights the risks to any large electricity grid, like the UK’s National Grid:
How Communist China Could Imminently Cripple America’s Electric Grid: Tommy Waller https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/how-communist-china-could-imminently-cripple-americas-electric-grid-tommy-waller_5335229.html?utm_source=ref_share&utm_campaign=app-cc
Download our app to read more at https://ept.ms/DownloadApp
Empirical assessment of the role of the Sun in climate change using balanced multi-proxy solar records – Nicola Scafetta
Highlights
The role of the Sun in climate change is hotly debated with diverse models.
The Earth’s climate likely influenced by the Sun through a variety of physical mechanisms.
Balanced multi-proxy solar records created and their climate effect assessed.
Factors other than direct TSI forcing account for around 80% of the solar influence on the climate.
Important solar-climate mechanisms to be investigated before developing reliable GCMs.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987123001172
“The role of the Sun in climate change is hotly debated with diverse models”.
Also “The Earth’s climate “likely” influenced by the sun through a variety of physical mechanisms? What about the main one…. the strong Brownian motion producer called the atmos into which the Sun inserts energy?
“Balanced multi-proxy solar records created and their climate effect assessed”. Balanced by or against what?
Multi-proxy is just a smartass way of saying a lot of indirect info.
Just drink that in…. as if the Sun can be argued to be a bit part player. Take the sun away what will happen, a major change, a minor change or nothing at all. I think the correct answer will be something to do with next stop -273degK.
His language does not diminish his abilities but suggests maybe he is lacking in some basic knowledge regarding magnitude of effect.
Another imaginative applicaition:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/ev-charging-firm-turns-to-vegetable-oil-and-old-ev-batteries-to-power-new-motorway-chargers/ar-AA1cMoSX?cvid=12345efa4fa84f29876c3604ee73c90a&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=7
It’s worse than we thought:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/canada-is-on-fire-and-big-oil-is-the-arsonist/ar-AA1cNmxH?cvid=b0dd3f6b9de64671890ff9c4b1f1b77c&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=10
Paul, from the word weasels at the BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-65984383
They tell us that Beijing has recorded its hottest day since 60 years ago meaning it was HOTTER then, therefore nothing to do with climate change. Then they totally disingenuously insert twaddle based on a “study”..you guessed it, using models saying that “heatwaves” are 30x more likely in Asia because of climate change. Notice the subtle shift from highest temp to “heatwaves” which of course are NOT the same thing.
They also totally disingenuously spout:
“The extreme heat caused deaths and hospitalisations in some countries, melted roads and affected other infrastructure.
Heatwaves are one of the deadliest natural hazards in the world, causing thousands of related deaths each year”.
WHERE is the balanced impartial reporting pointing out that extreme COLD kills far more people and also causes disruption.
If these people were accountants then they missed their calling in Enron!
This is totally dishonest reporting. Like their report yesterday about Hunter Biden missing out every relevant fact, avoiding questions and treating it as an everyday event, missing out where his money came from in return for what services and services provided by whom?
The BBC are out of control and no longer hide their contempt for the truth when pushing their Leftie narrative. This is not balanced reporting in anyone’s book. Where is Ofcom?
Regards
Jon Scott
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/siemens-energy-s-wind-turbine-troubles-to-last-years-shares-tumble/ar-AA1cVQ15?cvid=f88d33683c4f4071a9252879b49de263&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=8
How much could this impact on availability and thus operating profits on UK sites?
Meaningless?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/nasa-shares-chilling-animation-showing-how-far-sea-level-has-risen-in-30-years/ar-AA1cYsRD?cvid=b53f253529174b9d94f434132ac9601b&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=6
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/caught-short-lack-of-recycled-toilet-paper-in-uk-fuelling-deforestation/ar-AA1cYYde?cvid=6f72497d46e04538b9ba2691390ad1cb&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=26
No such problems in the 1950s. I distinctly remember my grandmother’s outside toilet having sections of the Radio Times hanging on a string for that purpose.
So true, it’s not about the climate:
The Guardian gives us the best and worst cases on sea level rise. More accurately the worse and worser:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/it-s-absolutely-guaranteed-the-best-and-worst-case-scenarios-for-sea-level-rise/ar-AA1d1Xjw?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=21e1715dcfb84d89ad233c63b2fd3148&ei=16
Lies, damned lies and statistics:
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/23/only-the-super-wealthy-stand-to-lose-money-from-shutting-down-fossil-fuels-study-finds
Paul,
From our dear friends at climate propaganda central:
Climate Change Committee says UK no longer a world leader
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66032607
No longer a leader in stupid or virtue signalling? No longer a leader in the race to the bottom? These people are pure ideologs
Sounds like they “fear” a loss of easy money to fund their pointless hydrocarbon dependent lives.
Note the photo at the top of the piece. Look in the background. this is clearly upland so whatever trees are planted there they will perform poorly, if at all.
Regards
JonnyS
Relentless:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/the-rising-ocean-will-extinguish-more-than-land-it-will-kill-entire-languages/ar-AA1d8EvL?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d70a0578b94d43f08286cb6cfacedcee&ei=52
And do not forget the stress of this maybe happening on the LGBTQxyz123456 community also as well as it’s disproportionate effect on people of colour all of whom will need counselling and compensation because your maybes are their truths…..:)
As I write this, coal is 2.83% of generation against a demand of 31.4GW. Wind 11%:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/no-emergency-coal-fired-power-for-national-grid-to-keep-lights-on-this-winter/ar-AA1d9zdA?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=bec1f13b57f448f980d36ef0d5d357d2&ei=9
Paul,
From the BBC, purveyors of impartial information especially on climate comes this ridiculous puff piece about China.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66043485
Climate change: China’s green power surge offers hope on warming.
This piece by the propagandist McGrath is shot full of comment worthy nonsense but I will focus on the specifics of what this “increase”in renewable capacity in China actually means.
I compare and contrast the whining by Debden about the UK’s pathetic contribution to the issue with this gushing outpouring of unbridled praise for the communist party of China. It is time that questions were asked why the BBC do not use comparable language for China as they do when lambasting the UK for not taking ourselves back to the StoneAge fast enough? There can only be one of a few reasons. First is because people or organizations are being paid to write puff pieces about China. Second they have been threatened into writing puff pieces or third, the “journalists” at the BBC are ideologically aligned with China. Any one of those is reason for complete disbandment of the BBC’s climate desk and dismissal at the very least for the ideologs.
Let me put this into perspective. In 2021 the total consumption of electricity in China was 8,310 terawatt hours. The current “renewable capacity” is 550GW. This whole puff piece is about increasing that feeble number to approx 1.265 terawatt hours, a massive 0.015% of the total and McGrath is promoting this with the words “Climate change: China’s green power surge offers hope on warming”?
The very fact he does not put his numbers about renewables into their correct perspective vis a vis Chinas total consumption and then absurdly suggests this makes them saviors of the planet, shows that this is no more than propaganda and propaganda to stop people looking at and asking questions about China. Oh China are green, so move along, nothing to see here, now let us get back to doing what the BBC does best which is undermining the UK’s ability to provide enough and affordable energy for it’s self.
How can anyone take the BBC seriously and as anything other than propagandists for the Chinese communist party when McGrath et al write the following:
“In 2022, China built approximately two new coal fired power stations every week – many of these were located on new solar and wind parks, often to provide back up power and to ensure continuity of energy supply.
“The big issue going forward is how will these coal plants actually be deployed,” Mr Weil said.
“One hopes that they’re deployed in a way that that puts the ratio of renewables to coal as high as possible.”
WHAT????
No criticism? No putting their CO2 output into perspective? and then a feeble “One hopes”.
If we even talked about building one new coal power station Debden and his other ridiculous tax payer funded cronies would be paraded by the BBC to tell us that will destroy the planet and cancel all the green energy efforts on the planet.
It is interesting that the delusional McGrath lets the cat out of the bag about renewables when he writes in the above “In 2022, China built approximately two new coal fired power stations every week – many of these were located on new solar and wind parks, often to provide back up power and to ensure continuity of energy supply”.
This one statement lays bare not only the total unsuitability of renewables but that climate propagandists like McGrath know the unreliability of renewables and accept this. So why is the story he pushes so different when it comes to the UK? Why are we being told Unicorn wind and solar will replace coal when McGrath himself acknowledges they will not? Where are OUR new coal plants to use as backup McGrath? Where are OUR coal plants to “provide backup power and ensure continuity of energy supply” McGrath?
So the delusional McGrath thinks a few windmills as window dressing around two new coal plants every week makes China saviors of the planet! That the BBC set about to deliberately influence public opinion in favour or China while at the same time demonizing the UK specifically and Western Nations in general is shocking. More shocking still is that they seem to be getting away with it.
Regards
JonnyScott
Really?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/warning-antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-low-for-june/ar-AA1dg9cq?cvid=f17bd8d7945342eee82c613ae5cf92e8&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=5
Yes, according to NASA
https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover
&
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index
But Greenland is packing it on …
polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20230629.png
It’s behind a paywall, but it’s Emma Thompson showing off her Scientific knowledge, again:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/03/thompson-celebrities-wimbledon-cut-tie-barclays-fossil-fuel
No wonder she is a dame!
She could ask how the participants and officials all got there. Meanwhile, she’s getting a well deserved slating in comments. Next stop, see if it’s also reported in the Grauniad and compare comments.
Another nail in the UK’s business coffin:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tighter-limit-on-industrial-power-and-aviation-emissions-from-2024/ar-AA1dlh8v?cvid=9ce27cad7a05412fdcdc4ce652592612&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=6
Just one more opportunity for green fraud.
BTW, just seen what I’m in for in terms of “standard variable” energy prices. Electricity standing charge now 55.9p/day. A total rip off. Surely, if the intention was to get us to reduce consumption, the grid, etc oncosts ought to be added to £/kWh?
Beware Cyclops!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/controversial-new-preston-road-junction-to-officially-open-this-weekend/ar-AA1dvMUS?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b2211b32145b46f292ee88ef945abd46&ei=21
“Award winning”? What kind of award exactly? Stupidity? Asininity? Maximum disruption to traffic flow? Notice the theatrics are all about cyclists and pedestrians while ignoring what this is which is a ROAD JUNCTION. I would like to see how much this performance art cost and compare that to a steel raised cycle/pedestrian way. I am sure your granny will be cycling all through the winter. Here in Neverland ( Norway) Stavanger Kommune have squandered hundreds of millions on a cycle motorway even digging a tunnel and making a nice little bridge. It is an adult child playground with pretty coloured asphalt and road markings and even electronic signs. It is an obscenely expensive toy connecting Stavanger to Forus which is where all the offices and big shops like Ikea are. The usage as anyone not blinded by climate asininity can predict is pitifully small confined to the 1% of the population who are young or cycling enthusiasts. Turn on the rain and that 1% drops to 1% of 1%. Can we speculate on just how many will be cycling out to Ikea in the middle of winter to pick up their new flat pack kitchen?
Weasel dishonest politicians virtue signalling to their sponsors with other people’s money!
You may have missed the report about a similar monstrosity in Cambridge(?) where 3 people have been injured or killed because of the confusion. It’s the next big thing, something else we can thank Grant Shaps for. Even though my borough’s one of the poorest in the country, my council is budgeting £1.75m just for a traffic study before implementing theirs, part of a £70MILLION! Active Travel project.
Funny how the puff piece omitted to mention that. Our media are not just failing us, they are vehicles for the channeling of thought and opinion
One agency writes something and the rest just regurgitate…..”oh it wasn’t me”……
I wonder how long before this gets to Europe?
Or is it here, already?
New Zealand might adopt new “UN” science curriculum without physics and chemistry [or Biology]
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/07/new-zealand-might-adopt-new-un-science-curriculum-without-physics-and-chemistry
It surely can’t make thing worrse:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/07/11/elon-musk-tesla-launch-british-electricity-supplier/
Or can it?
Light at the end of the tunnel?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/after-two-years-of-real-progress-on-climate-a-european-greenlash-is-brewing/ar-AA1dKLij?cvid=cf0c67cec4e5489ebd9789cd5dfe5d94&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=5
I don’t think so. It ends (my highlight)
If the green divide deepens in Europe, this could slow down the existential race we’re in. That risks delaying not so much the decarbonisation agenda – existing laws and policies, technology and market forces suggest this will happen SIMPLY BECAUSE IT MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE – but rather the wider sustainability agenda, focused on biodiversity, agriculture and nature conservation. There is sadly less money to make from this agenda. It is here that a political backlash, coupled with the absence of a profit-driven corporate interest, risks derailing Europe’s role in saving people and planet alike.
We’re saved:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/07/13/white-hydrogen-disrupt-global-energy-net-zero/
Well, possibly:
“Nobody has yet made a commercial discovery ready for the market. As soon as one happens, there is going to be absolute frenzy,”
Paul,
From the BBC quoting their climate nonsense partners in crime the once trustworthy Met Office.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/66177220
Where has the summer gone?
Since when was our Maritime Climate settled and predictable? Answer since climate change began according to the propagandists at the BBC. Ben Rich should know better! This is deliberate to make people think our ever changing weather is a recent phenomenon.
Also they are STILL pushing the unsubstantiated arts graduate claim that weather gets worse with a warmer climate. This is contrary to the laws of physics and also to recent human recorded history. Cold weather puts more energy into a system because it is the difference between the max and min temp which is the engine. In a warmer world the difference is less therefore there cannot be more energy rather there is less. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how weather works and people like Rich have no excuses for associating their names with such twaddle.
They have no empirical data to support any of this. It is all conjecture and therefore I ask the question, why say it if you do not know except as a propaganda exercise to get the uneducated to think there is a problem.
Together they display breathtaking and wilful asininity conflating weather with their lovely climate change just as they conflated natural warming with their unproven anthropogenic climate change.
Every opportunity they have they push their climate change nonsense, with the deliberate intention of sensitizing those who do not understand to a claimed crisis that has no empirical data whatsoever , rather deliberately skewed models to support it.
Regards
JonS
Hi Paul, a gem of an article from the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-66205965 The auther Dave Harvey doesn’t seem to know that water vapour is a greenhouse gas but has also invented a whole new operating process for fuel cells which he terms “reverse hydrolysis”. Given that hydrolysis is the process of adding water presumably reversing it just takes water away. (It is actually known as condensation)
Even the wikipedia page cautions against confusing “hydrolysis” with “water splitting”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolysis#:~:text=Hydrolysis%20(%2Fhaɪˈd,which%20water%20is%20the%20nucleophile.
With both electrolysis and fuel cells covered at GCSE standard does this Dave Harvey actually have any qualifications at all?
Ray! He is shown as Business and Environment Correspondent, BBC West at the top of the article.
The BBC seem to have form for putting totally unqualified people up to regurgitate climate twaddle in the knowledge they will just repeat what they are give verbatim. Another of their expert climate reporters who’s qualifications are in modern history informed the reading public that climate change causes global warming! I think this is a deliberate ploy by the BBC to guarantee no pushback to the crap they are given to peddle which may not be the case if they used people who not only know how to think critically and have an understanding of the scientific method but also who may know about dangerous heretical subjects like physics and may also be able to count.
In this article he is full in with the catchall term “decarbonization” weasel nonsense being ignorant of the difference between CO2 and C.
He then treats us to this gem “So how have they done it, and could it be possible to fly without causing climate change much sooner than people had thought?”
WHAT did he just say?
Is he seriously suggesting one plane with this form of propulsion can slow down the unitless and parameter-less climate change? Further this statement is a double nonsense. First climate is local not global and where is the empirical evidence that there has been any variation in over all rate of change of local climates around the world? WHERE? This is part and parcel of the referencing faux science that the climate change ignorati wrap their turd of a claim in.
Next he delivers the gem that his editor in ignorance or wilfully did not correct which Ray alludes to:
“Hydrogen fuel cells are not new, and have been widely used in cars and trucks.
They use a chemical process called “reverse hydrolysis” which combines hydrogen with oxygen and creates heat, water vapour and, crucially, electricity.
So the on-board engine creates no greenhouse gases.
!!!!! Shock!!!!!
Indeed this non scientist seems not to know that not only is water vapour a greenhouse gas it is a significantly more potent greenhouse gas that CO2 AND is present in significantly larger quantities in the atmosphere than CO2.
As a side note the heroes of the IPCC clearly know this and like the true scientists they are. they have been allowed to skirt around water vapour and for good reason because it is a far more significant greenhouse variable than CO2. A simple comparison of the electromagnetic spectra of CO2 and water vapour reveals that CO2 only absorbs IR at the ultra low frequency end of the IR part of the spectrum where as H2O absorbs right across the IR part of the spectrum. You can find Youtube vids with my hero Prof Will Happer pointing out this “inconvenient truth”.
And the asininity just flows free of obstruction:
“At Bath University, Prof Tim Mays has been studying hydrogen for thirty years. He runs the UK Hydrogen Research Hub which has just been awarded £11m to explore how hydrogen can help combat climate change”.
Combat a 4.5 BILLION year old process indeed! Modern day Canutes the lot of them!
The twerp manages to get the catchall weasel term “sustainability” into this puff piece for the climate (lining their pockets with your taxes) industry.
Not bad for an economics correspondent but that is what we now expect from the “impartial” BBC.
My next question is, do so many people in the BBC push this purely for ideological reasons or are more “traditional” rewards being shared around?
Jonny S
You will have read that the developer has a customer, the odious Dale Vince who, coincidentally, (?) appeared on GBNews this pm. I couldn’t bear to watch. This outlet is to be congratulated on inviting the enemy in on so many occasions but too infrequently matches the eco-freaks with somebody who can challenge their “facts”
Somebody ought to tell the proponents of “active travel” to stop now:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/07/18/vanmoof-ebikes-bankrupt-cycling-boom-busts/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/07/04/how-britain-cycling-boom-went-bust/
Hypersonic weapons? Call that a threat? Nah, we’ve got:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/18/army-soldiers-trial-battery-powered-mountain-bikes/
Is nowhere safe?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/news/another-major-us-city-is-sinking-and-this-time-it-s-due-to-underground-climate-change/ar-AA1e1iHE?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fb556796630848e1bfba9f7c0cbb4002&ei=11
Hi Paul,
A video from this channel ‘Coningsby Live’ – what appears to be a group of amateur aviation enthusiasts – turned up randomly in my YouTube feed.
This video is footage of 2 RAF Typhoons scrambling from Coningsby: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxE2u6Edxw0
I believe the temperature monitoring station based on Ray Sanders’ sleuthing puts in an blurred appearance somewhere around the 2:20 mark.
I thought this video of 3Sqn ‘Nightmare’ was also rather apposite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I68FcxlNppY (3:30ish)
The heat bloom from those jets looks like temperature records could have been broken anywhere within half a mile of the runway!
Cheers,
Mark
Hi Paul…. see this tweet… BBC caught out for tweeting exaggerated temperature maps https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1681625398856040448
This is a lesson for the eco-zealots:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/leeds-council-s-chapeltown-anti-rat-running-roadblock-led-to-delayed-firefighter-response-in-tragic-incident/ar-AA1e9jNe?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=2d4c8b905f194b34d7ec88aaddb2bd43&ei=6
Let’s hope the Uxbridge election result makes them think a bit harder.
No doubt the zealots will say they died in a good cause! I am frequently hearing marxist maxims when hearing the bone headed one size fits all solutions which come with all of the left wing adopted causes. Indeed following the marxist maxim that hurting some people is quite acceptable when a cause is virtuous. Specifically the “you have to break some eggs to make an omelette” chestnut. Douglas Murray rubbished this nonsense in his usual way with “but where is your omelette”?
People are being inconvenienced and robbed blind already. It was just a matter of time before they would have to die. Doubt if you will see this reported by the “impartial” BBC or the worthless comic much liked by the Islington brats, the Grauniad.
0m00s the Sun, over the last 24 hours
0m52s Birkeland Current variability
1m24s Solar Wind affecting Precipitation
Paul!
HEADLINE today from the BBC “News you can trust”
Europe and US heatwaves near ‘impossible’ without climate change
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66289489
This would be funny if it was not so serious
I have commented before about the dubious qualifications of the BBC climate and science reporter Georgina Rannard.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/georgina-rannard-38b001b5/
WHY I ask with all the journalists (oped writers) available to the BBC do they incredibly chose someone who is educated in modern history (which undoubtedly makes her a dyed in the wool leftie). I kid you not! My take on this is in at their cynical best, the BBC put totally unsuitable and unqualified people into roles because they have no objectivity and will therefore regurgitate verbatim any outpourings from in this case, the climate industrial complex sewage outfall. Someone with REAL qualifications would challenge dubious pap like this which guess what is once again not based on data but based on debunked climate attribution studies.
The clueless regurgitator Georgina gives the game away with the following:
“Scientists in the UK, US and Netherlands in the World Weather Attribution group studied the recent heatwaves to identify the fingerprint of climate change.
Using computer models, they simulated a world without the effects of emissions pumped into the atmosphere to the real-world temperatures seen during the heatwaves.
Some other distortions and lies that the BBC is happy to perpetuate in this scurrilous article written by the unqualified Georgina
“Heat is among the deadliest types of disaster,” says Julie Arrighi from the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, and also one of the authors”. What about cold Julie??????? Balance that statement!
Julie Arrighi is as unqualified as Georgina is to quote her. Julie has “qualifications” if they can be called that in social science and political science”.
So here we have a BBC writer whose qualification is in modern history quoting science spouted by someone else who’s qualifications are in social science and political science!
You cannot make this garbage up and the BBC is ground zero for promoting it.
Neither of them clearly have a clue or care about the worthless scientific value coming from climate attribution studies which have absolutely nothing to do with empirical data.
Another fatuous quote “In July, temperature records were broken in parts of China, the southern US and Spain. Millions of people spent days under red alerts for extreme heat”.
With 7 billion people on the planet “millions” mean only a small number. Why does our intrepid modern history graduate not tell us how many millions, because either she can’t or she is quoting unsubstantiated climate nonsense from one of her activist contacts. Where is the objective balance comparing that to those living with extreme cold every year?
More hyperventilating from the intrepid Georgina
“Climate scientists say decades of humans pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are causing global temperatures to rise”
WHICH scientists? Where is the statistically significant empirical data Georgina? Oh, of course it is the classic BBC “nameless scientists say”
Again pap. She demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the term climate science. It covers a whole range of scientific disciplines. I have degrees in geology and geophysics so that makes me two climate scientists.
I had to double my BP meds after reading this.
End of rant!
Regards
JonnyS
Let’s be fair to the BBC; they only lie about the ‘climate crisis/emergency’ when there’s a y in the day
some interesting points (from a statistician_)
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/global-warming-will-save-many-lives
Hi Paul,
You may remember me and the piece you published from my book on Calabria in February 2016. I now live in Sardinia and have just penned something about events of the last week or so. If you’d like to see it/use it, let me Know and I’ll sent it to you with a couple of photos.
Best wishes,
Niall
Hi Paul
As a subscriber to Bloomberg I received this article this morning, headed, “Scientists Are Worried About Antarctica’s Unprecedented Lack of Sea Ice Growth”, author Brian Kahn (who he? Ed).
The full details are at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-26/why-antarctic-sea-ice-s-six-sigma-deficit-has-climate-scientists-on-alert?cmpid=BBD072623_OEU&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=230726&utm_campaign=openeurope&leadSource=uverify%20wall
If you do not subscribe or are unable to read the full article I have downloaded it and can forward a PDF on to you. Please advise me accordingly.
I’m sure that you will wish to comment on yet another bout of catastrophism as will our contributors!!
Kind regards
James
John Kerry being told the Truth!
Paul
Interesting article by Pete North today, ‘Net Zero: turning tides’. If what he claims has any traction it could mean that the demise of ‘Nut Zero’ may be imminent. However, as is universally acknowledged, when a cult is under sustained attack its voice becomes more strident, aggressive and threatening. Nut Zero ain’t going to go quietly.
The full article is at https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/latest-stories/net-zero-turning-tides/
Hope it is of interest
The usual…
James
This is worrying:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/legal-battles-over-climate-change-are-already-paying-off/ar-AA1eqw1u?cvid=170568d07aae406fa1d10a65f7ee93ef&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=7
Check out the Gravy-Train-Deben video. It must be nice to be so certain.
Law of Unintended Consequences?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/drivers-hit-by-price-penalty-to-meet-ulez-rules/ar-AA1et7zy?cvid=1f860720f4234c0eb38686c0fd03bfc0&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=21
What a nerve:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-accuses-government-of-1-7bn-gas-storage-mistake/ar-AA1ewSBe?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0f13d95489544f2a9193aab43a7a0572&ei=23
Here’s the content of an email to my (then Labour) MP in March 2013:
“According to Bloomberg:
“U.K. stores of natural gas, pushed to record lows by a dearth of tanker imports, will be exhausted in about two weeks unless temperatures rise, reducing demand for the heating fuel.”
I distinctly remember asking for reassurance on this issue after comments made by Ed Miliband on Newsnight, in his capacity as Energy Secetary, were at odds with views of those in the industry. I recieved a letter from his department, via you, confirming what he said.
As he’s fond of asking the Prime Minister, what went wrong? Even more important, what’s being done about it, other than printing advice what to do when the lights go out?”
Paul! Oh how wonderful the interweb is.
Here is legendary BBC reporter Mat McGrath in 2019 with his usual brand of climate porn.
Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736
“Now it seems, there’s a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges”.
Notice the weasel non scientific language. Also the absurd “global heating” the idiot writes trying clearly to get ahead of the hysterical curve for language inflation.
Given according to this legend time was up in 2021, except for their deliberate misrepresentation of surface temperature as air temperature and disingenuous representation of the state of sea ice, what have they got except for tales of wow 50..100 years into the future with the usual weasel words like “might” and “could”.
Can we can expect the “impartial” BBC to post an apology?
Regards
JonS
Paul,
From the Evening Standard
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/national/rishi-sunak-announces-hundreds-of-new-oil-and-gas-licences-for-uk-despite-global-warming/ar-AA1ezFyE?ocid=U519DHP&pc=W099&cvid=447bed58a4fd46e58e92e10c18d6f802&ei=19
Toys are being thrown out of prams as we speak.
Notice how much of the article is given over to the “feelings” of the bedwetters. Where are the empirical data based views of those who do not see a problem?
Regards
JonnyS
Solar Storms and Hurricanes
(6.25 minute video)
Paul,
I came across this when doing some digging on shipboard car fires. Many more than we are being told of.
Car carrier fires and the associated risks with Electric Vehicle transportation
https://www.ukpandi.com/news-and-resources/articles/2021/car-carrier-fires-and-the-associated-risks-with-electric-vehicle-transportation/
Excellent stuff, which I’ll be forwarding to the MP responsible for a bill covering safety of fixed battery installations. This’ll reinforce my suggestion that they need to cover mobile systems as well.
Paul
further to my earlier post:
“While all logistics companies deal with the risk of EV lithium-ion batteries burning with twice the energy of a normal fire, the maritime industry hasn’t kept up with the developing technology and how it creates greater risk, maritime officials and insurers said.
There were 209 ship fires reported during 2022, the highest number in a decade and 17% more than in 2021, according to a report from insurer Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS) (ALVG.DE). Of that total, 13 occurred on car carriers, but how many involved EVs was not available.
The European Maritime Safety Agency said in a March report the main cargo types identified as responsible for “a large share of cargo fire accidents included … lithium-ion batteries.””
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ocean-shippers-playing-catch-up-electric-vehicle-fire-risk-2023-07-27/
Shades of Ralph Nader, updated to the 21st Century.
Turbine Top Trumps?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/mega-wind-turbine-with-blades-twice-the-size-of-a-football-pitch-switched-on-for-first-time/ar-AA1eE1Fo?cvid=f27d46d78376455b9b2f622adb6de807&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=9
Don’t overstate 1.5 degrees C threat, new IPCC head says
A tiny bit of sanity infiltrating the IPCC?
https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-do-not-overstate-15-degrees-threat/a-66386523
The consumer stitched up twice?
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/drax-denies-subsidy-loophole-avoid-130720114.html
More scare-mongering?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/warning-hidden-crisis-will-lead-to-rationing-water-shortage-and-higher-bills/ar-AA1eGUGC?cvid=f668db0cce3146709ca3618ee2736b41&ocid=winp2fptaskbar&ei=11
In describing how they’re going to save the planet, my council mentions grey water almost on passing. Bearing in mind the impact this technology could have on flooding and the size of SuDS systems, should surely be important. I’m waiting for an answer to a question on when/whether they’re going to insist on it in new builds. Not optimistic, not least because they’re still passing applications featuring gas heating.
Have you covered this?
BBC News – Man bought private jet with borrowed council money
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66340991
Confusing headline..read down a bit for the truth. Another green scandal.
…..
Refreshing news courtesy of Charles Moore;
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/04/net-zeros-dam-has-burst-but-bbc-is-still-papering-over/?WT.mc_id=e_DM186640&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FAM_New_ES_Sat&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_FAM_New_ES_Sat20230805&utm_campaign=DM186640
Another “It’s worse than we thought”:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/weather/topstories/mountains-are-collapsing-a-swiss-mountain-peak-fell-apart-sending-3-5-million-cubic-feet-of-rock-into-the-valley-below-scientists-warn-climate-change-could-make-more-mountains-crumble/ar-AA1ePn6P?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=34a0292154454ece91143e305ce44c5b&ei=13
I wonder if the people fretting about this know where the sand on the beach came from, or the nicely patterned sandstone in their Cotswold village.
Just read yet another article about a useless, if not dangerous, cycleway and noted that the planners ignored valuable criticism but also noted that The scheme had been designed in consultation with Active Travel England, another quango. Some light reading here, but guess who’s been appointed to their advisory panel:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sir-chris-whitty-among-senior-figures-appointed-to-active-travel-england-advisory-panel
Revolving doors, anyone?
See Paul’s 28 July piece on this. Here’s the Guardian’s take.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/07/is-the-climate-crisis-finally-catching-up-with-antarctica-finding-the-answer-has-never-been-more-pressing
The referenced meeting in Hobart should be interesting.
Hello Mr. Homewood,
Today, I saw the video below in my YouTube recommendations.
Danielle Smith is the Conservative Premier of the Province of Alberta, in Canada. She was re-elected this year and when one listens to her interviews, it’s not surprising. She’s a no nonsense, straight to the point politician (a rare kind, I know).
What she is stating in this video is what most Conservatives in Britain should have said a long time ago if they had a spine.
A bit of context is needed here to understand Ms Smith’s statement. The NDP, at the provincial or federal level, is on the far-left. The Liberals, wether at the provincial or federal level, used to be a center-left party (socially progressive but fiscally conservative). But since Justin Trudeau became the party leader in 2013, the Liberals have become a far-left clone of the NDP.
Greetings from Canada!
Useful piece:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/09/renewable-energy-nuclear-power-green-net-zero-chernobyl/
But why did he have to say this: “Industrial accidents have commonly killed hundreds or even thousands of people: ordinary air pollution results in tens of thousands of deaths every single year in the UK alone.”?
This one’s even more important and explains why I’ve been wasting my time going after my local council for poor priorities v/v local needs:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/09/the-public-still-isnt-being-told-the-truth-about-net-zero/
The choice is between Science, as very few know it, even just to A level, and the Law (the 2008, CCA) and, if the BBC say it’s true, whose to argue?
Hopefully, if we can’t tell them, we should be able to show them, with Germany in the process of deindustrialising, but that is if the Legacy Media report it.
It’s a bit rich for the Guardian to claim they know how Tories think on this subject:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/the-truth-is-tory-voters-are-onboard-for-net-zero-what-s-really-worrying-them-is-how-we-get-there/ar-AA1f5iGa?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=8621fe6c7c844b56964855cfcd1b096a&ei=19
As with Covid, Sweden’s showing how it should be done, but since the report’s in the Guardian, dismissed.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/sweden-criticised-over-plan-to-build-at-least-10-new-nuclear-reactors/ar-AA1f6gAU?cvid=b314391b7fbc4d019bb9fabfa13c32b0&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=11
This shows the lefties up for what they are and that this is nothing to do with their nonsensical climate claims or actions. Lars J Nilsson cannot be an imbecile with his education background so I can only think he is the usual coward who will say anything to keep his lousy job. He is just one more pay for play mouthpiece with a title which they hope ads authority to his clear advocacy.
That this idiot can advocate for bird killing pointless hydrocarbon derived windmills over nuclear power shows the movement he represents absolutely does not want guaranteed base load. They want intermittent energy which they will then use as a big stick for yet more population control and forced deindustrialisation in an already over controlled country.
His arguments are frankly so nonsensical as to be Bidenesque to the point I want to ask, where do your brown paper envelopes come from and are they responsible for your idiotic stance? Could it just possibly be that your professorship is underwritten by the wind lobby?
I quote the “learned professor”
“The move was more about posturing than action, he said, claiming the government wanted to show it was taking action on meeting its climate goals. “I see it more as symbolic than actually creating any real change.”
But hang on a moment professor dimwit, isn’t that EXACTLY what the windmill celebrations of hydrocarbons you are promoting are? Pointless posturing and symbolic being not fit for purpose except when the agenda is societal destruction and degrowth.
As for his laughable words about the tax payer having to pay for the power stations, who does the dimwit think is paying right now for pointless wind?
I’m done!
Cheers
JonnyS
Hi Paul,
Somebody posted a link to this ‘study’ proving that there is a ‘Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature’ in response to an excellent article in by Allister Heath in Wednesday’s Telegraph:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
This is possibly the most disingenuous, potentially fraudulent study ‘proving’ the consensus. I thought you might like to review it as an example of how far ‘The Science(TM)’ has fallen.
(The Telegraph article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/09/the-public-still-isnt-being-told-the-truth-about-net-zero/ – the comment was posted around noon on Thursday)
Regards,
Mark
Oh dear Mark. I see the weasels are going for broke.
Consensus never was and never will be a term to use in conjunction with science. By the way, the main author is qualified with a Master of Arts – MAPolitics and Modern History. All three seem to be bedwetters the amount of emotional language on their respective websites.
‘
This is the ultimate deception. They are not assessing the content, just the words people use.
A few years ago after the 97% scandal I suddenly thought the green weasels will “fix that” by just flooding the journals with modelling and emotion and that is exactly what has been done. Also when the weasel in chief writes “there were only 4 skeptic papers” I wave a read flag. Why? Because REAL science by it’s nature is sceptical. So on that basis alone what were the other 2996 papers if they were not skeptical because then they were not scientific therefore just opinion dressed up in scientific language. Now! Where did they source the papers? How many of those papers were just modelling green effluent? If they went to Nature or to Scientific American what do you expect because those journals refuse to publish anything which does not agree with the narrative because they have been infected with the virus.
This trend in making studies of studies is a very green blob phenomenon. I never heard of any other scientific discipline indulging in this. None of them do any real work, just classifying papers by words used so that does not mean they understand what is written. Did these weasels read every paper? Of course not so they did word searchers and there is the nub.
The climate weasels put SO MUCH effort into sleight of hand because they have nothing else. They have no empirical data which real scientists would use, rather they have “feelings” and tribal memories and garbage filled models and “worries” about the future.
JonnyS
This ‘exercise’ appears to be re-run of the Cooke et al (2013) study employing the same egregious tactics to ‘prove a consensus’ when no such consensus exists. Out of the sample of 3,000 papers analysed only 19 papers expressed explicit endorsement with quantification of the ACC hypothesis. 413 expressed explicit endorsement without quantification while a further 460 suggested only implicit endorsement. A massive 2,104 expressed no position thus implying that the authors were ambivalent with regard to the ACC hypothesis. In other words, not unreasonably, “we cannot be sure”. Two papers implied rejection with two more papers explicitly rejecting it. One does not need a MENSA intellect to calculate that at best only 992 papers gave either explicit or implicit support for ACC, ie 33% of the total sampled. As you say this is just plain fraud perpetrated by non-scientific idiots manically addicted to the AGW narrative.
Paul,
The FES 2023 Report :
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/283101/download
from NG ESO FES 2023 :
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/future-energy/future-energy-scenarios
States on
P46 :
“Changes to the emissions calculation methodology have led to a
reduction in forecast emissions for non-energy sectors compared
to FES 2022. The biggest changes come from removing climate
feedback to align with international standards and impacts the sectors
not directly modelled in FES which have high emissions of methane.”
P48 :
“The Climate Change Committee has updated their methodology for calculating emissions by removing climate feedback, aligning themselves with international agreements on emissions reporting, and we have reflected this in our emissions modelling.”
“When climate feedback is removed from emissions calculations, it impacts various sectors differently depending on the type and amount of greenhouse gas emissions they produce.
The biggest impact is in the agricultural sector. Agricultural activity produces a mix of methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions are more strongly influenced by climate feedback mechanisms. Removal of climate feedback from the calculation leads to lower emissions than previously reported.”
Removal of climate feedback?
I was really surprised to read this news. A quick search of Google and Bing did not bring up any such news although I could be not entering the correct search questions.
I’m not a climate scientist but isn’t this quite a big change?
I seem to have missed it.
Does this have any bearing on the Irish and Dutch governments’ decisions to cull cattle and the reduction in the use of fertilisers?
What effect does this decision have on CO2 feedback?
Have the work of Wijngaarden & Happer and also Lord Monckton caused this change or am I not understanding something?
I started a thread on a local forum to suggest this was a case of money being made by scaring people to death
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/mindandbody/here-s-what-climate-anxiety-is-doing-to-our-minds/ar-AA1fdcp5?cvid=c6778bec63074a718bd92786a727f753&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=9
I suggested readers should go through it and count the people making money out of encouraging people to worry about something they can do absolutely nothing about, eg “ECO-psychotherapist Tim McLoughlin” and “The Good Grief Network – 10 Steps to Resilience & Empowerment in a Chaotic Climate”
After some toing and froing I was challenged with this:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/global-warming-policy-foundation-net-zero-watch-koch-brothers/
Noting that several names on the “report” were also linked to Brexit, I wondered out loud whether we’d soon see Brexit being blamed for the Hawaii fires. This got me reported to the moderators, ie cancelled. I’ll take it as a badge of honour.
Still waiting for the moderator to (probably) deny my appeal. In the meantime I’ve had an insights email telling me how my neighbours are liking my thread! Computer sez Yes?
Scaring the kids 2#
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/techandscience/young-people-who-sued-their-state-over-climate-change-notch-their-first-victory/ar-AA1fgyMh?cvid=c62127b8eb884e9eac0194538b3ed1f2&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=7
I don’t remember this being mentioned here, but it is the is the video (and book) to update the public with a credible alternative analysis of the Green Agenda and National Energy Needs:
The Unpopular Truth, by Lars Schernikau
Great planning:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1802862/rat-infestation-glasgow-lez-zone
“Of the council’s 1,615 vehicles, 616 are currently non-compliant, meaning they are no longer permitted to enter the zone.”
Paul,
I have discovered a whole area of pseudo academic writing which must be being recorded and acted upon.
https://www.academia.edu/53052872/The_risk_behind_communicating_to_people_in_their_second_language_during_the_hurricane_season?email_work_card=view-paper
Following is a whole trove of such made up language papers on the subject of “climate disinformation” clearly written from only one point of view which is that of belief not reason.
https://www.academia.edu/search?q=climate%20disinformation
The first and I feel best example of the mind bending psychobabblist world is this by A Mark Pogson from Liverpool University.
https://www.academia.edu/46194719/Climate_disinformation_adverts_real_world_indicators_of_an_online_problem
Mr Pogson who is not alone thinks alternative opinions are a “problem”. He does not distinguish between information with an empirical basis and that without.
I have written to him with a simple set of questions including what in his view is “climate disinformation” among other activist speak he includes in his letter. I have to this date not received any reply.
I subscribe to several providers of access to academic papers which skirts around the need to go through pay walls. My interest is geology and geophysics. During the past couple of months I have started receiving lots of frankly bizarre material which all comes under the title of “Academic Letters”. However, being familiar with the equivalent in geo science journals to which I subscribe, letters are not papers but traditionally comments on previously published papers or on the subject matter of earlier special topics. What I see in the attached is a completely new animal which looks like a way to publish without any academic rigor, without requirement for peer review. These letters are bizarre in their subject matter. I have received multiple notices of letters which are almost unreadable on climate disinformation and misinformation which have a common and perplexing themes, namely that the authors do not have any scientific background and also that they consistently see only one side of the story looking to government and appointed bodies to control information.
My concern is two things. Firstly that navel gazing is being marketed as in someway credible academic thought. Secondly, on the subject of climate, that the authors see people who dare to not agree with the unscientific consensus a problem in need of control.
Regards
JonnyS
Paul’s piece: North Sea tax credits are not subsidies – isn’t believed by some others:
https://unherd.com/2022/09/the-great-net-zero-lie/?=refinnar
“There are also very good reasons to doubt that decarbonisation is really the elites’ end goal. For all the talk of Net Zero, a recent study of $634 billion in energy-sector subsidies in 2020 found that around 70% went to fossil fuels and only 20% went to renewable power generation. In 2021, support for fossil fuels actually increased compared to previous years. Things have become even worse since the start of the war in Ukraine, as several European countries have turned to coal and even fracking in a desperate attempt to replace Russian gas supplies.”
Clicking on the link near the $634Billion figure I get to a Nature article, which is paywalled, but is introduced thus:
“Fossil-fuel subsidies are one of the biggest financial barriers hampering the world’s shift to renewable energy sources. Each year, governments around the world pour around half a trillion dollars into artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels — more than triple what renewables receive. This is despite repeated pledges by politicians to end this kind of support, including statements from the G7 and G20 groups of nations.”
The Climate Industrial Complex is just part of the modern marxist movement where language is deliberately manipulated and twisted and meanings turned on their heads. This is not a mistake that they continue to use the term subsidies because this has meaning to the public. Lying is par for the course for these people and the deliberate misuse of language is just one more tool of the left. The response they hope for is emotional and again that is marxist because they want people to think emotionally not rationally. Part of this is also to hide the real subsidies they give to the Weeeenewabuwls industry in the crowd. The weasels on the left are trained in the art of deflection.
I am not a Marxist but I know several, and none of them support NetZero or the climate emergency. They are very much against both because they are VERY bad for poor people. There are of course many flavours of Marxism but I’d warn against tarring them all with the same brush in this context. For further info on my friends who help to turn the Communist Party of Britain – Marxist-Leninist (a mouthful!) see here : https://cpbml.org.uk
“Modern marxism” 🙂 However, given the more than 100 million who died, not through war but because they did not conform in Mao’s China, Stalin’s Russian Or Pol Pots Cambodia I will ask what has changed in the marxist worldview? There are only a very few degrees of freedom between someone telling you to shut up and obey and someone putting a gun to the back of your head. Telling you to shut up and obey is just the beginning, not the end. The similarity of methodology across a who range of activism is striking where we are told socialism (ne marxism) is the solution. That marxism thrives in chaos often of its own making is nothing new. I am not a political historian, rather a flawed scientist and what I see mainly in the West has been a whitewashing and rehabilitation of marxism. Marxism has never been subject to the same critical assessment as National Socialism, another blight on the face of humanity. In my humble way I trace all that we see going on in the West today back to an origin in Critical Theory and the Frankfurt School. P.S I use lower case intentionally.
I would have agreed with you completely until I met this group through the Brexit referendum campaign. I have come to believe that the strength of any political system is how resilient it is to corruption and exploitation. As a scientist and free marketeer I was confident that capitalism was much stronger – but the Brexit campaign and pandemic response has knocked my confidence. In our own area of interest here, it is capitalism that is exploiting the climate agenda making billions at the expense of the poor. It doesn’t matter what the political movement is – bad people (opportunists) will exploit any system for their own ends. You might say that capitalism hasn’t killed millions – but look at the actions of big pharma over the years and our 7m long NHS waiting list now. Would love to discuss further – if you are ever in the Manchester area – you are very welcome to join one of our Politics in Pubs meetings. 4th Wednesday of every month
“I have come to believe that the strength of any political system is how resilient it is to corruption and exploitation.”
It’s one reason why the British don’t have a written constitution. It’s too inflexible, which is inconvenient when the malevolence changes its mode of attack. Having the best written constitution won’t save you either, if it isn’t an integral part of your life, as the US is finding out. Just ‘voting at elections’ will result in a multiple versions of the uniparty, as many countries are finding. They are examples of ‘Good Men’ doing Nothing, not improving matters. And being uninformed, and being vocal, helps the progress towards catastrophe. Thank you BBC.
“… it is capitalism that is exploiting the climate agenda making billions at the expense of the poor.”
The Laws are set by Parliament, though the UK Parliament hasn’t yet adjusted after being freed from Brussels, and taken responsibility for the country’s wellbeing. They haven’t attempted to address any popular concern.
What should the Capitalists do: break the law, go against the 2008 Climate Change Act or, even more evil, go against the BBC Climate Agenda, and be blacklisted, and end up bankrupt?
Corruption grows whenever a problem is framed as Global, so Global amounts of money are needed, individuals become insignificant and usually involves politicians with a global perspective, and international organisations, all with a collectivist mindset. While the NHS has been a useful safety net, it has encouraged people to hand over the responsibility of their health to the state. And the pharmaceutical companies help them out, because the problem requires too much labour, and they want instant solutions. The Unions stopped more doctors being trained, IIRC circa 2008, as they wanted a SHORTAGE, and now they would be at their peak productivity.
YES, it’s a pretty horrific solution, but the public believe the NHS is the best in the world, so it stays the same. And do you have any idea how Fauci is involved in the US, and why he earns so much from the state?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/records-reveal-how-much-money-fauci-pulled-in-during-covid-pandemic-while-americans-suffered/ar-AA1fe0yl
It’s complicated, sad tale.
Robert Christopher. You may be interested to watch Robert Kennedy Jr’s interview with Tucker. His voice does not make for easy listening, but if true his comments on several subjects including Fauci are explosive. A lot makes sense as to why he is so disliked on the left because he is not of the establishment. The media parroting that dislike is compelling
There’s so much that hasn’t yet reached the Legacy Media, and that we don’t yet know.
We’ve had Big Oil, big Pharma and now we have Big Farmer:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/gigantic-power-of-meat-industry-blocking-green-alternatives-study-finds/ar-AA1frU5W?cvid=dacdc860ec4a4b749cbcbf4124e351b0&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=7
Relentless;
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/devastating-wildfires-show-alarming-evidence-of-climate-change/ar-AA1fs7xD?cvid=8118dc53b9c24277b5e4292074bdb4e4&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=8
from Sky news australia …. how windmills at sea are causing the deaths of whales
BBC NI article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-66516358
Two lines only about the headline stating “The temperature in the largest freshwater body of water in the UK and Ireland is 1C higher than in 1995.” Then completely changing into dscussion of carbon storage in the area.
However!! the original referenced article “The current condition in the Lough is unusual in that these blue-green algae have not been abundant here since the mid-1970s.”
So why reference an increase only since 1995? When there are obviously records going much further back? So a little investigation reveals
https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.4319/lo.1973.18.5.0791
Which indicates the 1969/70 no different to today.
Furthermore no mention of the annual 200,ooo tons of (warmer) sewage dumped into the lake that supplies 40% of NI potable water supply under Crown Immunity due to the lakes ownership by Earl of Shaftesbury.
Justseems like a deliberate attempt to shoehorn in a”record” and climate change propaganda piece.
Relentless 2#:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/what-s-fuelling-the-world-s-recent-wildfires/ar-AA1fy6Gg?cvid=3f924c60a7794747f496f3320d00de4c&ocid=winp2fptaskbar&ei=12
NET Zero Policies near Melbourne (Sky News)
(The machine grinds on!)
Good morning Paul, we are threatened here on the Isle of Man with windfarms despoiling our pristine hills. In addition to the usual technical and environmental issues, we would like to prove that the influence on CO2 is minimal bearing in mind its heathland and the machines will probably be made in China. Are there any verifiable reports that show that manufacturing, transport and installation offsets any CO2 saving? Many thanks John
Apart from noise polution and killing birds bats and insects, wind turbines have a wake (due to taking energy from the air) and if its cool moist air the wake is cloud!
https://images.app.goo.gl/LVJ5rhBqZo99SX2o9
Not good for a holiday isle.
Having visited the IOM on many occasions I hope you are successful in your efforts to prevent the unwanted and unnecessary despoiling of the island by wind turbines. I believe there are also plans for offshore turbines and again I hope they are never seen, surely even the green-eyed zealots have some regard for cultural preservation.
” surely even the green-eyed zealots have some regard for cultural preservation.”
NO !!
They are fanatically committed to their ideology of ‘saving the planet’ therefore, like all religions, they feel fully justified in committing the worst atrocities on anyone / anything they perceive as opposing their ‘solutions’ (however bizarre, impractical or against the laws of physics ) to ‘saving the planet’.
AEP Telegraph 22 Aug
“What is clear is that we are rushing towards a world where heating and cooling will be so cheap that we stop noticing utility bills, just as electric vehicles with GaN onboard chargers will soon cut EV charging costs to a tiny fraction of what it takes to fill a car at Mohammed bin Salman’s petrol pump.”
AEP has obviously stopped both his psychiatric outpatient appointments and taking his prescribed medication
Over 2000 comments on the article, mainly if not entirely critical but none seem to pick up on this claim:
Helium pumps promise much higher temperatures while retaining the same magical conversion of one unit of electricity into three to four units of heat achieved by standard models today – its “Coefficient of Performance” (CoP).
Is it a breakthrough or not?
Who knew?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/24/carbon-offset-reforestation-tree-planting-climate-change/
As usual, follow the money.
Paul,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66603577
Republican debate: What they said (and didn’t say) about climate
From Rowlatt, one of his more egregious project fear pieces. Never missing an opportunity to push the propaganda, this time handwringing about the Republican debate. I note his title is “Climate Editor”. Perhaps the word “Fear” should be inserted in the middle?
It is clear that the BBC is voicing a political opinion. So much for it’s Charter. Why are we being forced to pay for this?
To show just how disingenuous he is he even quotes the disgraced Mann at the end!
To give a flavour of his op ed I quote the following:
“The science is clear-cut – the world’s rising temperatures are the result of man-made climate change”.
and
“Professor Ed Hawkins, a climatologist at the University of Reading, agreed that whether humans are causing climate change is not a matter of belief. “It is a scientific fact, endorsed by the climate science community, learned societies and every government around the world,” he said.
Another weaselly way of pushing consensus.
What on earth does this scientifically irrelevant individual think people who’s job title and salary depend on them pushing the narrative will say?
“Scientific fact” Ed Hawkins, then show us the data linking CO2 to anything. Geological history shows no correlation whatsoever between atmospheric CO2 concentration and surface temperature for the past 450 million years. The much touted ice core data shows first there is a temperature rise and on average 800 years later an increase in atmospheric CO2, not the other way around as claimed by the ignoble prize winning atmospheric physicist Al Gore. SHOW THE DATA but you never will because it does not exist. Your “science” plays fast and loose touting individual weather events as trends. Yours is an art and about as far from science as it is possible to get.
Look at the willful lies STILL being pushed in regard of the Hawaiian Island fire where despicable people are using the death of others as a political weapon to further their salary expectations.
Climate “science” has no place in a Science faculty, it should logically be placed in an Arts faculty because obsessed as it is with conjecture and models not empirical data, it should be lodged with the rest of the paid for worthless effluent which comes out of universities today.
Regards
JonnyS
Paul,
More from the BBC climate fear department.
One more unqualified opinion writer (Rebecca Ricks) regurgitating Klymutt.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-66594806
Rising tree temperatures could lead to ‘severe consequences
Quite what this has to do with Devon eludes me except to link to:
“It comes as a second study continued looking into tree temperatures within the UK following the country’s hottest month on record”.
More worthless studies. How truly absurd. Linking the Tropics to the UK? Where are the burnt leaves? Where is the balance regarding the critical part played by CO” in photosynthesis?
UK’s hottest month on record?? WHEN? It has been an awful summer. How do the number weasels come up with that or did they just model it?
Regards
JonnyS
Have you had your Carbon Literacy Training?
Click to access Carbon-Literacy-Training_Final2.pdf
How truly absurd are the lefty maniacs with their worthless arts degrees in mind control and power tripping who came up with this.
Surely mislabeling Carbon Dioxide (One atom of carbon and two of oxygen as Carbon, a single carbon atom) is in it’s self illiterate!
The pied pipers of the dangerous left never sleep.
These people themselves clearly are intellectually challenged and in need of training not only in the use of the correct technical terms but also potties to avoid the considerable bed wetting they must endure.
Problems with Electric Trucks:
And then there’s Electric Trucks, with Refrigeration 🙂
Hi Paul,If you remember you posted a utube by a scientist who was discussing William Happer’s work on atmospheric gases and their effect on the atmosphere and I cannot find it on Utube. It was an excellent analysis of Happer’s work and the fact that the maths agreed with the observations.
I want to send it to a political party who are building arguments to support using nuclear generators.
Paul,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-66616699
China’s summer of climate destruction
You have had climate meltdown and climate boiling. Now brought to you from the once impartial BBC, we now have climate destruction
Monday’s absurd Klymutt claims and from who else but the arts graduate marxist foot soldiers infesting the BBC.
Lots of bed wetting!
Regards
JonnyS
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/air-pollution-is-knocking-up-to-eight-years-off-life-expectancy-in-these-countries/ar-AA1fW2Ox?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=3cf794e7237746be90fc4a9c0cbfc764&ei=74
It won’t improve if the climate alarmists get their way. More likely, we’ll go the same way.
Even The Guardian having to downplay polar bears and climate change: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/30/why-it-may-be-time-to-stop-using-the-polar-bear-as-a-symbol-of-the-climate-crisis
Will they be followed by downplaying – Coral, Penguins, Storms, Droughts … ??
Paul,
Today’s climate porn from the impartial BBC
The extreme summer weather that scorched and soaked the world
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-8f0357f9-9013-4567-8407-be938c8c70cf
Seems there was no weather before klymutt sheyngsh was invented
Regards
JonnyS
About time!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/ofgem-cracks-down-on-rip-off-tactics-that-added-109-to-every-energy-bill-last-year/ar-AA1g2dIO?cvid=c3c859d56f764505ba77d2cfe6fa8ebb&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=13
What a wheeze. I wonder how long it’ll take the EU to find a way to negate it and/or punish us.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/brexit-britain-to-tear-up-red-tape-over-electric-car-batteries-as-uk-set-to-storm-ahead/ar-AA1g7q6P?cvid=b31de43c13974399cbf9a034e16f59a7&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=5
A good article on water, where climate change only merits a brief appearance:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/topstories/the-uk-is-at-risk-of-running-low-on-water-why/ar-AA1gcdA4?cvid=5cc4cc85de8d44d0bdac0ac44cadaede&ocid=winp2fptaskbar&ei=29
Just the inevitable:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/06/north-sea-oil-production-falls-at-fastest-pace-in-a-decade
This is David Kurten, leader of the (small but growing) Heritage Party, with news about The Energy Bill. It’s a Trojan Horse of a bill:
It’s the next step towards our planned future.
The Legacy Media talk about it’s threat to NET Zero policies, but not the bill’s open endedness.
Climate scientist admits editing paper to fit ‘preapproved narratives’
By Lindsay Kornick, Fox News
Dr. Patrick T. Brown wrote a piece for Nature journal on the impact of climate change on wildfires
https://www.foxnews.com/media/climate-scientist-admits-editing-paper-fit-preapproved-narratives
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/price-of-gas-boilers-could-rise-by-as-much-as-300-under-new-government-green-regime/ar-AA1gkTRb?cvid=1e1056cbf8a34c21a6eec72ccf92b48e&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=7
Our politicians have a curious approach to economics – if an unattractive product is cheaper than the one you want to push, make the cheaper one dearer.
“The boss of Worcester Bosch … likened the policy to a ‘boiler tax’ and suggested the measure was designed to increase the cost of gas boilers to bring them closer to expensive heat pumps.”
We’re up against it, folks:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/any-attempt-to-politicise-climate-action-would-be-a-mistake-tory-mp-says/ar-AA1gkn0t?cvid=a02a2e4c8e154e8294c483c2e9461c82&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=21
The Net Zero Scrutiny Group is going to need a new approach.
Ian,
Remember ‘Animal Farm’: it will explain everything! 🙂
This is what it must have been like living in the Eastern Bloc before 1990. Here’s another one:
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/07/free-speech-fears-grow-after-springer-nature-meekly-obeys-activist-demands-for-alimonti-climate-paper-retraction/
Somebody doing something sensible for once, but still blaming climate change:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/09/06/gardi-sugdub-caribbean-island-evacuated-panama-sea-levels/
“Experts worry it will put the culture and way of life of Carti Sugtupu’s Indigenous community of fewer than 2,000 at risk.”
Let’s see what they’ll be giving up when leaving this idyll:
“The community currently lives without potable water or sanitation.
“Residents must venture out in boats to collect drinking water from rivers or buy it on the mainland.
“Few have reliable electricity. Most residents receive a few hours of power per day from a public generator.
“None have their own toilets, and residents have to visit communal cubicles at the ends of piers where wooden boards over the sea serve as latrines.
“There is no room to expand homes ..”
Yep, I see why they don’t want to leave, not.
This sounds impressive:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/techandscience/world-s-largest-wind-turbine-breaks-record-for-power-generated-in-a-single-day/ar-AA1gn8Gu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f9b5ee1e1b36471fb29b2d4c6dbead3f&ei=8
But:
“The record-breaking wind turbine features an innovative design that allows it to adjust its blades in real time when winds reach high speeds. This allowed it to continue operating during Typhoon Haikui last week, during which conventional turbines were forced to shut down.”
Sounds even better but complexity may equal reliability issues?
“Innovative design…” Hang on a mo, the automatic variable pitch propellor was invented in 1929 by Wallace Turnbull ie 94 years ago!!
They’re out to get us in ever more imaginative ways. More work for DVLA – will their systems be able to cope? Will there be a lot of personal data at risk?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/petrol-and-diesel-owners-to-face-huge-increase-in-parking-costs-under-new-law-changes/ar-AA1gnnZ8?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f9b5ee1e1b36471fb29b2d4c6dbead3f&ei=22
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/network-rail-pleads-guilty-over-involvement-in-fatal-train-crash-in-scotland/ar-AA1gmX5Y?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=27db957f62d1420a9cb8ab58f739f784&ei=5
So, climate change had nothing to do with it?
Living over a hydrogen bomb? What’s all the fuss about?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/build-hydrogen-caves-or-risk-blackouts-britain-warned/ar-AA1gqiTq?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ffb43b796054412da66e87a4a79b6ff3&ei=13
An alternative to CCS?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/techandscience/nasa-breakthrough-on-mars-will-change-human-space-exploration-forever/ar-AA1gyiWd?cvid=1adf7e2c8e814b1395c310e6e83e7f37&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=6
Just because it’s unrealistic doesn’t mean there aren’t grant $$$s in it.
The spacing came out wrong, making it unreadable.
Try this version.
Paul, I am about to send this email-letter off to Westminster, but was wondering if anyone has the expertise to check my work first. It is a critique of the Royal Society hydrogen cavern report.
.
.
House of Commons,
Westminster.
Re: Hydrogen Cavern Storage – Errors in Report.
Sir,
You may have seen a report in the Telegraph that the UK needs 100 twh of hydrogen energy stored in caverns, to keep the lights on when we transition to unreliable Net Zero renewable electricity. This article was derived from a Royal Society (R.S.) briefing paper called Large Scale Electricity Storage.
Telegraph — Build hydrogen caves or risk blackouts.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/08/build-hydrogen-caves-or-risk-blackouts-britain-warned
Royal Society — Large Scale Electricity Storage Report.
See pdf enclosure below.
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/large-scale-electricity-storage/Large-scale-electricity-storage-report.pdf?la=en-GB&hash=C5A09BDA174196AA3822CD7B862A5D08
While I applaud the Royal Society for at last looking into energy storage, to compliment unreliable renewable energy systems, the costings in this paper simply don’t add up. They appear to have forgotten about wind turbine capacity factors.
The R.S. paper claims wind farms will cost £ 210 billion.
My estimate is they will cost £1,600 billion.
Plus wind turbines need renewing after just 25 years, so that is another £1,600 billion.
.
.
Total UK energy usage incorrect:
This R.S. paper is assuming average UK energy consumption of only 570 twh per year, which is less than half present energy consumption. Unless they have a good explanation for this reduction, all the other estimates and costings will be incorrect.
R.S. paper’s all-electric consumption 570 twh
Realistic all-electric consumption 1,280 twh
The government’s own UK Energy in Brief 2022 gives present UK total electrical supply as 320 twh per year, and indicates that electrical supply is just 20% of total energy consumption. Thus we will need to multiply present electric generation by four – to allow for transport, heating and industry – giving a total electrical consumption of 1,280 twh per year.
Prof David MacKay, a previous government science advisor, said much the same. He maintained that electrical generation needs to triple, to cover all energy demands, giving 960 twh. But this calculation was contingent upon heat pumps working for space heating in the winter, which I do not believe will happen. See Sustainable Energy Without Hot Air, by MacKay.
So how do they justify halving UK energy consumption?
UK Energy in Brief 2022
Click to access UK_Energy_in_Brief_2022.pdf
Sustainable Energy Without Hot Air
http://www.withouthotair.com
Note: See the note at the very end, regards the deficiencies in government energy data.
.
.
Wind energy costs incorrect (1):
This paper gives wind energy costs at £1 billion per gw, but this is a gross underestimate. See page 81.
The true costs can be gleaned from the Hornsea-3 windfarm in the North Sea, which is the largest wind farm in the world. Recent estimates put the cost for Hornsea-3 at £8 billion, and it has a max output (a name-plate capacity) of 3 gw. So that is £2.6 billion per gw of installed capacity, not £1 billion.
However, the true costs are even worse than this. A typical capacity factor for offshore wind power is only 33% – wind turbines are fickle energy producers, only working 33% of the time. So a 3 gw ‘name-plate’ wind farm like Hornsea-3, will only produce 1 gw of real energy on average.
So the true cost of Hornsea-3’s energy will be £8 billion per gw of actual electricity produced. That is 8x the cost estimate given in this Royal Society paper. That represents a massive miscalculation in costs.
Hornsea-3 windfarm costings
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/orsted-says-huge-uk-hornsea-3-wind-project-risk-without-government-action-2023-03-03/
.
.
Wind energy costs incorrect (2):
There are more problems with these costings. This paper says that the UK will require 200 gw of wind energy to go Net Zero, which is yet another underestimate. See page 81.
In reality our average consumption of total energy (not just electricity) is 150 gw. Or about 1,300 twh annually. However, as already mentioned, a standard wind turbine capacity factor is only 33%. Thus we will need 3x the 150 gw consumption, or 450 gw of ’name-plate’ installed capacity, to deliver 150 gw of real electrical energy.
Actually, it is even worse than that. Because hydrogen storage is so inefficient – losing 60% of the power in the storage system – we will need 4x the 150 gw consumption, so that some extra energy is available to charge up the hydrogen ‘battery’. So our wind turbine installed capacity will need to be 600 gw, not the claimed 200 gw, and the true costs of wind power will climb in parallel with this. See page 13.
Since the cost of the 3 gw Hornsea-3 windfarm is £8 billion, the total cost of the wind system is:
200 Hornsea-3 windfarms £1,600 billion
Replacement after 25 years £1,600 billion
Total £3,200 billion (over a 50 year project)
Thus the total cost of all wind UK generation will be £3,200 billion, not £200 billion. And does the UK have sufficient continental shelf to place 200 Hornsea-3s around our coasts? Prof David Mackay thought not.
.
.
Hydrogen storage – energy incorrect:
This paper indicates that 100 twh of hydrogen storage is required, but a little note at the bottom says ‘thermal energy’. To convert this thermal energy into electrical energy we need to divide by about two – so this 100 twh storage system only contains 50 twh of electrical energy. According to this paper’s calculations, this is simply not enough to power the nation during wind and solar outages. See page 5.
50 twh represents 13 days of UK energy demand. But the paper is indicating that some months may have 20 or 30-day wind and solar outages, especially during the winter when energy demand is high. Plus some complete years have a 50 twh shortfall overall. Thus this stored hydrogen backup system is supposed to plug the usual daily and weekly gaps in unreliable renewable energy supply, and then plug the 50 twh annual gap too. In fact, the paper claims that an enormous 192 twh of storage will be required to ensure electrical continuity. That is 192 twh of real useable electrical energy, not thermic energy. See pages 19 and 21.
Reliable 24/7 electrical energy cannot be supplied to the nation, with only 50 twh of backup electrical energy.
.
.
Hydrogen storage – costs incorrect:
This paper claims that the hydrogen storage system will cost £100 billion. This storage system must be able to store 100 twh (or 192 twh) of real electrical energy. And it must be able to generate 150 gw of electrical energy, to power the entire nation when renewables fail. So this storage system requires the rebuilding of our entire present electrical generation system – four times over.
So we must build a completely new electrical generation system, using wind and solar. And then build another completely new electrical generation system, using stored hydrogen as a fuel. Despite the massive construction projects needed, there are still some Green activists who claim that renewables will be cheaper than nuclear or fossil fuels.
If we take Pembroke-B as an example, this methane gas powered generating station cost £1.6 billion in 2023 costs and generates 2 gw. So to power the UK with all its energy needs, we will need to build 80 Pembroke-Bs, at a cost of £130 billion. In addition we will need 85 clusters of 10 hydrogen storage caverns, at a cost of £325 million per cluster, plus all the associate pipes and pumps. Call that £40 billion. See page 40.
850 storage caverns £ 40 billion
40 gw electolyser £ 40 billion
power lines £ 370 billion
80 new power stations £ 130 billion
Subtotal £ 580 billion
Plus:
200 Hornsea-3s wind farms £1,600 billion
Replacement after 25 years £1,600 billion
Grand total £3,780 billion
Note: The R.S. paper costs power-line upgrades at £100 billion. However, the UK’s entire energy system will need relocating to Cheshire and Yorkshire, which is where the backup salt cavern storage systems will be located. This will need a total readjustment of the National Grid transmission line system. And if the Greens clamour for HVDC power lines to save the environment, as they did in Germany, costs will escalate further still. The 800 km German Suedlink HVDC line will cost £10 billion, just for one 4 gw cable. Thus carrying 150 gw for 800 km in the UK would cost £370 billion. The total requirement for new transmission lines in the UK will certainly be more than 800 km.
The German Suedlink cable:
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/suedlink-hvdc-power-transmission-project/#
.
.
Solution mining caverns – costs:
This paper proposes the creation of 850 new salt caverns, in clusters of ten, to store the hydrogen. The size of these caverns is given as 0.3 million m3 per cavern, giving a total of 255 million m3 of hydrogen gas storage. Each cavern would store 122 gwh of hydrogen, giving a total energy storage of 100 twh. See pages 39 and 41.
However, I remain mystified by these claims and calculations.
Plus the report does not mention that much larger caverns already exist in this region.
The Atwick storage holds 315 million m3 of (methane) gas in eight caverns
Average 39 million m3 per cavern
https://www.ssethermal.com/energy-storage/atwick
The Aldborough storage holds 370 million m3 of (methane) gas in nine caverns.
Average 41 million m3 per cavern
https://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/aldbrough-underground-gas-storage-facility/
The new R.S. storage holds 255 million m3 of (hydrogen) gas in 850 caverns
Average 0.3 million m3 per cavern (risibly small)
In other words, sufficient cavern storage already exists, and these facilities will be vacant when methane gas usage ceases. This Royal Society paper does not mention these caverns, but for what reason? I think the problem here is a large miscalculation – by two orders of magnitude.
I think the error can be seen in the quoted energy capacity of these new hydrogen storage systems. The older Atwick and Aldborough storage systems held methane gas for 20 days of gas supply each. Since methane gas is about half of total UK energy supply, this would equate to about 38 twh of stored energy in each each system. 10 years ago domestic boilers would have been 80% efficient, so each of these storage plants would hold 30 twh of electrical energy, when full of methane gas.
However, if we convert these caverns to hydrogen, they will contain less energy (presuming they are pressurised to similar levels). Hydrogen has 1/3 the energy content per m3 of methane, and half of that energy will be lost in electrical production. So the R.S. paper’s 850 new gas caverns would only hold a miserable 5 twh of electrical energy. This is only 1/20th or 1/40th of the backup energy required. (Note: hydrogen = 12 mjJ/m3, while methane = 39 mj/m3.)
Summary:
Facility Volume Methane thermic Hydrogen thermic Electrical energy
Atwick 315 mm3 38 twh 12 twh 6 twh
Aldborough 370 mm3 44 twh 15 twh 7 twh
New caverns 255 mm3 30 twh 10 twh 5 twh
Since the R.S. costings for constructing these new caverns appear to be two orders of magnitude too high, I think there has been an error in the calculations somewhere. I think the R.S.’s 0.3 million m3 cavern-chambers, are supposed to be 30 million m3 chambers, which would then be a similar size to the Atwick and Aldborough chambers. This would make the costings and the energy content more realistic.
In summary:
The quoted size of the storage caverns is two orders of magnitude too small. However, the costings seem reasonable.
Fuels – calorific content chart.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html
Salt deposit and gas cavern storage in the UK
https://docslib.org/doc/4576513/salt-deposits-and-gas-cavern-storage-in-the-uk-with-a-case-study-of-salt-exploration-from-cheshire
Note: This Salt deposit and gas Cavern Storage paper also contains a decimal error. It says that the “caverns range between 140 and 420 million m3”, when it should say that the “caverns range between 14 and 42 million m3. The total volume of the site is 315 million m3, so each of the eight caverns can only average 39 million m3 (not 390 million m3).
3
.
.
Salt mine hydrogen storage and leakage:
Hydrogen salt mine storage has been used at Teeside sine the 1970s, but on a small scale. The main problem of larger scale hydrogen storage is leakage and safety. Hydrogen is highly permeable and can leak through solid steel containers, when held at pressure. Although the saturated strata above these caverns will act as a hydrogen barrier, hydrogen being insoluble in water, diffusion and leakage through the cap-rock has been estimated as between 2-6% (Carden and Paterson, 1979, Pichler, 2013, Panfilov, 2016).
Needless to say, any seepage of hydrogen into surface buildings, would represent a serious fire and explosion hazard. Seepage of hydrogen gas is much more likely than seepage of denser hydrocarbon gasses like methane, which are far less permeable.
Underground Hydrogen Storage and possible seepage:
Click to access gaffneycline_underground_hydrogen_storage_article.pdf
.
.
Compressed gas storage – CAES:
This paper indicates that CAES is the next preferred storage system, which stores compressed air in salt mines; while the heat produced by compression is held in molten salts or water ponds. This is not an established technology. The McIntosh CAES plant in Alabama used CAES but was found to be rather inefficient, so they now use the stored compressed air to drive a methane burning turbine.
If CAES with heat storage is not feasible, the McIntosh method of ‘hydrogen burning enhancement by compressed air’, could make hydrogen storage and combustion more efficient. This is fully explained in this Siemens brochure. It is a bit like supercharging a car engine, to gain more power.
Siemens Compressed Air Storage Solutions
Click to access se-caes-whitepaper-03-2021.pdf
.
.
Gas power with carbon dioxide capture:
This paper indicates that carbon-dioxide capture could be used for some backup purposes, with liquid CO2 being pumped into underground reservoirs for storage. However, what is to stop a Lake Nyos CO2 disaster, where 2,000 people died? If there was a CO2 well blowout during an anticyclonic weather pattern, everyone within 50 miles of the well would be suffocated. This could even happen with a North Sea well blowout, with the CO2 drifting up onto the east-coast and killing a few hundred thousand people.
Well blow-outs do happen, as we have seen in the oil industry, so there is no reason to think that CO2 drillers will be immune from such accidents. The only difference being that concentrated CO2 will hug the ground and asphyxiate everyone.
Lake Nyos CO2 disaster, where nearly 2,000 people died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster
.
.
That is all for now.
I hope you find the information above useful.
Sincerely,
Ralph Ellis
07948 309699
P.S. Please note: the energy units in UK Energy in Brief 2022 need amending, to reflect electrical energy used. At present this government information document is giving total energy consumption including generation inefficiencies, which is a nonsense figure, especially for nuclear power. We do not use the waste heat as it is literally a waste product, so why include it in ‘total energy used’. I had to subtract the thermal inefficiencies in each table and pie-chart, to produce an ‘electricity equivalent energy consumption’ figure. We will be all-electric in 2050, according to Net Zero, so we need ‘electric equivalent’ energy data.
UK Energy in Brief 2022
Click to access UK_Energy_in_Brief_2022.pdf
R.S. Large Scale Electricity Storage – link.
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/large-scale-electricity-storage/Large-scale-electricity-storage-report.pdf?la=en-GB&hash=C5A09BDA174196AA3822CD7B862A5D08
R.S. Large Scale Electricity Storage – pdf.
Image: The Lake Nyos CO2 blowout disaster.
Don’t let Green Carbon Capture do the same to York, Newcastle, or Teeside.
.
I’ve posted it up
Some people haven’t had the memo yet. Tidal still being pushed:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/contracts-for-difference-awarded-to-four-developers-of-north-wales-tidal-scheme/ar-AA1gDRe6?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=5cc10ef35f5743e29b23bf2f9d01a945&ei=18
“All four will be able to generate a total energy capacity of 28 MW – enough to power all of Anglesey’s domestic properties. ”
Usual, nameplate capacity and ignoring the twice a day standstill? What’s the average capacity c/f wind? Is is site-specific?
“… energy capacity of 28 MW …”
Errrr … shouldn’t that be power capacity?
I can remember the 1960s, and there was so much hope, expectation, and enthusiasm for success.
It may be intended for the person I quoted in the post after this.
This is the level of ignorance promoted by the Guardian and its ilk:
“[E]nergy providers are now storing energy in enormous battery arrays, so they can store excess energy when the wind blows and release when it doesn’t. As far as i’m aware there is now no coal power generation in the uk, bio mass yes, gas yes and nuclear yes.”
I showed him the screen shots of the grid I took last week, where coal was producing 8 times that of wind, which I’d never seen as low, at 0.29%.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/15/taxpayer-cash-invested-overseas-wine-merchants-cosmetics/
“The House of Commons international development committee has called for a change in governance at British International Investment (BII), a branch of the Foreign Office, amid concerns over inappropriate investments and environmental harm.
“It came as the committee said the UK’s development finance institution had put money into fossil fuels and a private schools group that was hit by child sex abuse allegations, among other suspect investments.”
How could they? Pandering to “young attracted” people may be slightly unfashionable, but fossil fuels?
From the Daily Sceptic:
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/15/weve-cut-carbon-emissions-by-decimating-working-class-communities-says-gmb-union-leader-as-he-blasts-net-zero/
“Starmer’s 2030 deadline is “impossible”, says Smith. “I don’t even worry about it. It cannot be done.” No amount of enthusiasm can overcome these particular hurdles. “The National Grid can’t get [undersea] cables. There are four suppliers of cables in the globe, they’re all booked out to 2030.”
Re. the Tata/Port Talbot story:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/qa-germany-weighs-electricity-subsidies-shield-industry?pk_campaign=weekly_newsletter_2023-09-15&pk_keyword=qa-germany-weighs-electricity-subsidies-shield-industry&pk_source=newsletter&pk_medium=email&pk_content=title
This is a gem:
“Veronika Grimm, a member of Germany’s Council of Economic Experts, a government advisory body, warns that “keeping uncompetitive firms in business by means of an industrial electricity price” would undermine the country’s long-term competitiveness, and slow the transformation to climate neutrality. She argues that the subsidy will keep companies which have no chance in global competition alive, and whose employees should instead switch to future-proof jobs, especially given the country’s lack of skilled labour. Grimm says the government should use the money to promote climate-friendly technologies instead.”
What is Germany if not an engineering powerhouse? What does she suggest they so instead?
Here we go again:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/09/17/sea-ice-levels-in-antarctica-at-mind-blowing-historic-low/
Commenters aren’t convinced.
And the antidote:
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/19/mind-blowing-claims-of-record-low-antarctica-sea-ice-on-bbc-contradicted-by-statements-made-seven-years-ago/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/orsted-to-develop-400-mw-solar-energy-projects-in-ireland/ar-AA1gSlgQ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=2df1f49fc14040b391d9cf38c9f4e289&ei=12
I’m dizzy with all the spin:
“Ireland has seen several amber alerts on warm summer days with low wind speeds, the cost of electricity is too high due to over-reliance on fossil fuels, and the carbon intensity of Ireland’s electricity is among the highest in Europe,”
Gavin Newsome just opened the door to finally putting an end to this climate crisis nonsense. https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/newsom-sues-big-oil-for-alleged-climate-change-deception-5492683
CO2 is a trace gas, making up only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Picture 10,000 grains of salt. Now add 4 grains of pepper to the salt, now take one of those grains of pepper and cut it in half. That infinitesimally small amount is proportional to the amount of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere. Look it up, it’s acknowledged even by the government as fact, which is why they never present it that way. Just like that tiny amount of pepper would have zero impact on the taste of the salt, that incredibly small amount of CO2 cannot possibly have any influence on the climate, the weather or the environment.
Enough is enough, stop wasting time and money arguing about emissions, it’s time to put the entire premise on trial, expose the liars and bring lawsuits against every climate alarmist organization.
The oil companies named in the suit should get the best and nastiest lawyers they can find and let this thing go to trial. Bring in all of the heavy climate hitters from Roy Spencer, to CFACT, to Climate Depot, Anthony Watt, to Steve McIntyre and refute once and for all the premise of the entire Climate Movement starting with a rehash of Climate Gate and how the entire scheme was exposed as far back as 2014 followed by subpoenas going out to all of the climate hustlers from Al Gore to Michael Mann to Jennifer Granholm and force them to prove, under oath how a vanishingly small amount of CO2 can have such outsized impact. I would even bring in some experts in forestry management to blow all the claims about climate change-wildfires just for good measure.
Enough is enough, stop wasting time and money arguing about emissions, it’s time to put the entire premise on trial and the oil companies have both the financial means as well as a legitimate platform to finally do so. Newsome is your typical 3rd generation trust funder who has botched up the family business, this is nothing more than a naked attempt to extort money to cover-up the massive deficits he continues to run. He destroyed San Francisco, he’s destroying California, and this might be the only opportunity to stop him from destroying the country with his moronic policies.
Here we go again:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/cause-of-antarctica-heatwave-revealed-after-temperatures-soared-39c-above-normal/ar-AA1hdZj5?cvid=97468ce79ed849edb2ca0c63e0718d9b&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=18
The recent retirement of Murdoch prompted praise for his championing free speech! Not so obvious on Sky.
from the story …
“strong winds from the north, bringing warm and moist air from Australia,”
but they forgot to say that in -10C that moist air precipitates out as snow !!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12558113/Scientists-reveal-date-Earth-face-mass-EXTINCTION-wipes-humans.html
Not scary enough? Send more money.
A certain lack of self-awareness?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/26/nick-robinson-bbc-radio-4-today-programme-ratings-slump/
I’m reminded of the announcement, some years ago, of Robinson’s move to the BBC from ITV. My thought at the time was that it was a definite lowering of the tone.
News avoiders! Avoiding the bbc news morelike
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/former-cop26-chair-announces-resignation-days-after-criticising-pm-s-green-strategy/ar-AA1hiG96?cvid=e17e507813644ce6ab34c4860706bb96&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=8
The next gravy train approaching Westminster is the revolving door special …. (look out for his next job after his resignation).
freudian ” inward investment, if the political CORRUPTION (my slip) that we have forged in our country on the environment and climate action is fractured”. … would be more appropriate.
https://edberry.com/koutsoyiannis-et-al-agree-with-berry-harde-and-salby/
“Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023) prove that increase in global temperature causes the increase in atmospheric CO2, and not vice-versa. That is a significant proof.”
Will it get any traction?
Der Spiegel today reports…….Researchers from the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in Bremerhaven spent two months traveling towards the North Pole in an icebreaker. They noticed something special: there was an unusually large amount of snow on the sea ice in August and September, said Marcel Nicolaus, sea ice physicist at AWI, this Friday.
“The Arctic sea ice is actually characterized by the fact that there is no longer any snow on it in the summer and it is covered with ponds,” said Nicolaus at an online press conference. One explanation for the phenomenon is unusually stable low pressure areas in summer. They would have provided cold polar air in the Arctic and held the ice on the Siberian shelf together.
Thoughts?
Bring it on:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/chris-packham-issues-legal-challenge-to-pm-over-delay-to-net-zero-policies/ar-AA1hFzmp?cvid=0a8b000836ec476a89522162b1bd60fb&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=21
This will be interesting, especially the dismantling:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ed-miliband-to-announce-labour-plan-to-boost-energy-independence-and-cut-bills/ar-AA1hSKb8?cvid=e9dc95ba187e4ccfa46a387164fa82cc&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=9
Oh, good:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/largest-wind-farm-in-the-world-starts-supplying-power-to-britain/ar-AA1hYfXV?cvid=96b7544d42ee4c5f8abdac46a708c1a1&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=6
Written without a trace of irony:
“The Government has pledged to expand this to 50GW by 2030, meaning the UK needs to install at least one wind turbine every day for the next seven years.”
How’s it going? I only ask because I read somewhere that subsea cable makers are booked up till 2030 already.
Surely this is the ultimate in junk science and junk science reporting.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/climate-crisis-will-make-europes-beer-cost-more-and-taste-worse-say-scientists
Look where it’s written, Ray. Preaching to the converted.
In the meantime, I’m just writing to my councillors asking if they now think it’s time for a proper risk assessment on our new shopping centre/overhead car park following the fire at Luton Airport. Current planning rules don’t even require planners to include fire experts as official consultees. Time they did – ask London Fire Brigade.
Matt on the ball, as usual:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/matt-cartoons-october-2023/
Hi Paul, WordPress refusing to let me post. Is it just me? have had to resort to another different email (yahoo) as gmail and aol.com will not accept post.
This one is OK
OK on mine – Gmail and WordPress.
Here’s logic for you:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/18/shut-down-britain-gas-network-heat-pumps-sir-john-armitt/
“He is urging the Prime Minister to commit to a total ban on gas boiler sales by 2035, and to set out how the national gas network will be shut down gradually over the next 27 years.”
“[T]he NIC says heat pumps are the only viable alternative to heat homes en masse and that millions of households should get subsidies worth more than £6bn to encourage their adoption.”
“Jon Butterworth, chief executive of National Gas, claimed that 11 million of roughly 29 million households cannot get a heat pump because they lack space for a water tank or are otherwise unsuitable. The NIC said one in 10 homes may be unsuitable.”
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/record-number-firms-sharing-impact-123429204.html
Virtue signalling rubbish.
“[T]he CPD criticised Southern Water, Boohoo.com, Clarion Housing Group and Eddie Stobart Logistics, saying they were among the 735 who did not share their impact with the platform …”
I’m with Eddie.
Paul,
Here is a link to the latest IEA energy outlook. I used to peer review this publication until I got the elbow for disagreeing with their output.
Click to access WorldEnergyOutlook2023.pdf
Here’s why we drift along with these crazy NET Zero projects:
Just the first FIVE MINUTES of this near two hour video will give you the direction of travel.
Here is one new 2023 study that says that depending on the surface temperature and solar irradiance datasets that one uses, one can show anything from mostly human-caused warming to mostly natural caused warming.
‘Challenges in the Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Trends Since 1850’
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e
The datasets are historical so there in not much that can be done about them.
If ever there was a case of “Grooming”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/30/rspb-to-give-under-24s-free-access-to-its-nature-reserves-in-youth-revolution-aoe
From the Australian Maritime Safety Agency today :
https://www.amsa.gov.au/vessels-operators/domestic-commercial-vessels/dcv-safety-alert-022023-risks-associated-carriage
I wonder when Eurotunnel and the cross channel ferry operators will have a similar outbreak of common sense?
Havila Kystruten on the Norwegian coast already did in January 2023 :
https://maritime-executive.com/article/havila-bans-electric-and-hydrogen-vehicle-transport-due-to-fire-danger
The UK MCA needs to wake up !
Paul,
I monitor the National Grid each day and am still much puzzled that over the past few months we have been regularly importing up to 20% of UK demand from the interconnectors from the EU. Why on earth don’t we use our own resources, and when the wind doesn’t blow use our CCGTs to the max and not import. Thanks for all your good work. James Coupe
We have a new escalation – CARBON BOMB!!!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/31/france-carbon-bomb-projects-banks-fossil-fuels-climate
Ironic, seeing as France has a large nuclear fleet.
The warmists are a confused bunch. Now we have what they’re calling a climate catch-22 (though it’s probably better to say Hobson’s Choice?)… https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/climates-catch-22-cutting-air-pollution-heats-up-the-planet/
Most people don’t seem to know that the Earth is in a 2.56 million-year ice age, in a warmer but still cold interglacial period that usually lasts around 10,000 years and alternates with very cold glacial periods that usually last around 90,000 years. 20% of the land is either permafrost or covered by glaciers. Most of the land outside the tropics is too cold to live on all year without technology in the form of warm clothes, shoes and the like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
Hi Paul, having complained 3 times to the Met Office that their online list of Synoptic and Climate stations was out of date and included several closed stations (e.g. Gravesend which closed in 2018), they have now released a new updated version.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-synoptic-and-climate-stations
I intend to go through the new list and check out their likely WMO classification as Tim Channon did in the past.
For starters I selected one I had not noticed before “Chertsey Abbey Mead Pumping Station”. It looked reasonably okay on Google Maps but the more recent Bing aerial shot revealed this.
https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=51.39824~-0.494294&lvl=18.0&style=h
So being surrounded by a solar farm is now considered “natural”!
The second one was Cippenham Sewage Works
https://www.google.com/maps/place/51°30'21.6“N+0°38’27.6″W/@51.5067717,-0.6431873,113m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d51.506!4d-0.641?entry=ttu
So sewage settlement tanks in under 10 metres is now okay.
Bear in mind that in notifying me of updating their list they assured me all stations were regularly inspected and met the highest WMO standards – though which ones they didn’t actually say.
Paul, from the word weasels and “support all leftie causes” merchants at the BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-67340907
Australia offers climate refuge to Tuvalu citizens
Pushing what is simply a political decision to allow them working and study visas under the umbrella of climate nonsense is a wilful desire by virtue signalling politicians to buy votes from stupid people. Picked up of course by the “impartial BBC”. They are not being evacuated. This is just to allow them to visit!
Tellingly, NOWHERE in the article does the BBC point to an actual problem occurring now requiring an actual solution. It is the usual “in the future(maybe)” crap.
In case you do not know and to point out how egregious the lobbying by political chancers on Tuvalu and other Pacific coral islands are and how desperate the climatistas are for causes, I will point out the following FACTS.
An Athol is an extinct oceanic volcano. Oceanic volcanoes occur above stationary hotspots in the Earth’s Mantle. Heat causes the oceanic crust to rise at the point where the volcano emerges. Now, because hotspots produce magma episodically and are stationary and the oceanic plates move over them, the result is a chain of extinct volcanos as only the volcano above the hotspot is active. When the plate moves away from the hotspot three things happen. Firstly volcanic activity stops, secondly because of a missing heat source beneath it, the volcano begins to subside and thirdly erosion of the volcano takes place. Quite quickly in geological time the volcano is planed off and becomes a convenient site for corals to form which require shallow water. It then becomes a race between the volcano subsiding and the coral forming. The volcano continues to subside and as a consequence the coral grows upward towards the light. At one time or another the coral grows faster than subsidence and becomes emergent and guess what, the coral is bleached. In the short term the coral growth can keep pace with subsidence but in the end subsidence ALWAYS wins. As the atoll sinks deeper, coral growth slows and the coral eventually dies as it’s access to light decreases. The Atoll sinks to a point where it is then renamed a guyot. Look in front of the Hawaiian island chain. There we find guyots with fossilized coral reefs on them tens or hundreds of metres below the surface.
Anyone discussing coral islands and deliberately omitting to provide this critical scene setting information is guilty of wilful lying by omission.
Final point on Tuvalu. The BBC’s partners in crime at NASA in shear arrogance give the game away thinking I suppose that people are so poorly educated and impressionable now they will not see it:
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/265/nasa-un-partnership-gauges-sea-level-threat-to-tuvalu/
I quote from paragraph 14:
“The average rate of increase (sea level rise) is already 1.5 x faster than the global average”.
Conclusion: So there MUST be another process other than sea level rise taking place!
The shear effrontery of those writing puff pieces based on the words of supposed scientist beggars belief!
They then completely lose all scientific integrity without empirical data based evidence to turn on project fear by telling readers (based on the totally debunked RCP 8.5 MODELS) that sea level is expected to rise 8 inches by 2050 and “perhaps” 20-40 inches by the turn of the century. Think of that 100% uncertainty on a range which is already beyond extreme of with no substantiating evidence of any kind. The rate of sea level rise has not changed for 100 years.
OK I’m done!
Regards
JonnyScott
Shhhh! Don’t tell anybody:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/ski-resorts-open-lifts-weeks-early-as-thick-snowfall-piles-into-the-alps/ar-AA1jQDXq?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=2cbd1d47a06049b0a557039d946d6018&ei=35
Paul, I just cannot not comment on this absurdity:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/11/13/greta-thunberg-pro-palestine-mic-climate-march-amsterdam/
Firstly does the guy not get that the whole climate charade is political let alone St Gretha playing puppet to her marxist puppeteers
Secondly, am I the only one to notice they are BOTH dressed in a celebration of hydrocarbons…..both of their jackets are made from synthetic fibres which come from…..you’ve guessed it, oil and gas! The shear level of asininity and wilful ignorance on display is breathtaking.
A Cautionary Tale for Greta
One crisp winter morning in Sweden, a cute little girl named Greta woke up to a perfect world, one where there were no petroleum products ruining the earth. She tossed aside her cotton sheet and wool blanket and stepped out onto a dirt floor covered with willow bark that had been pulverized with rocks. “What’s this?” she asked.
“Pulverized willow bark,” replied her fairy godmother.
“What happened to the carpet?” she asked.
“The carpet was nylon, which is made from butadiene and hydrogen cyanide, both made from petroleum,” came the response.
Greta smiled, acknowledging that adjustments are necessary to save the planet, and moved to the sink to brush her teeth where instead of a toothbrush, she found a willow, mangled on one end to expose wood fibre bristles.
“Your old toothbrush?” noted her godmother, “Also nylon.”
“Where’s the water?” asked Greta.
“Down the road in the canal,” replied her godmother, ‘Just make sure you avoid water with cholera in it”
“Why’s there no running water?” Greta asked, becoming a little peevish.
“Well,” said her godmother, who happened to teach engineering at MIT, “Where do we begin?” There followed a long monologue about how sink valves need elastomer seats and how copper pipes contain copper, which has to be mined and how it’s impossible to make all-electric earth-moving equipment with no gear lubrication or tires and how ore has to be smelted to a make metal, and that’s tough to do with only electricity as a source of heat, and even if you use only electricity, the wires need insulation, which is petroleum-based, and though most of Sweden’s energy is produced in an environmentally friendly way because of hydro and nuclear, if you do a mass and energy balance around the whole system, you still need lots of petroleum products like lubricants and nylon and rubber for tires and asphalt for filling potholes and wax and iPhone plastic and elastic to hold your underwear up while operating a copper smelting furnace and . . .
“What’s for breakfast?” interjected Greta, whose head was hurting.
“Fresh, range-fed chicken eggs,” replied her godmother. “Raw.”
“How so, raw?” inquired Greta.
“Well, . . .” And once again, Greta was told about the need for petroleum products like transformer oil and scores of petroleum products essential for producing metals for frying pans and in the end was educated about how you can’t have a petroleum-free world and then cook eggs. Unless you rip your front fence up and start a fire and carefully cook your egg in an orange peel like you do in Boy Scouts. Not that you can find oranges in Sweden anymore.
“But I want poached eggs like my Aunt Tilda makes,” lamented Greta.
“Tilda died this morning,” the godmother explained. “Bacterial pneumonia.”
“What?!” interjected Greta. “No one dies of bacterial pneumonia! We have penicillin.”
“Not anymore,” explained godmother “The production of penicillin requires chemical extraction using isobutyl acetate, which, if you know your organic chemistry, is petroleum-based. Lots of people are dying, which is problematic because there’s not any easy way of disposing of the bodies since backhoes need hydraulic oil and crematoriums can’t really burn many bodies using as fuel Swedish fences and furniture, which are rapidly disappearing – being used on the black market for roasting eggs and staying warm.”
This represents only a fraction of Greta’s day, a day without microphones to exclaim into and a day without much food, and a day without carbon-fibre boats to sail in, but a day that will save the planet.
Tune in tomorrow when Greta needs a root canal and learns how Novocain is synthesized.
Love this. It should be read out in all school assemblies..
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/prices-new-wind-and-solar-farms-can-charge-are-hiked-after-failed-summer-auction/ar-AA1jZCq5?cvid=61c0fab3521d4a9ede04151747a3d800&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=23
They say:
“The new proposals also hike the maximum price that a solar farm is allowed to charge from £47 to £61 per MWh, while floating offshore wind – an emerging technology – will rise from £116 to £176 per MWh.
“The maximum price for tidal power will rise from £202 to £261 per MWh, and the geothermal price from £119 to £157. The prices are all in 2012 money.”#
Then add:
“Even at these new prices, there is still no cheaper way to meet the UK’s rising electricity demand and increase our energy security.
“Dan McGrail, RenewableUK chief executive – However, if no changes were made no offshore wind turbines might be built.
“Seeing as even at the new price offshore wind is cheaper than gas, that would in reality mean higher prices for customers.”
Now I’m really confused.
A statistic you won’t hear at COP28?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/twelve-billionaires-climate-emissions-outpollute-2-1m-homes-analysis-finds/ar-AA1kcmNi?ocid=msedgntp&pc=EDGEESS&cvid=af2b90a69d514a0d84cfebd69b3799fb&ei=34
Even Bill Gates gets a mention, which is difficult for the Guardian, Gates being a major benefactor.
we are seeing Channel 4 putting out climate catastrophe programmes this week. Now noted that RTE, Ireland’s state broadcaster, putting out fake docudrama about future climate change effects. Nicely taken apart by Ivor Cummings https://odysee.com/@IvorCummins:f/unmissable-main-national-tv-station:4
Coincidental cross broadcaster timing?
BBC at it again .. Tonight’s Pointless – current series, not a repeat – slips in a Climate Change question…… (when down to two pairs) so 17.45
includes where was COP27, the name of the Swedish troll, earthshot winner etc
Any odd stuffed toys on the lecterns?
BBC at it again .. Tonight’s Pointless – current series, not a repeat – slips in a Climate Change question…… (when down to two pairs) so 17.45
includes where was COP27, the name of the Swedish troll, earthshot winner etc
more propaganda on the BBC web this morning. Highlighted as a feature article on their home page.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67483064
Another sign of desperation:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/11/23/one-metre-rule-for-heat-pumps-to-be-scrapped/
“The Autumn Statement says ministers will “consult on introducing new permitted development rights to end the blanket restriction on heat pumps one metre from a property boundary in England”.”
In BBC land starting to believe in Climate Change now makes you one of the 100 top women in the world. A really bizarre article.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67483064
Quite interesting to dissect.
Quote 1: “To move away from those people meant leaving behind an entire community at a time when I didn’t have many friends”.
Drink that in. She is already in LeftieWoke mindset which is that there is ONLY ONE opinion and if you do not share my opinion then you are not my friend. This is a completely irrational statement but commonly heard from the retarded extreme left ideologs.
Quote 2: Oh she uses “climate-change deniers”. She uses the pejorative to prove her bona fides for belonging to the new religious group
Quote 3: “I tuned into NPR, a US non-profit broadcaster. I don’t remember which show it was, or the specific news story, but I remember how they described the issue in a completely different way from what I had heard on my usual stations. And it sounded so reasonable.
Suddenly, other news stories I listened to on my usual stations stopped making sense. One that really touched a nerve was about contraceptive pills, which had been framed as something bad, that women just wanted to be promiscuous”.
She CANNOT tell the difference between empirical data based fact and OPINION! She makes zero mention that NPR supplied information ONLY based on statistically significant empirical data. No she preferred them because they spout on every “liberal” leftie subject treating women ( and the planet) as victims.
My conclusion. She is a classic borderline mentally deficient who lives by received wisdom. Remember those Nuremberg Rallies….
This is now default BBC. Pure emotional twaddle by a clearly soft brained and impressionable individual.
Emotions expressed by vulnerable people are now facts. Why else do you think they love to gush over “indigenous people” because their default “innocence and default proto-victimhood” provides a good platform for the BBC to promote their lived experience as facts.
The sooner the BBC is off my payroll the better!
More virtue signalling:
https://www.planetf1.com/features/explained-2026-formula-1-engine-regulations#:~:text=F1%202026%20engine%20rules%20explained&text=The%20new%20fuel%20will%20be,times%20more%20powerful%20than%20before.
“New Fuel: A significant step forward in the 2030 “Net Zero Carbon” project is the introduction of a new carbon-free fuel, which will be in effect from 2026. The new fuel will be 100% carbon-free, meaning no new fossil fuel carbon emissions.”
But then they get real:
“The introduction of new fuel in Formula 1 is undoubtedly a significant step in the fight against planetary pollution. However, its actual impact on the world around us will likely be minimal, if at all. The main contributors to environmental harm are the hundreds of thousands of fans traveling from different parts of the world to attend F1 races. Additionally, teams transporting all their equipment and staff also contribute significantly more pollution than a single F1 race.”
They still have to account for the trackside emissions. Anybody like o guess how many MWh consumed over the three-four days/nights at Las Vegas, for instance?
BBC….. again! saturday 05.50 BBC1 Unseen world,.. John Simpson talking with Rowlatt about Abu Dhabi hosting COP28. Usual total biased and inaccurate diatribe. Impartial? ha!
Paul,
Not sure if you have seen this. I have to say it is a while since a person who sits outside of the woke bubble of influence commented and I have to say he seems a pretty level headed guy. This is a case of the little boy and the Emperors Clothes. Sultan Al Jaber simply speaks sense. Also his comment regarding no science to back up their religion is correct because there IS NO SCIENCE to back up the CO2 control knob belief system propping up the climate religion.
As I repeatedly bang on, there can only be science when a theory or assertion is supported by statistically significant empirical data produced by a falsifiable methodology.
There exists no statistically significant empirical data of any kind which supports claims that CO2 returned to the Carbon Cycle by the actions of man during the past 153 years since the end of the Little Ice Age can in any measurable way be show to be responsible for part or all of the current welcome warming, the fourth such warming in recent human history.
NO EMPIRICAL DATA, NO SCIENCE Q.E.D.
The pet “science” weasels pretend the product of models are empirical data. This is simply scientific fraud.
Suffice to say it put the lefties and their apologists have gone into into meltdown. How dare he have a view which does not conform to their leftie agenda! It is telling how angry they get when their core belief is threatened.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/03/back-into-caves-cop28-president-dismisses-phase-out-of-fossil-fuels?mc_cid=5f58d8297a&mc_eid=6e6c09ffcb
Keep up the good work!
Regards
JonnyS
Rolls Royce seeing the light (or the risk?):
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/rolls-royce-plans-sell-electric-114029541.html
“The strategy represents Rolls-Royce doubling down on jet engines burning kerosene as the future of passenger flight, rather than electric technology that is increasingly focused on shorter journeys. That would mean Rolls-Royce would be dependent on production of so-called sustainable aviation fuel to decarbonise its products.”
Hot off the press. From the BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67612929
COP28: Head of UN talks hits back at climate denial claims
Has he been nobbled? He is now speaking in platitudes. Maybe he was leaned on because they ran out of defibrillators to deal with all the heart palpitations his words caused at the junket suffered by all the thousands of worthless hangers-on who’s salaries depend on promoting the lie?
Notice that this was reported by none other than one of the BBC’s foremost climate change reporters…. the “famous” …..Georgina Rannard who’s education is in modern history… I kid you not! I suppose in a way it makes her relevant because her head will have been filled with the correct amount of pollution.
Story tip
Scottish Government trying to “bully and intimidate homeowners” into installing heat pumps after statistics revealed only 164 installations completed under a key funding scheme in the space of seven months.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23967686.harvies-heat-pump-plans-warning-grant-completions-stall/?ref=ebln&nid=1220&u=7b2a8d7531b023e4cc37b1b60401d833&date=051223
Can somebody help me interpret the Gridwatch numbers, please? I’m talking about this site: G. B. National Grid status (templar.co.uk)
A snapshot at 10:45 this morning showed demand at 44.37MW, output from gas, wind, nuclear, coal biomass and hydro combined was 43.76MW. Then the interconnectors have to be considered: French -2.56, Dutch 0.41, Irish and E-W nil, Nemo -0.62, Norway -1.45MW. Adding the positive Dutch reading to the UK producers nearly balances the demand, at 44.17MW. How do I account for what I assume is output to France, Nemo and Norway?
Hi Ian,
You may find Kate Morley’s site easier to navigate than Leo’s.
https://grid.iamkate.com/
plus you get averages & price
Hi, Thanks for that. I’ll have a look.
Paul
The perfect Christmas present.
Customisable Orange ‘T’ Shirts beginning JUST STOP, then add your phrase of choice.
My personal contribution is:
JUST STOP
JUST STOP OIL
JUST STOP
ULEZ
JUST STOP
IMMIGRANTS
JUST STOP
LYING ABOUT CLIMATE
https://www.juststoptshirts.com/product-page/just-custom-t-shirts
sky news doing climate fear porn this morning . We’re all gonna drown
attenborough . LivingPlanet. final episode last night. Some worthwhile conservation “heroes” covered. Then the climate change stuff featuring the former president of the Maldives and his coral reef fear porn (i.e. if temps go above 1.5C then reefs disappear and so do the Maldives) and his political activity at COP26. I think we still have the coral dont we. But BBC still telling porkies
All of this BS relies on wilful ignorance from the “bought” once upon a time scientists who know damned well what an atoll is, how it evolves and how it will end up ( hundreds of meters below sea level), regardless of any change either positively or negatively in sea level.
Also any journo reporting this garbage can look up atolls and in 5 minutes learn that the klymutt story they are being given to push exists in a bubble devoid of hard facts. That they do not bother to check is an indictment on them all and proves their complicity by perpetuating fairy stories in support of the AGW conspiracy. There is NO excuse for them not knowing.
Thought you’d appreciate this from the BMJ today …
https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2884
“As we approach the close of 2023, a hard, unforgiving year, consider this: the world, as we know it, is about to end. Life on Earth may not survive into the 22nd century; humanity has no more than 30 years. The window of opportunity to prevent both those extinction events is less than eight years, says doctor and climate activist Hugh Montgomery (youtube.com/watch?v=i2a-6KCAuKs).”
Incredible the number of Klymutt doom “experts” there are out there and the mediums just waiting for them to tell us “oh no it is worse than we thought”.
I suggest the good doctor sticks to what he has (hopefully) been taught, because he is hardly qualified to discuss either climate OR extinctions. I would hope the lack of critical thinking he is displaying is confined to subjects that he clearly knows nothing about!
As we see repeatedly, even having a 30 metres swimming certificate makes you an “expert” to spout unsubstantiated twaddle in support of the leftie plan of plans.
My late father resigned from the BMA more than 25 years ago because even then they were in the process of being taken over by left leaning political activists and were indulging in practices way beyond their remit. He repeatedly reminded them that they were called the BMA not the BMU for a very important and legally significant reason which the infiltrating activists ignored and were not brought to task for by the other useful idiots in the system.
Paul,
Only part of today’s klymutt porn from our reliable friends at the BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-67654008
A recycling of the already debunked claim that mosquitoes ONLY only exist in warm climates, ignoring reality again
Paul,
Your second helping today from the BBC,
I really do not know where to start. This is pure feelings and emotions which is ALL the BBC have..
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231206-the-coloured-stripes-that-explain-climate-change
Just drink in all of that meaningless piffle.
However even the BBC excels themselves. Please scroll down to the section on “Why polar bears are no longer the poster image of climate change”
I could not believe they dared to write the following
I quote: “For decades distressed polar bears on distant ice caps were an emblem for climate change – until experts began to doubt the effectiveness of these visuals”.
Just ponder those words. No mention of facts, just “visuals” . Propagandists consider the “effectiveness of visuals”! What kind of people does the BBC employ? Do you they have to have experience of working on psyops in the Kremlin? Right and wrong are now “visuals”! Incredible. No mention that the claims they were making were completely debunked by people like Dr Susan Crockford who actually did some work and showed that the “experts” the BBC was quoting.
As for the hero who wrote this. Once again the BBC seemingly deliberately using an Arts graduate (in this case one Frankie Adkins) to spout nonsense on science.
Ironically, mining companies are using ‘Intermittent Energy Collectors’, usually Wind and Solar, in their production processes. It helps that their applications are much less time critical, just like the Dutch Windmills pumping their land dry. It doesn’t matter when the Energy arrives, just so long as it arrives as the months go by. Also, as mines are located close to the targeted ore bodies, which can be ‘anywhere’, anything that can improve their supply chains for Power, Water, Transportation, and a Workforce, is welcomed.
The use of solar energy in the copper mining processes: A comprehensive review, October 2021
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666790821002196
It’s also being used where Reliable Electricity generation isn’t reliable:
South Africa’s Gold Fields bets on solar to cut costs and carbon [dioxide emissions]
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/south-africas-gold-fields-bets-solar-cut-costs-carbon-2022-10-13
And this, also reported a year ago, from a Copper miner in Spain, where it should lower costs as well as improve cost control:
50 MW Solar Plant
Construction of Atalaya’s 50 MW solar plant at Proyecto Riotinto is underway, with equipment for the solar plant starting to arrive on site at the end of October.
https://www.accesswire.com/720587/Atalaya-Mining-PLC-Announces-Q3-2022-Operations-Update
At Atalaya, the Electricity is being used to power this:
“The E-LIX System is a newly developed electrochemical extraction process that utilises singular catalysts and physicochemical conditions to dissolve the valuable metals contained within sulphide concentrates.”
https://atalayamining.com/operations/e-lix-phase
Paul,
More egregious deceit from the word weasels of the BBC
This one is not new but I parked it and came across it again. It annoys because it is now classic BBC form where the headline misleads completely. For a media outlet who are big on calling anything they do not agree with disinformation or misinformation this is a clear example of them peddling just that.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-67501813
Mount Stewart: Renowned gardens already affected by climate change
The title could not be more clear. But when you read the article this is what you find and I quote :
“There are plans to move part of the grounds in Mount Stewart, on the Ards Peninsula in County Down, in response to forecasted changes”.
Forecasted changes DOES NOT mean “already here”. The headline is therefore clearly wrong and I would claim deliberately so. So why is the BBC doing this? Because I would suggest they know a large number of people do not read the substance of an article, a large number seeing only the headlines.
This is only the tip of the iceberg but the BBC needs to be called out for this.
Also I need to point out that ONCE AGAIN the BBC uses an Arts Graduate to spout about subjects they know nothing about. Louise Cullen in this case, called Agriculture & Environment Correspondent at BBC Northern Ireland has a degree of some kind in Law and accounting!
Regards
JonnyS
Hello Paul,
I usually avoid the BBC these days, for obvious reasons, but I noticed this today:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-63602501
Title:
Cold Weather: what does an unheated room do to your body?
And among the conclusions, this:
“The evidence clearly suggests that cold is more deadly than the heat, there are a higher number of deaths caused through cold snaps than there are through the heat snaps,” says Prof Bailey.
I thought it was interesting that the BBC would let such an obvious conclusion through their truth filter. I thought you might be able to put this to some use.
Thank you for all your efforts.
Paul,
More divorced from reality climate asininity from the BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-67747272
The Somerset family travelling to Australia without flying
“A family travelling to Australia without flying have reached Indonesia after a journey of three and a half months”.
Are these fools suggesting that irrespective of how bankrupt their claim for avoiding emitting CO2 on their travels that they think this is viable? 3.5 months to get to Oz?
“They decided to stop flying in 2002 “because of its effect on the climate”.
Where is the proof…the empirical data to support that absurd nonsens?
“They have travelled through Kazakhstan, China, Laos, Thailand and Indonesia, and are now in Dili, East Timor’s capital, hoping to find a boat to cross the Timor Sea to Darwin, Australia.
From there they plan to take a bus to Sydney.
Oh and NONE of those methods of transport use diesel? Is this guy so dense that he thinks only planes emit CO2? It seems so!
I would suggest their carbon footprint they are SO worried about will be significantly higher the way they travelled than using the plane.
Virtue signalling on acid and of course the BBC promotes it without question
I more and more realize we deserve what we get with people who can cerebrate as well as this guy and his family.
Regards
JonnyS
Paul,
The week 53 absurdity.
SHOCK Horror! People infected with a mind virus exhibit symptoms of……being infected with a mind virus!
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/12/the-surprising-connection-between-eco-anxiety-and-loneliness/?mc_cid=fba001e275&mc_eid=6e6c09ffcb
The BBC report this kind of garbage every few months. No where in the “report” do they consider that this is a direct consequence of project climate fear and not actual climate. The way bodies like the BBC, a major broadcaster of climate fear stories can sit back and suggest they are responsible for this psychosis, not the weather is further proof of their complete lack of respect for their audience.
To write an article like this sitting in some kind of bubble detached from reality suggests they are either wilfully ignorant or just one more bunch of liars in a cast of thousands of congenital liars who find associating with the climate fraud to be financially beneficial.
Yale once upon a time was a centre of academic excellence.
Regards
JonnyS
Somebody’s climate resilience committee appears to have been outvoted:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/the-2-1bn-mega-project-to-build-world-s-biggest-airport-in-city-loved-by-british-tourists/ar-AA1m7vee?cvid=34744672164945e9bfe89aee253678a3&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=5&sc=shoreline
Any idea what “Climate Resilience” actually means? Also for that matter “climate collapse”
Paul,
Professor Angus Dalgleish utterly decimates climate change as nonsense in an interview with Professor John Campbell.
The interview is about an hour long and predominantly about Covid/Vaccines/lockdowns etc. but about 50 minutes in Angus rips into climate change and draws parallels with the reasons for Covid.
Fascinating man and well worth a look.
The book mentioned – “The death of science” is out of stock on both Amazon and Waterstones. Sounds worth waiting for: https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-death-of-science/professor-paul-r-goddard/professor-angus-dalgleish/9781854571137
Thanks.
The book is here :
https://www.clinicalpress.co.uk/products/the-death-of-science
Thanks.
The book is here :
The Death of Science: The retreat from reason in the post-modern world
https://www.clinicalpress.co.uk/products/the-death-of-science
MG
There are so many gems throughout this exchange. I’m going to try to create a transcript for future reference.
Here we go, another trip to Fantasy Island, or is it a trip down Memory Lane Mk2?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/30/military-trials-cutting-edge-electric-boilers-heat-pumps/
The MoD has at least recognised that heat pumps are useless but still clutches at any straw that they think leads it to net zero.
“Cylo is a fridge-sized, emission-free electric boiler that is cheaper to run and more effective than a heat pump.
“It is also greener than a gas boiler and requires no major works to a building before it can be installed.
“Standing around 6ft tall and weighing around 250kg before being filled with water, it can be fitted in a ground floor room or on the outside of a building.”
Not quite the same as a 600x400x300 cabinet on a wall, but use your imagination!
https://remitzero.co.uk/
If this is an example of the green jobs arising out of net zero, we’re doomed. What sort of smart meter/energy retailer would be required to enable this kit to be cheaper to run than gas?
I read that an EV would have to travel 80000 miles to become “carbon neutral”. Is there an equivalent metric for the type of battery pack used with rooftop solar in domestic settings?
Thanks.
Hi
Another one!
https://apnews.com/article/cargo-ship-fire-alaska-safety-precautions-38e7a4e5e882617d184eb73ec928814e
cheers
P
They don’t give up, do they?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/12/31/heat-pumps-vattenfall-gas-boilers-uk-energy-network/
No mention of hot water, nor the cost of the infrastructure if starting from scratch. Locally, we do have some district heating and there’s talk of using mine water in lieu of run-of-river water, which would be even more effective if that particular mine was a hot one, but the kit and connections still have to be made and paid for. Some tenants on the existing systems have struggled with the cost.
Paul,
Tacit admission from the BBC that heat pumps are pants, except when using, wait for it…….Fossil Fuels (namely Propane Gas) as a refrigerant.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67511954
And there was me thinking nature got the patent & had been doing this for Billions of years … even got trade names like ‘Limestone’ & ‘Coral’ !!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientist-discover-how-to-convert-co2-into-powder-that-can-be-stored-for-decades/
Actually the story is quite interesting. Around 160 million years ago a bunch of shelly marine molluscs evolved. That they did well is made testament to by the huge volumes of organic shelly limestone which covers the globe. The hard shells these critters evolved are produced combining calcium with CO2 drown from water which then draws it from air. This is CO2 removed from the Carbon Cycle and not returned. The consequence never ever talked about by those shouting “follow the science” has been a linear 160 million year decline in atmospheric CO2 which has only recently and I would offer temporarily been halted with speculation that this is caused solely by the actions of man, nothing to do with volcanoes or the fact that the number of humans exhaling 40K ppm CO2 with each breath is increasing exponentially. The idiots trying to take us back to the StoneAge screech about things on a timescale of a few hundred or thousand years. I take a 160 million year trend very seriously as should our chief scientists!
Not talked about anywhere also by those shouting “follow the science” is the data which shows that during the first part of the current Ice Age, atmospheric CO2 concentration fell to 180ppm. That is 30 ppm only above the point at which photosynthesis is compromised. Go to or below 150ppm plants die, all oxygen breathing life in the food chain above photosynthesising plants dies= extinction event. Why are none of those screaming “follow the science not talking about this “science” ?
That 160 million year trend if extrapolated forward hits the red line for the death of plants in little over 1 million years from now. Armed with that empirical data based information surely THAT should be the issue of our time, not the meandering incoherence coming from Arts graduates who just need a cause to shriek about!
There is only one context for what is an “ideal” level of CO2 in the atmosphere and that is to look at Geological Time. In the Cambrian the level was 7000ppm. The Earth did not melt and seems life enjoyed it hence the “Cambrian Explosion” in diversity of species. When the Angiosperms ( plants we eat) evolved the level was 2500-2800ppm which is why commercial greenhouse growers pump CO2 into greenhouses because plants grow bigger, faster using less water when there is more CO2. Why does the BBC so up on spreading klymutt change driven water shortage fear porn not point this out I wonder? They only have interest in any story which concludes “oh no it is worse than we thought” . After all they are “impartial” are they not?
Anyway, When the Primates ( our ancestors evolved the level was 1500ppm. Taking an average over Geological Time we are presented with a value of 2500ppm. That for me is a reasonable aiming point if an “ideal” level of CO2 were even needed we certainly know too little means extinction. When I hear the Arts Graduates spouting their nonsense about the dangers of CO2 level rising and their aspirations of returning to 280ppm ( which was when we started measuring, nothing more nothing less), which was at an anomalous low in Earths History I realize that we have allowed the lunatics to run the asylum.
When I see my industry wasting its ingenuity on the shear asininity of CCS projects, I realize that the Enlightenment is not only under threat, it is over.
Ok, rant over!
Paul,
cracking short summary of the Drax scam by Roger Bisby at Skill Builder.
Hi Paul, you might like my new article on the Government’s latest policy pronouncements about hydrogen, CCUS & BECCS.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/weird-scenes-inside-the-energy-gold-mine
Paul,
From Roger Pielke Jr.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/an-egregious-failure-of-scientific
“An Egregious Failure of Scientific Integrity”
The first independent evaluation of NOAA’s “billion dollar disasters”
It begs the question. How was this possible with all the supposed internal checks on data quality and why the silence until an outsider poked his nose in?
We have suspected that the dice have been rigged for some time but to be rigged in such an institution requires approval/direction from those right at the top which means government.
The next question of course is if the science is so settled and so conclusive do they need to fiddle the books….unless…
Regards
JonnyS
Something is rotten in the house of climate
Has anybody looked at Labour’s “Mission – Climate” proposals, the one where they claim that they’ll cut our bills by “up to £1400 a year”. It features heavily on recently-circulated Labour election bumph. It includes this gem, with citations:
“Last summer, the price of gas was nine times higher than that of renewables, and it remains significantly higher. In 2021, industrial users were paying 62 per cent more for their electricity than the international median, even before Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.”
Looks like a spot situation, untypical and ignoring pricing practice. I’m working my way through it in preparation for a challenge.
i mighte have found BBC’s most subtle climate scare lie. Silent Witness on monday (at 51 minutes). Looking at lake (actually a reservoir) where a body might have been hidden 20 years earlier, they notice the water level gauge is low and conclude that the level has fallen 6 feet over the 20 years. Quote from dialogue “level’s falling ever year… planet’s heating up, don’t know if you’ve heard about it”
I refer to Paul’ post of 7 January:
“Councils make ‘undemocratic’ pledges in dash to reach net zero”
I sent in a FOIA question to my LA and here’s their response:
My questions
You’re aware that I’ve been asking since your declaration of a “climate emergency” [in 2019] why you haven’t sought a democratic mandate, particularly as you propose to “achieve” net zero in advance of a national government that is struggling to show how it can achieve that target by 2050.
An article has just been published in the Telegraph (transcript available if needed) showing that [council] isn’t alone in this undemocratic action and noting that a lot of councils have joined an organisation called UK100.
The article goes on to mention that many councils have signed up to an organisation called Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy.
Questions and responses are as follows: –
1. Has [council] signed up to either or both of these organisations? Reply – No
2. If so, have fees been paid for the access? Reply – No. N/A
3. Why do you think you can achieve net zero earlier than the UK as a whole, noting that a considerable percentage of carbon emissions are completely outside your control?
Reply: Please refer to the Cabinet decision which can be found here [link], that sets out the justification for declaring a climate emergency and the associated targets. The Sustainable Energy Action Plan acknowledges that some things are outside of the control of the Council.
4. Why have you not sought a democratic mandate for the more onerous and thus probably more expensive route you have chosen?
Reply: Please refer to the Cabinet decision in question 3 which addresses implications and governance arrangements. The Cabinet report forms part of a democratic process in line with the Council’s Constitution. The Council also works closely with the Yorkshire and Humber Climate Commission. The organisation is committed to working strategically and will continue to work hard to deliver on its objectives with the resources that are available.
5. When will the cost of this initiative to local taxpayers be published?
Reply: There are no plans to publish the cost associated with declaring a climate emergency.
Ends
The report referred to is over 4 years old and full of rubbish including reference to the Millennium Development Goals! They’ve committed about £40m to various madcap schemes, the money for most of which comes from London. Until London gets real, nothing will change in the sticks. One cost they did previously declare is a local overhead cost of about £200K/year.
The IEA at it again:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/international-energy-agency-ap-fatih-birol-bengaluru-india-b2476789.html
“IEA researchers found that prices for solar components in 2023 declined by almost 50% year-on-year. They predict that cost reductions and fast deployment will continue in 2024 as manufacturing exceeds demand.
“But IEA found that wind energy is facing more challenges, especially outside China, which has the world’s largest wind energy capacity. The agency cited issues including supply chain disruptions, higher costs and red tape preventing faster installations.”
Contradiction or apples and oranges? As for developing countries:
“The key challenges in developing countries are access to finance for installing renewable energy and the lack of strong governance and regulatory frameworks that would reduce risks and attract investments in clean energy.
“Tripling by 2030 will also depend on countries speeding up permitting and building out transmission and storage infrastructure, said Sean Rai-Roche, a policy advisor at climate think tank E3G who has long tracked developments in clean energy.”
All they need is money. Don’t worry about it actually working.
Hi Paul,
I’ve been a regular vistor to your site as I’m interested in the non-biased and fact based articles and discussions regarding all things global warming. I was wondering if you could take a look at this article from the Guardian and shed some light on whether this is actually true of if they are using the available sources of information (whatever they may be) in a way which intentionally supports the claim that “2023 smashes record for world’s hottest year by huge margin”
The article is here https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/09/2023-record-world-hottest-climate-fossil-fuel
Thanks
WIll
I mentioned below the Labour election leaflet featuring “Mission – Climate”. Since then, the Telegraph’s done a good take-down:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/01/14/sir-keir-starmer-plan-all-renewable-2030-unstuck/
Scottish Power, perhaps sensing an opportunity via Labour:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-power-plans-54bn-green-energy-cables-upgrade-07v5hz0dw
There’s a note that “SP to give evidence to the environmental audit select committee on Wednesday on what needs to be done to redesign the electricity grid to cope with the growth in renewable energy generation …” I hope there’s somebody on t’committee who is capable of asking searching questions.
See below. A linked story is this:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-slips-in-ey-ranking-of-best-countries-for-green-investment-nv65njx72
“EY described this [failed auction] as “a huge setback” for the hopes of meeting the targets and noted that “the sector had been warning for months that the terms on offer were too low, given the major cost and supply chain pressures that the sector has experienced”.
What happened to all that cheap wind energy?
Paul,
a deep dive into the MET’s claim of ‘Second hottest year on record” Courtesy of Off Guardian, concluding with:
“There is absolutely no reason to believe any of it. As “science” goes, it’s complete junk. I’ve read comics with more credibility that the Met Office’s claim that 2023 was the second warmest year in the UK since 1884.
Pull the the other one, it’s got bells on it.”
Paul, you get a mention:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/net-zero-nonsense-a-taxpayers-protest/
Absolutely brilliant. Exactly what I’ve been saying to my council for over 4 years, but put so much more eloquently. This is going to get a wide circulation locally.
A couple of posts ago, Paul worried about a £2billion bill for consumers from hydrogen. With apologies to Crocodile Dundee, you call that a bill? Nah, THIS is a bill:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/drax-gets-go-ahead-for-carbon-capture-project-at-estimated-40bn-cost-to-bill-payers/ar-AA1n4MCh?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=88c06d808a3d4853a5fe558c5795ee60&ei=3
What’s all this investment doing for the price of energy? According to Labour, it’s going to be cheap as chips.
i commented yesterday about Winterwatch BBC2 where Packham’s intro to Tuesday’s episode referred to “Climate breakdown” (see comment for quote). Just watching Wednesday’s and again in the intro he again refers to flooding caused by “extreme weather events, part of climate breakdown”. So this is two days in a row. Note this is live.
If we stop eating fish we can continue to fly?
“The research builds on previous work by some team members, published in 2021, which showed that bottom trawling released as much carbon dioxide into the ocean annually as the entire aviation industry, …”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/carbon-released-by-bottom-trawling-too-big-to-ignore-says-study/ar-AA1naqJT?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=f2fc4630788e48acb9a784e8e87c8645&ei=11
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/weather/topstories/us-space-force-satellite-data-shines-light-on-mystery-of-arctic-warming/ar-BB1gYcy2?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=6ca94862d4d14cbeb03cb99f392152cc&ei=75
“NASA and NOAA climate scientists recently reported that 2023 was the hottest year on record, with temperatures continuing to rise at shocking rates.”
If that’s not true, what about the rest?
Is it just me? I’ve just looked at the power generation mix (4:45pm). Demand was 42.7GW, generation only 85% of that number, so imports 15% approx. wind 20.54GW, 48.2%. Wind howling outside (S Yorks) and according to the BBC weather site, wind speed locally 48mph.
Is wind being constrained off or is that all we have? How’s it looking for Ed Miliband and his NZ by 2030 plan?
Paul,
they are coming after your allotment now!
Carbon footprint of homegrown food five times greater than those grown conventionally
The study found individual garden infrastructure responsible for increased levels of CO2
https://web.archive.org/web/20240122203005/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/22/carbon-footprint-homegrown-food-allotment-increase/
(Courtesy of Kit Knightly at Off Guardian)
Well – third electric bus in as many weeks! I think I shall be walking…
CK
Paul, Am suddenly unable to read comments. When I try the page simply changes to a full page view of the article concerned. WordPress are impossible contact, is there some problem at your end?
Hi Paul,
It is Friday so it is time for the BBC to push twaddle spouted by yet one more “emotional” scientist. An observation. I am a scientist. Emotion is not big in any of the disciplines I work with, yet it seems every “scientist” who’s opinion the BBC seeks cannot speak without being emotional. It is almost a requirement to be quoted by the BBC that you should speak using emotion language and call it science.
Hermit crabs are ‘wearing’ our plastic rubbish
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68071695
Our intrepid science correspondent Victoria Gill ( BSc. Neuroscience)
We are told that “Scientists said they were “heartbroken” to see the extent to which the animals were living in our rubbish”.
Note the idea of nature making use of plastic is avoided, rather it is bad and the heartbroken scientists would rather hermit crabs die that make such an unacceptable fashion mistake which does not fit the left wing nihilistic narrative.
Again emotional scientists! But why are the scientists “heartbroken? Because the hermit crabs do what hermit crabs do and “adapt”? So there were not enough shells around in the study area for the crabs so they adapted and THIS made the scientists “heartbroken”? Dear scientists in need of psychological help, hermit crabs do not give a moneys about looking nice for you, all they care about is protecting themselves by any means.
“But there is hope that 2024 could see nations finally sign up to a long-awaited global treaty to end the scourge of plastic.
Mark Miodownik, who is professor of materials and society at University College London told the BBC that there was a lesson for humans in these images. “Just like the hermit crabs,” he said, “we should be reusing plastics much more, instead of discarding it.”
So hermit crabs….the protectors of the pwannet have you and your unacceptable practices in their crosshairs so learn to share shells otherwise adaptation is not an option.
As usual the word weasels of the BBC hide the real information in the body of the text deliberately hoping that the reader will just scan and take their nonsense “everything human is bad for the environment” meme.
We accept artificial reefs….they are nice. What is wrong with artificial shells for hermit crabs? If these artificial shells were not around would the “heartbroken” scientists be happy if homeless hermit crabs were gobbled up? Probably!
As ever, keep up the good work!
Regards
JonnyS
More of the same:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/climate-change-push-up-home-insurance-bills-20pc/
A commenter asks: “Why report the opinion of an accountant on the frequency of weather events?”
Could there be a financial interest in claiming risks are higher, I wonder.
Forgot to mention this (reference Paul’s recent post):
“A typical storm season brings six or seven named storms. The 2023-24 storm naming season is now just one name away from equalling the 11 storms recorded in 2015-16, with over seven months to go.
“In the UK a storm will be named when it has the potential to cause disruption or damage which could result in an amber or red weather warning.”
Two stories that sum up the parallel universe situation we’re in:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1859371/poland-s-7bn-airport-europe-s-biggest
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7-reasons-why-theres-more-good-news-on-climate-change-than-you-think-q7bmxtwck
Another “EVs are bad” story or clutching at straws?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/preliminary-test-crashes-indicate-the-nation-s-guardrail-system-can-t-handle-heavy-electric-vehicles/ar-BB1hyHNw?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=751b19fc2bcb47949bc2a22a31ca04ff&ei=13
For a start, they picked a 4 tonne EV! Then they ran it at speed at 90 degrees to the barrier. Apparently the rails are designed for 5000lb vehicle weight, so what did they expect? The shock is that they don’t seem to care about trucks, buses, etc in the USA.
Paul,
I’m back in a diesel after 4yrs running both EV & PHEV. What needs to change to get me to go back?
An examination of the UK car market over the last few years by a genuine car enthusiast and expert.
Well worth watching with some genuine surprises.
They can’t help it (or could it be for the money?):
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/atlantic-ocean-circulation-nearing-devastating-tipping-point-study-finds/ar-BB1i39Vg?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=20095a4c2dd041f0a3a0a9956f0e3ae4&ei=7
“The scientists behind the research said they were shocked at the forecast speed of collapse once the point is reached, although they said it was not yet possible to predict how soon that would happen.
“Using computer models and past data, …”
And:
““What surprised us was the rate at which tipping occurs,” said the paper’s lead author, René van Westen, of Utrecht University. “It will be devastating.”
“He said there was not yet enough data to say whether this would occur in the next year or in the coming century, but when it happens, the changes are irreversible on human timescales.”
Real scientists do not get “shocked” unless they are 1. having their words sexed up by a copy writer or 2. They are playing to the gallery.
More #¤%&/ tipping points. Just look at the language. “Collapsing”? Collapsing were?
Question, WHY do they not ask why this did not occur also during the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warms? Also 10000 years ago was the end of the first installment of the current IceAge…. does not seem a lot of catastrophes happened EXCEPT of course a massive amount of sea level rise.
Also again and again and again there is the inference that this is caused by you driving your SUV to the supermarket.
Sciences exists only where there is statistically significant empirical data and given that none exists to link man OR CO2 to global temperature rise so given this is just more Moggles……
Garbage in, Garbage out.
Also given that this happened 10000 years ago shows it IS reversible and clearly cyclic. Who are these people who claim to be scientists but do not see cyclicity?
Paul,
THEY ARE BACK! Care of the ever emotional Mat McGrath… who clearly needs a whiff of CO2 to help with his problem of hyperventilation and lack of grasp of natural variation which is NATURE. Everything has to be the same all the time or there is doom and of course by inference it is man made. What a miserable life McGrath must lead with his attitude to humans as a curse on the planet.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68253819
Climate change: Polar bears face starvation threat as ice melts
The BBC is pushing the latest Polar Bear climate porn. After all of the debunking this new paper from Nature Communication extrapolated to the whole population based on the study of just 20 polar bears gives oxygen to their invented climate change icon myth.
Clearly ice melting in the summer is very bad to the hyperventilating McGrath and his equally excessively emotional friends. I am unsure where the “scientists” who came up with this are based.
They laughably claim an 11% variation in weight of some bears can be expressed as “starvation” based on a study of just 20 bears over a three year period and then drawing gross conclusions based on that.
There is this meaningless quote from someone unqualified to speak which shows just how stupid the BBC think their audience are:
“Regardless of which strategy they were trying to use, there was no real benefit to either approach as far as being able to prolong the period that they could survive on land,” according to lead author Dr Anthony Pagano, from the US Geological Survey in Alaska”.
He is from the Geological Survey, hardly a body full of Polar Bear “experts” What basis does he have for firstly, his opinion having any value and secondly, the fact that those “poor” polar bears sailed through three previous warm events (Minoan, Roman and Medieval) seemingly unscathed?
I have not read the paper yet but the BBC’s climate fear methodology is here for all to see. They post a headline which is not in line with the body of the text. Secondly they put any relevant information to the end of the piece cynically believing a lot of people will not read that far.
Has no one told them or those they quote that an attempt at claiming correlation does not prove causation? I need to read the paper but if the BBC interpretation is anything to go by it will be full of holes and assumptions. The emotion in the paper is classic BBC “science” reporting. Absurdly telling us the Polar Bears are resting trying to fix images in the minds of the gullible that they are all to shagged out after a swim to do anything. A bit like their killer whales last week “gasping for air” which was a 12 year olds “interpretation” of how they breath.
Interesting:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/net-zero/britain-great-grid-upgrade-absolute-disaster/
This sounds promising:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/sheffield-forgemasters-makes-monumental-step-for-production-of-small-nuclear-reactors/ar-BB1ivRkL?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=50520f30ff6e468b89dea2f1e04b94ab&ei=4
“It said its pioneering industrialisation of Local Electron-Beam Welding (LEBW), means it is now possible to take less than 24 hours to complete four, thick, nuclear-grade welds, a process that up to now has typically required a year of work to complete.”!!!!
“The company, which was nationalised by the Ministry of Defence in 2021, said the demonstration of LEBW technology’s potential opens new horizons for more efficient, low cost and less time-heavy nuclear assemblies.”
Time to sell it to Tata?
Just in case:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/21/car-charger-withdrawn-hackers-could-attack-national-grid/
“An electric vehicle charger has been pulled from sale amid warnings that foreign hackers could use it as a “weapon” to cause electricity blackouts.
“The Office for Product Safety and Standards, the consumer safety regulator, has told charger company Wallbox that its Copper SB electric car charger does not comply with cyber security laws. That means it cannot be sold because it cannot be properly secured against hackers.
“Critics say continued sales of the Copper SB charger, which sells for around £500, risks letting hostile nations disrupt the UK’s critical national infrastructure.”
EU ‘Totally Dependent’ on China’s Lithium, EC President Admits
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240222/eu-totally-dependent-on-chinas-lithium—von-der-leyen-1116924379.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/the-achilles-heel-of-the-fossil-fuel-industry-why-climate-activists-are-targeting-insurance-firms/ar-BB1iK7Mm?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=876d1538ef31423e9d98785737120e72&ei=89
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/us-campaigners-call-on-uk-public-for-support-over-alleged-impact-of-drax-plant/ar-BB1jahyR?cvid=e28374dad6a7472a9a40046a75265286&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=20&sc=shoreline
“The Drax Amite plant in Gloster converts trees from the southern states into wood pellets which are then shipped to the UK for use at the firm’s power station near Selby, North Yorkshire.
“It was fined 2.5 million US dollars (£1.9 million) in 2020 for beaching air protection rules over the levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), exposure to which can cause a variety of health issues.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/10/wind-solar-farms-south-england-charge-more-energy/
“A key aim is to halt an increase in ‘constraint payments’ – where wind and solar farms are paid to turn off their generators to stop them overloading the grid at peak times.
“This is particularly a problem when energy companies build wind farms in remote northern locations with insufficient grid connections to carry their power south. This can cause infrastructure to be overloaded at times of high wind.”
Why has the government allowed such obvious problems to continue? Perhaps of developers had to include the cost of getting the power to somewhere useful they’d be mor hesitant.
We can only hope the Germans win this one:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/britain-issued-urgent-warning-as-germany-plots-to-take-16bn-mega-project/ar-BB1jKSNK?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=ebd61d9c70ed4263b77f96cf293aeba8&ei=23
“The scheme would allow Britain to overcome its biggest challenge of how to get renewable energy on days when the sun is not shining, with Morocco seeing near-constant sun and strong winds in the afternoon and evening, during periods when the UK is not.”
And when it gets dark in Morocco?
Hi Guys,
I’ve just been suspended by the Daily Telegraph for asking readers to sign the following petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/657353
“Repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and Net Zero targets”
Dear Reader,
You have been suspended from our commenting platform for three days for posting comments which contravene section 4 of our community guidelines.
Your suspension is specifically in relation to the section on repeatedly posted spam-like content. Please be respectful when interacting with other users.
Please be aware that repeated breaches of the guidelines may result in permanent removal of commenting privileges.
Our guidelines state that all content is subject to our Terms of Use and we reserve the right to remove any content, comments and/or commenting privileges at any time, without reason and without prior notice or warning and will not enter into any discussions regarding moderation decisions or actions.
Kind regards,
The Community Moderation Team
We have the numbers signing the petition up to 5,522 in a month and at the very least I’d like to get it to 10,000 when Govt will respond.
Could anyone post requests on the Telegraph? Make sure it is on a relevant page and don’t post too often!
All the best,
Simon
Hi Guys,
I’ve just been suspended by the Daily Telegraph for asking readers to sign the following petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/657353
“Repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 and Net Zero targets”
Dear Reader,
You have been suspended from our commenting platform for three days for posting comments which contravene section 4 of our community guidelines.
Your suspension is specifically in relation to the section on repeatedly posted spam-like content. Please be respectful when interacting with other users.
Please be aware that repeated breaches of the guidelines may result in permanent removal of commenting privileges.
Our guidelines state that all content is subject to our Terms of Use and we reserve the right to remove any content, comments and/or commenting privileges at any time, without reason and without prior notice or warning and will not enter into any discussions regarding moderation decisions or actions.
Kind regards,
The Community Moderation Team
We have the numbers signing the petition up to 5,522 in a month and at the very least I’d like to get it to 10,000 when Govt will respond.
Could anyone post requests on the Telegraph? Make sure it is on a relevant page and don’t post too often!
All the best,
Simon
Here is another petition needing our support – to introduce restrictions on solar farms: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/651262?fbclid=IwAR3M69co4a5Xr26LeI_Ia4njKdwk_KBXV9GqnO9Un8_kdpQ8l6VtK3N-7mc
Hi Paul Interested in your thoughts on this on the BBC Website – yet again they cannot help themselves and bring climate change into the picture – even though they posted about the same topic in March 2018https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-43550363
More nonsense and scaremongering from the BBC. A new edition of The Inquiry on BBC Sounds asking if we will need to start living underground because of climate change.
“More than half of the world’s population currently lives in cities, and by 2050, the UN estimates that figure will rise to nearly 7 in 10 people. The world is also getting hotter, with heatwaves and wildfires becoming increasingly common.
So how can we deal with the dual challenges of increasing urbanisation and extreme weather caused by climate change? Perhaps we should look downwards.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct4wfc?at_mid=fvP4MAgiwH&at_campaign=The_Inquiry_Is_our_future_underground&at_medium=display_ad&at_campaign_type=owned&at_link_origin=promo_box&at_audience_id=TV&at_product=sounds&at_brand=w6rkwqrx&at_ptr_name=bbc&at_ptr_type=media&at_format=image&at_objective=consumption&at_link_title=The_Inquiry_Is_our_future_underground&at_bbc_team=BBC
Just a recent thing I noticed about Met Office climate stations. You recently quoted Pershore as being in the CET but that it was a poor quality site. There seems to some confusion about this as there are two sites called Pershore. This one
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-climate-averages/gcq89t680
is at the end of the defunct runway, (where they now park zillions of cars and buried thousands of foot and moth slaughtered cows! ) they actually detail as Throckmorton. The other Pershore site is at Pershore College but does not actually seem to be any better sited either.
Paul: I’ve tried to contact you a few times recently but the mail address I’ve used for years no longer seems to work. Please send me an email. Thanks – Robin
Paul,
Southwestwater are claiming “In 2022, a hosepipe ban was put in place in Cornwall and parts of North Devon after the biggest drought in the region for over 130 years”
It was probably the longest hosepipe ban but I don’t believe it was hotter or drier than 1976.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/hose-pipe-dream-south-west-085232896.html?guccounter=1
Paul, when virtue signalling shows it’s cost!
Falling weather delays undermine rail chief’s climate warning (telegraph.co.uk)
Paul,
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68665166
Climate change: ‘Uncharted territory’ fears after record hot March
BBC climutt porn from who else but the witless McGrath
May I quote from this classic piece of climate derangement
“But temperatures began breaking records by a particularly large margin around last September, and back then, El Niño was still developing, so can’t explain all of the extra warmth.
‘Harder to predict the future’
Dr Schmidt is concerned about what this means for predictions going forward.
“Our predictions failed quite dramatically for the specifics of 2023, and if previous statistics don’t work, then it becomes much harder to say what’s going to happen in the future,” he said”
So in a nutshell, they have not got a clue what is going on. 40 years they have been paid and their worthless models based on their carbon dioxide temperature control knob do NOT WORK and he admits it. REAL uncontaminated scientists would then start thinking outside of their paid box but not when the prizewinner McGrath is in charge of creating climutt porn. Clearly he has not read or understood what the scientist for climate cash scientist said because he goes global with the BBC default “scientists say” and I quote:
“But scientists are certain about one thing: the way to stop the world warming is to rapidly cut emissions of planet-warming gases”.
So let me see, climate industry scientist says we have not got a clue what is causing the warming and McGrath then inserts that “scientists” ARE sure what is causing it!!!!
What the…….!
Shoddy activist journalism of the most shoddy kind
Paul,
Did you see this forecast from ‘senior meteorologist’ Jim Dale a few weeks ago?
Meteorologist Jim Dale claims Brits are in for a sweltering spring, seeing heat to rival that of 2022’s in April of this year.
“We will see hot weather start to bake in during the course of April, and at times in the summer time,” Mr Dale said. “We are not divorced from what is going around the globe and what is going on is quite frightening in terms of the temperature profiles. The USA has just had its warmest winter ever.”
Never mind Jim Dale, This looks serious:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/news/we-were-in-disbelief-antarctica-is-behaving-in-a-way-we-ve-never-seen-before-can-it-recover/ar-AA1nsRPo?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=36a916bf1aad4140bc7a3e426984ed65&ei=17&sc=shoreline
“This looks serious:”
To who ??
Currently Antarctic seaice is growing rapidly ( ~7 million sqkm as I write this)
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/antarctic-daily-image-update/
Fightback:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/angry-campaigners-against-plans-for-england-s-biggest-wind-farm-join-forces-for-public-meeting/ar-AA1nsnnw?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=6a68ec9e0a4c4ac78ccfc897a2133360&ei=14
Dear Paul,
I was wondering if you could help me.
Background:
As you may know I have been collecting detailed daily weather data (mainly ½ hourly observations) for 28 locations in the UK for the last 25 years 6 months.
Just over two years ago, I was diagnosed with Gastric Oesophageal Junction cancer. After six months intense chemotherapy I had a major operation to remove the tumor. It didn’t go quite as planned as I spent the next 3 weeks on life support (ICU) and a further 7 weeks in high dependency (HDU). I was released with an all clear, no cancer.
After a six moth CT scan they found the tumor was back and had cancer cells in both my lymph nodes and liver and given a year to live. The latest CT scan showed more cancer cells in both liver and lymph nodes. I have started another Chemo treatment, 8 x 3-week cycle and was given 18 weeks survival time.
Now to the point, it seem to be a hell of a waste having wasted over 25 years with excellent data and losing it. Do you know of anyone who would like to take over data collection and analysis of such data for another five years to give a very strong “climate” argument.
I will provide all training, links to data, contacts, and details of those within Wyoming University, Excel spreadsheets etc. It takes me an hour and a half to collect and analyse the data daily and a couple of hours extra at the end of each month for statistical work for the website.
Hoping you will know someone willing to carry on, it would mean a lot.
Thank you and kind regards
Neil Catto
Hi Paul,
You might be interested in my latest article. Claims of free electricity sound good don’t they? To good to be true. Let’s call it the Agile Octopus Freeloader problem.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/agile-octopus-freeloader-problem
P.S. you might want to break up this comments page or archive older comments to make it more usable.
Paul,
Oh No!!!! Toys being thrown out of prams by proxy by the bedwetters at the Grauniad!
“Sunak to allow oil and gas exploration at sites intended for offshore wind”.
Exclusive: decision to grant licences condemned by critics as a stunt that shows Tories are ‘playing politics with climate’.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/02/sunak-to-allow-oil-and-gas-exploration-at-sites-intended-for-offshore-wind?utm_term=6634614206893b1d217ee078d444ccef&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email
Oh really dear copy writing 12 year olds of the Grauniad.
Given that the whole climate fraud is an invention of the political left, the irony of their words clearly escapes them!
Hi Paul,
Just been chatting to my cousin who is an expert of things chemical and EU legislation.
It seems new rules are coming into place to allow for the re-purposing of EV batteries after the car is scrapped. The batteries may not be good for a car but could still be used as home based batteries fro short term backup. He tells me that every battery made currently has to have its own passport, and when a battery is re-purposed the re-manufacturer will be fully responsible for any guarantees etc. I guess they are trying to head off the nightmare of re-cycling the old batteries.
JBW
I thought my own council had lost the plot, but this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/10/town-warmed-giant-shared-heat-pumps-first-uk-project/
“The Worthing heat network will initially use three large air source heat pumps in an energy centre by a car park in the town centre.
“At first they will heat large public buildings, including the town hall and local hospital. Homes will be connected later, with plans for the entire town to be hooked up by 2050.
“Sophie Cox, Worthing’s cabinet member for climate emergency, said the town planned to be a carbon neutral council by 2030 and a net zero borough by 2045.
“Connected properties no longer need boilers or hot water tanks but instead use a heat exchanger similar in size to a small gas boiler.”
The good news is that whilst they’ve got miles of road trenches open, they can lay new cables for the beefed up electrical needs. I do wonder what they’re going to use as a tarmac binder, though.
” I do wonder what they’re going to use as a tarmac binder, though.”
$hit … every day the greens spout enough of it to resurface the M1.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/13/battle-airlines-impact-of-contrails-emissions-climate/
Think of all the wasted money and talent on stuff like this.
“The first-ever transatlantic flight using 100pc SAF, operated by Virgin Atlantic last November, slashed carbon emissions by almost two-thirds. Just as significantly, lab tests showed that production of non-CO2 particulates fell by 40pc, according to data released this month.:
Begs the questions:
How/why does SAF produce lower soot than kerosene?
How much did the flight cost?
How dares Dubai proceed with their mega-airport?
‘Wales Leading the Way with Net Zero Legislation’
An interview at the World Energy Congress with Jane Davidson, Chair of Wales Net Zero 2035
Quote (0:14s into the video): ‘I was really interested to be asked to attend, because I’m not an energy specialist.
The rest is just eco vomit.
We are properly screwed.
CK
Hi Paul,
You might like this.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/debunking-cheap-renewables-myth
Hi Paul, this might be of interest:
A fire officer called to a blaze at a car dealership says it might have been started by an electric vehicle.
Lee Alford, station manager at Avon and Fire Rescue Service, said crews have “reason to believe” it was started by an EV, but added that investigations were ongoing and no conclusions had been reached yet.
A major road was closed in north Bristol when the fire began at the Drive Vauxhall Bristol Northpremises off Gloucester Road in Patchway at about 10:00 BST.
Mr Alford said at least 25 cars were involved and the fire service believed the fire was “accidental”. The dealership has confirmed nobody was injured.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2544ndvkepo
I was quite surprized that the BBC were admitting that it could have been started by an electric vehicle!
It’s OK folks, Our Chinese pals have cracked it:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/17/china-revolutionary-electric-car-battery-charge-10-minutes/
A lot of comments and some interesting maths therein.
Paul, I have some revealing emails from the Met Office that I woud like to forward to you. How can I do this?
Here’s a fun one that might have gone unnoticed:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13430375/Man-wages-war-council-giant-GLASS-TUNNEL-Regents-Park-home-designed-architect-Gherkin-skyscraper.html
Some wealthy homeowner wants to build a glass-covered walkway between bits of his houses. People don’t like it, planning people are involved, as dear Thunderberk would say: blahblahblah.
And then there’s this little snippet:
Richard Simpson, chair of Regent’s Park Conservation Area Advisory Committee told MailOnline: ‘We asked the council to reject it and they did. Now we are waiting for the appeal decisions It’s a very interesting house historically.
‘This walkway would be a completely inappropriate addition both in terms of its scale, as it is two storeys, and its design. Its exotic curvy glazing which is really quite inappropriate. We were also concerned about climate change – should we be building glass houses? There are over heating concerns. We should all be setting an example and taking the climate crisis into account.’
Planning permission rejected because climate change might make a short glass tunnel between two walls a bit too hot.
What next – banning windows!?
CK
Bring back the window tax !!! … (or was it a widow tax ??? )
Look out Paul – you could be next (though the target of this diatribe had been a little sloppy):
https://swiftfeed.news/gb-news-faces-backlash/
Another one from this “impeccable” source:
https://swiftfeed.news/breakthroughs-in-renewable-energy/
Completely one-sided, from an organisation that says:
“Whether you’re interested in thought-provoking commentary on the latest political shifts, insightful analysis of global trends, or in-depth explorations of emerging technologies, Swift Feed has you covered. Join me on this journey as we take on the modern world, one headline at a time.”
Hello Paul,
I was reading a BBC report on a fatality due to air turbulence.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8889d7x8j4o?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=LNCH%20%2020240521%20%20House%20ads%20%20HT+CID_c8967645601d64d564fb2468b143f020
All fine, until the last line, when quite gratuitously is added: Research has shown that climate change will make severe turbulence more likely in the future.
What bollocks. What a shitbag organization our national broadcaster has become.
Oh, not sure which way the dot has to slide below – which way is on and which is off. I already get your posts, but would like to have my name saved to comment in future. Thank you, and keep up your meritorious work. We will one day prevail.
Stephen
Paul, I have commented on this previously when adding to discussions.
https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20240522-the-worlds-revolt-against-bad-tourists
“The world revolt”??
The fact that “protests” have sprung up in a multitude of far flung places during a relatively short period of time makes me smell a marxist cult rat. It is either being pushed by the climate cultists or the degrothers or both.
Tourism is all that a lot of these place have. The issue is not tourism per say but how well ( or how badly) they manage this important industry. You cannot just let the industry run amok and take the money. The football “industry” sorted it’s problems out years ago. The industry like any other needs infrastructure and professional management. In several cases, if this is pushed to the extreme the economies in those places will collapse.
The marxists of the climate cult are adept at attacking issues from a multitude of directions. I would be very interested to find who is behind this all.
I am highly suspicious of who or what is behind this especially… when the BBC is supporting it!
Keep up the good work!
JonnyScott
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/27/nasa-back-contact-with-voyager-1-after-computer-glitch/
The government should get these guys to sort out smart meters!
Hi Paul, have you seen this article in teh Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/27/extreme-heat-health-risk
In the first paragraph the author writes:
In addition, the entire north-east – from Maine down to Pennsylvania and New Jersey – as well as a large stretch from Louisiana to Arizona, Washington and Idaho, have a 40% to 50% chance of experiencing above-average temperatures from June through August.
Am I missing something but doesn’t that mean that there’s a greater chance of below average temperatures?
Well there is a 50-60% chance of “something else happening in the other direction. Well spotted! a totally pointless piece of reporting ignoring the most likely outcome.
It never ceases to amaze me how many products of an Arts (Humanities) education think that 1. Statistics is science and that statistical output is real data. The BBC and the Guardian are both serial abusers of the statistical method quoting only part of a statistical distribution ( of course only the part which supports the whims of their political masters.
Good morning Paul.
I found the following link on Facebook on the electric/petrol debate:-
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-27/comparing-electric-cars-and-petrol-cars/103746132
Something is off with this article but judging by the source I am not surprised.
This morning my Maywarebytes package blocked your site. It reported very few access your site that contains suspect information – oe words to that effect. At 0400 I was not in the mood to read such crap reasoning in detail.
Kerry Rodgers
Same here. “Website blocked due to reputation. (website address) V2.6.26 Reputation: 2.0.202405310635”
Paul, I seem to recall the BBC being told (by Ofcom??) that their claim that the drought in southern Madagascar was caused by climate change was in fact incorrect. I cannot remember whether it was you who put in the initial complaint. Well they are still at it. Last night we watched the Misadventures of Romesh Ranganathan as episode 3 in the current series is about Madagascar and we have just returned from a 2 week holiday there. In the last 10 minutes Ranganathan, obviously now a climate expert as well as a “comedian” repeated the claim stating it as fact. Interestingly a few minutes before when talking about the baobab trees the comment was made that a whole area of rain forest had been cleared. No mention that that may have been a contributory factor of the drought. The programme should be on the iPlayer.
Nigel Lord
Ban fossil fuel ads to save climate, says UN chief
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv22vl99vwro
Todays Klymutt porn brought to you by the Laurel and Hardy of climate reporting, McGrath and Poynting.
Reporting the every flatulent utterance of the marxist in charge of the UN, Guterres a man famed for being the king of climate word inflation.
Note not one word about China or India.
Secondly, why when they speak in the article about “since the late 1800’s do they show a temperature graph starting in the 1940’s? Secondly given CO2’s control knob status on temperature, why does it all kick off around 1980?
Paul, I’m trying to access figures from your Nov 21 2016 article on Iceland but get ‘file not fond’. Can you help?
Let’s think of new ways to increase the cost of motoring:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/electric-cars-need-to-have-a-battery-passport-from-2027-to-show-carbon-footprint-and-one-brand-already-has-them/ar-BB1nFYqw?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=7f44671539984d12c1e55473b0a71c6b&ei=12
Story Tip,
£20 million Welsh all singing all dancing net-zero dairy.
Powered by renewable energy,
and last summer they unveiled the UK’s first BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle) tractor and trailer for milk haulage.
https://www.farminguk.com/news/welsh-dairy-to-unveil-uk-s-first-electric-milk-haulage-trucks_63135.html
… goes sour after 3 yrs !!
https://nation.cymru/news/20-million-net-zero-dairy-enters-administration/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/12/jacinda-ardern-new-zealand-blackout-keir-starmer-learn/
“The Labour Party should see what is happening in front of their eyes in another island nation which has already implemented a poorly reasoned policy – and think again.”
Last night a Labour spokesman said the UK would do better than New Zealand.
“Unlike this government, we will have a proper plan to take advantage of our North Sea resources in carbon capture, hydrogen and offshore wind, to deliver for our coastal communities and workers.
“Labour’s plan to make the UK a clean energy superpower will reduce the UKs dependence on imported energy, as we increase the percentage of British renewable and nuclear power in our energy mix.”
Labour doubling down. What a joke.