Steve Hilton, the Prime Minister’s director of strategy and ‘green guru’, is the latest person to admit to doubts about climate change. ‘I’m not sure I believe in it,’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’ — The Mail on Sunday, 27 November 2011
Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed. The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade. They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output. BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage. — David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 27 November 2011
Labour MP Graham Stringer last night said he would be writing this week to BBC director-general Mark Thompson to demand an investigation into the Corporation’s relationship with UEA. ‘The new leaked emails show that the UEA scientists at the Tyndall Centre and the CRU acted more like campaigners than academics, and that they succeeded in an attempt to influence the output of the BBC,’ Mr Stringer said. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 27 November 2011
Using research money to evangelise one point of view and suppress another defies everything I ever learnt about the scientific method. These emails go to the heart of the BBC’s professed impartiality… its actions must be investigated. –David Davis MP, Mail on Sunday, 27 November 2011
Steve Hilton, the Prime Minister’s director of strategy and ‘green guru’, is the latest person to admit to doubts about climate change. ‘I’m not sure I believe in it,’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’ Hilton has become a big fan of former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, a vocal critic of the global warming lobby. His new doubts chime with the Prime Minister’s decision to tone down his previous emphasis on environmental measures to concentrate on stimulating economic growth. —Mail on Sunday, 27 November 2011
Is the global warming scare the greatest delusion in history? The scare over man-made global warming is not only the scientific scandal of our generation, but a suicidal flight from reality.
On one hand there is the utterly lamentable state of the science which underpins it all, illuminated yet again by “Climategate 2.0”, the latest release of emails between the leading scientists who for years have been at the heart of the warming scare (which I return to below). On the other hand, we see the damage done by the political consequences of this scare, which will directly impinge, in various ways, on all our lives. — Christopher Booker, The Telegraph 27 November 2011
h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser of The GWPF
I read much of this in Brit newspapers and they’re having a field day on the BBC and UEA and the CRU over there. And rightly so. In fact much of Europe and parts of the US are wising up big time with little belief left in AGW anymore. For instance – Spain slashed payouts for wind projects by 35% while denying support for solar thermal projects in their first year of operation. This latest round of Spanish cuts followed announcements in November that payouts for solar photovoltaic plants would be cut by 45%.
France announced a four-month freeze on solar projects and a cap on the amount of solar that can be built. These measures and others continue a retrenchment that saw industry payouts cut twice last year, and that will likely continue as opposition grows to France’s rapidly using power tax on electricity.
The German government announced it may discontinue the solar industry’s sweetheart tariffs in 2012. This latest announcement follows a surprise reduction in 2009 and another reduction to start in 2011.
Solomon also reported that in October, New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state, slashed by two-thirds the revenue that homeowners who had installed solar panels would receive from 60 cents per kilowatt-hour to 20 cents. New South Wales overnight went from being Australia’s most generous to least generous subsidizer. Also in October, the UK government announced that withering spending cuts were coming to renewable projects.
Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Rhode Island and Virginia either cancelled or delayed renewable energy projects
In the US, state regulators in Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Rhode Island and Virginia either cancelled or delayed renewable energy projects that would raise rates for consumers.
‘The Emperor is naked!’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’
Some movement in the UK but Lisa Jackson and Obama are still on a roll. Skyrocket energy costs and kill as many jobs as Mr. Green can.
“Now China to probe U.S. renewable energy support”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/25/us-china-usa-energy-idUSTRE7AO05I20111125
“The [Chinese] companies complained that U.S. measures “violated the United States’ commitments under World Trade Organization rules, …”
We live in interesting times.
And this may be where the next financial/economic collapse comes from.
All those borrowed green $ may come home to roost.
Lookout!
The phrase to “believe in” is one I have always had trouble with. It is either happening or it isn’t. both Wigley and Hulme says that we have seen 0.7C of temperature rise over the past 100 years. Ok, fine. So what? 0.7 degrees of temperature rise over a 100 year period is likely quite within the bounds of natural variation. The problem comes in where they imply that climate should be stable, neither cooling nor warming. They seem to want to lead the recipient of the message to come to the conclusion that any change from stasis in climate is likely due to human causes. If it is cooling, then it must be industrial aerosols causing it so we need more government regulations. If it is warming, then it must be CO2 doing it and so we need more government regulations. The answer is always more government policies which many of these institutions are only too willing to help governments in creating … for a fee, of course.
The fundamental problem is that the projections of 20 years ago for what we were to expect 10 years ago were wrong. The projections of 10 years ago for what we were to see today were wrong. They keep telling us that we have only 5 or 10 more years “left” else the entire climate system goes into runaway warming. This despite the fact that we can find times in the past when temperatures were warmer and CO2 levels higher and things didn’t go into runaway heating then. Why would it do so now? Because their computer model tells them it will, that’s why.
You know what the scariest thing is in all of this? Our nuclear weapons are now being designed and “tested” with computer models.
They should be able to show VERY clearly without using “circumspect language and explicit caveats” (Briffa 5089.txt) that it is warming at an unnatural rate, and they just can’t do it and it has been 25 years and they just can’t do it.
I wish some one in the UK would start an E petition on the YouGov.co.uk site, so that this latest batch of emails could be debated in Parliament, think it takes 100,000 people to sign up to it, then it has to be debated!
Amazing, now we just need to model the effects all this corruption will have on the children!
To add to today’s newsbites is one from the usually warmist Independent on Sunday:
“Britain and other rich countries are using aid money as a lever to bully developing countries over climate change, according to a new report by an anti-poverty pressure group.
With international climate change negotiations beginning in South Africa tomorrow, a report by the World Development Movement reveals that threats and bribery are often attached to aid packages.”
For the full story:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/rich-nations-accused-of-climatechange-bullying-6268679.html
Also in the UK, I am a littel concerned att he geo-political aspects of a sudden cessation of all renewable energy projects, which may be the knee-jerk reaction of a political class which cannot tell the difference between scientific method and a tuna sandwich – but which is finding it has been lied to by the Team.
That risks leaving the UK [and much of ‘the West’] open to energy blackmail – not that honourable states with oil, gas etc. [Qatar, Russia, Venzuela, etc.] would ever consider doing that. Putin is a democratic philanthropist, not a kleptocratic criminal.
Or are you conspiracy theorists thinking – that’s the whole long game, anyhow!?
Now Brown and Blair have impoverished the UK – and destroyed our schools, our agriculture and our industry [and the House of Lords and the lives of a generation of ‘NEETs’ – Not in Education, Employment or Training] – we need to make use of economic renewables; tidal and current power, perhaps. Localised solar/wind power – for railway signals etc., is fine – but – despite the Wind from Westminster [or Christopher Huhne as he is known] -wind is not good enough. How much energy does it take to make a windmill, ship it to the Uk from gemany, raise it, connect it to the grid, and then maintain it? And when the wind doesn’t blow, it doesn’t turn.
The BBC – a Team member, and none too keen on Britain. but god at internal reviews that find ‘some veidence’ of bias – but it doesn’t matter . . . . And the Licence Fee – unavoidable.
Great to see left wing European MPs driving these challenges to dodgy science. Hopefully it will once and for all nail the idea that skepticism is a right wing concept and that the left is a naturally a massive supporter of climate change policy. Good to see that here in the UK we are still at the cutting edge and first in the queue of nations to suggest the Emperors butt is getting cold. I think the YouGov petition would be a great idea, unfortunately 100,000 signatures do not guarantee a debate, though they may prompt an early day motion from a brave member of the house.
Do you reckon it may be time to move the WUWT show to the UK Anthony? You may even get to enjoy real beer!
>>Solomon
>>“Britain and other rich countries are using aid money as a lever to
>>bully developing countries over climate change, according to a new
>>report by an anti-poverty pressure group.
Is that why Cameron increased the UKs oversead aid budget to £12 billion? – to increase his bullying firepower?
.
Graham Stringer. My hero, and that rarest of beasts, a principled politican (with some scientific background as an analytical chemist to boot); the only one on the climategate #1 enquiry with any integrity and common sense.
It should be deadly, but they’ll all wiggle their way through the required whitewashes with the help from a few friends. But I do like the creativity they show in their explanations, It’s art, it’s surreal art, real Chirico stuff.
In today’s UK Sunday Times hard copy (the electronic version is paywalled) there is a letter from a Professor Keith Barnham, in response to an item in last week’s Sunday Times by Professor David MacKay on the amount of land required for renewal power generation.
In his letter Professor Barnham claims:-
“There are 250 times more solar panels in Germany than here, and solar electricity is already dominating its energy supply. Thanks to this source, the peak electricity price in that country has been falling, winter and summer. Our government, advised by MacKay, is denying British industry this future benefit”
Does anyone have any references, links or information to back-up or disprove these claims? Currently I can’t find any in either direction.
I hope the CBC gets some well earned comeuppance also.
Labour MP Graham Stringer last night said he would be writing this week to BBC director-general Mark Thompson to demand an investigation into the Corporation’s relationship with UEA.
Should the BBC be asked to investigate itself?
SandyInDerby says:
November 27, 2011 at 11:11 am
In today’s UK Sunday Times hard copy (the electronic version is paywalled) there is a letter from a Professor Keith Barnham, in response to an item in last week’s Sunday Times by Professor David MacKay on the amount of land required for renewal power generation.
————–
Would this help? A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that’s, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles. At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solar panels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles. We aren’t going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don’t provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most.
Such wonderful news! This second round of scoundrel-exposing is a wonderful thing. The silence from the usual pundits of climatophobia is gloriously deafening. And right now there’s a super-chinook blasting away here in Calgary…must be all that air rushing into the vacuum.
Auto says:
November 27, 2011 at 10:58 am
“Now Brown and Blair have impoverished the UK – and destroyed our schools, our agriculture and our industry [and the House of Lords and the lives of a generation of ‘NEETs’ – Not in Education, Employment or Training] – we need to make use of economic renewables; tidal and current power, perhaps. ”
“Economic renewables”? There’s one problem with that, with the exception of big hydro they don’t exist.
Better use that huge amount of Shale Gas under Lancashire (I think that’s where it was discovered) – that should save you for the next decades.
Can’t be sure of the details here, it’s a while since I saw the EU price comparisons for electricity – but for private consumption Denmark had the most expensive electricity in the EU with Germany a close second in the price stakes. Their electricity is roughly 2X more than France or the UK. Hardly a sound recommendation.
See here http://www.energy.eu/
IE renewables cost, if not the earth then an unconscionable amount of your pay packet.
We are accustomed to watching business lobbying for its self interest, mostly in the guise of public interest of course. We are less accustomed to the business side of big science and big education doing the same thing, it happens remember the space race, that is obvious. We are accustomed to Special Interests doing the same thing as free enterprise business and this subsidized (by both free enterprise and government) big science & big education. We know it is and has been happening, the average tax payer is now aware of how this lobbying is effecting us (we too are average tax payers). As a society if we do not find a rational way to moderate this foolishness from all sides we will continue to suffer. Don’t expect any help on this any time soon either. The North American media is so compromised as to be totally unless, they are capable of entertainment and ideological baffle gab only. The British are as bad, all be it a somewhat different situation.
The BBC and the others will all come out of this, some only slightly embarrassed, other less so, the “old boy” network will see to that. Just like it did for CG 1. In an age of excess, where no one is held accountable for anything, what else can or should we even expect? I suspect few people even care. If they did care they would vote with ballots, firing the whole lot and with their money and time. If you don’t trust this or that then don’t listen, read, watch or purchase. The only thing any of these people understand is power and money is power.
It seems any one can start an E petition,
all you need it seems is a good opening question/statement
any idea’s what to ask..along the lines of?
“Will the Government hold a new independant inquiry into the new climate gate emails”
any more suggestions.
Theres already one to repeal the Climate Change Act which has only 990 people sign it,that close’s on 16/8/2012
Auto says:
November 27, 2011 at 10:58 am
“Localised solar/wind power – for railway signals etc., is fine ”
Ahem, go and try to convince any railway company or office on the planet of solar-powered signals… Signals are safety critical. Doesn’t combine very well with an intermittent power supply.
The point with German solar power is that much of it is located in Bavaria which is a reasonably dry climate. Here in the UK we are more famed for our cloud and rain. The 2 renewables that would probably suit our climate and geology are tidal power and hydro electrics. The trouble is that a plan for a barrage across the Severn estuary, probably one of the best places in the world to site such a project was fiercely opposed by environmentalists and shelved as a result. It would interesting to see what Steve Hiltons stance on this was. Has he had a Damascene revelation or did he always feel this way? Unfortunately we have a chancellor who is currently trying to destroy what is left of the UK manufacturing base to mollify bankers, so I guess in the long term our energy needs will crash. Possibly this is the method behind the economic madness of curious George, but you never know. The CEO of the Boing company gave him some sound advice today on economics, maybe it will be heeded. Personally I’d rather have nuclear power than unemployed millions.
ps That should be Boeing not boing! Mac auto correction issue.
If my calculations are any good (and they are based on the Central England Temperature as quoted by the UK MetOffice) return to the 1960s temperatures is on the cards.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm
If any of the relevant institutions are interested I will be happy to provide the equation of variability, unless they are happy to work out it themselves.
In any case it will be available on-line in a week or two.
The plot thickens…..
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/11/27/climategate-20-in-context.html
“Ahem, go and try to convince any railway company or office on the planet of solar-powered signals… Signals are safety critical. Doesn’t combine very well with an intermittent power supply.”
Er… I think they have rather good storage batteries which get them around that problem.
Richard Black continues to be in a state of denial
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15894948
This is all still playing out, but it’s beginning to look like there might be some money to be made in sales of sandwich boards to clothe the AGW faithful. Made of recycled cardboard of course.
Gareth Phillips says:
November 27, 2011 at 11:31 am
“The point with German solar power is that much of it is located in Bavaria which is a reasonably dry climate. Here in the UK we are more famed for our cloud and rain. ”
Well, Bavaria might get you 10 to 20 percent more insolation than Northern Germany, which is fairly identical to England in its cloudiness. The Solar businesses here in Germany have all kind of maps, it looks like each one picks one that shows that its own region is the best one, but I think you can trust the Europe map on this page.
http://www.sibu.de/fotovoltaikinfo.php
(One of their tricks is to mention the “sun hours” without integrating the whole energy; so a partially cloudy day can still count as “sunny”.)
Yes, there are some more PV panels in Bavaria, but that really does little to make it economic. Compare the 1000 sun hours of Germany /England to the 2000+ sun hours of Spain, and even they couldn’t make it work economically.
PV power really hinges on the subsidies. (This might change in about 10 years, assuming that panels etc. get cheaper along the same exponential they’ve been following for the past decades)
It does look suspicious. Although he has not been permitted to appear on BBC television or, to the best of my knowledge radio, Piers Corbyn has been referenced in BBC weather man Paul Hudson’s blog. Paul seems to take a pretty balanced approach to climat and weather and is at least willing to give Corbyn a hearing. However, following Corbyn’s recent dire prognostications with respect to an early blast of severe cold in Britain starting today, I wonder how his reputation will fare, for it is still pretty mild: http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2011/11/politics-of-climate-science-energy.html
Question: Is the ENTIRE political class in Britain already too invested in CAGW to really address this in a meaningful way?
Gareth Phillips says:
November 27, 2011 at 11:35 am
““Ahem, go and try to convince any railway company or office on the planet of solar-powered signals… Signals are safety critical. Doesn’t combine very well with an intermittent power supply.”
Er… I think they have rather good storage batteries which get them around that problem.”
Looks like a massive installation, though.
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/kyocera-solar-electric-power-systems-for-railroad-applications.html
This HAS to be absolute rubbish. For one thing, Berlin sits at higher than 52 degrees North, a little father North than Kiska Island, Alaska. In winter Berlin gets about 7 hours of daylight and the sun angle is very low. Also, in winter in Germany, it can be cloudy for WEEKS on end. I lived in Berlin for a few years and (then) West Germany for a few more. I remember one day in February when the sun came out, people went to their windows and clapped! We had not seen the sun for almost two months. Ever seen ice fog? You get a lot of it in Germany. Hoarfrost can build up on everything in winter.
The problem Germany now faces is how to deal with huge intermittent surges of power. They are expecting 8 Gigawatts of rooftop solar to be installed across the country as the result of major subsidy programs. The problem? The sun suddenly breaks out from behind the clouds and now you have a surge of power into the grid and other sources of generation can not be dialed back fast enough. Then the clouds come back in and suddenly you lose a huge amount of power and can’t get alternative sources online fast enough. Basically the grid during the day stays in a constant state of whack-a-mole and one wrong move can bring down the entire grid.
Solar is fine as long as you have load management. If each home had some sort of battery storage to act as a “flywheel” of sorts it might be able to work.
Germany’s problem is that it is installing a huge amount of highly intermittent power without adequate backup on an ancient (in many places) distribution grid.
http://mygermantravels.com/2011/07/clouds-form-on-german-solar-power/
Concerning solar power in Germany:
First of all, its is only economically viable because of the massive subsidies available to the operators. It causes trouble on sunny days, when all these shiny panels do thei work and supply electricity, whether it can be used or not. In these peiods there are costs for getting rid of the electricity by feeding it into the power grids of neighbouring countries. It is of course unreliable, which means that conventional power stations have to be operated in stand-by mode – which is a waste of resources and money. I live in Bavaria, and here as elsewhere in northern Europe it is in the winter, when energy is needed most. Today we had a maximum of 9 hours of sunshine – and this was on a clear day with blue skies. It is not easy to come by meaningful numbers, for the very same reasons as in climate-“science”: Those who could provide the numbers are not impartial, but have economic as well as ideological interests at stake. As Dirk H already pionted out: It didn´t even work in spain, so how on earth can anybody in their right mind believe it will work further north?
Newsbytes: BBC In Cahoots With Climategate Scientists, prime minister “green guru” publicly doubts climate change.
All this good news recently just makes you want to burst into song:
A lot of thought here about how the AGW politicos and their friends are going to get out of all this without egg on their faces.
I really couldn’t care less how or if they get out of it, with or without their reputations intact or otherwise, so long as the bottom line is that the whole scam stops asap.
The big breakthrough will come when mainstream media start publishing what those of us who read here know already.
The media are watchdogs, all right. They just don’t work for the people they claim to serve.
Auto, current warmist policies, whether the politicos understand them or not (I think they do), are to force up the price of energy and food. Completely insane, yes. The politicos know what they do and will plead ignorance and of being duped bythe best scientific advice available. Even though they were knowing conspirators .. paying and encouraging this hysteria for their own benefit.
from 0306.txt Joe Smith to Mike Hulme and Asher Minns Managing the propaganda.
>>Neill
>>Is the ENTIRE political class in Britain already too invested in CAGW
>>to really address this in a meaningful way?
Yes, it is true that David Ca-Moron’s first acts as ‘president’ of the UK were to pat some huskies in the Arctic, like some sixth-former on a school outing, and attach a propeller to his rooftop, like some Greeny nerd who was too dim to realise the said propeller would only produce 7 watts.
But, but, but – the second big news story of the day, was that Steve Hilton, the Prime Minister’s director of strategy (the pratt who dreamed up these naive video- and sound-bytes) has had a change of heart. It would appear that Steve Hilton, aided and abetted by WUWT, has had a (reverse?) epiphany, and lost his ‘faith’ in AGW.
Quote:
<i." I’m not sure I believe in it,’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’ "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066720/David-Camerons-green-guru-Steve-Hilton-reveals-doubts-global-warming.html
And you have to remember that David Ca-Moron is too thick to have an opinion of his own, which is why he relies on a paid thinker to think for him. And the paid thinker is now saying to one of Ca-Moron’s brain cells: “Forget what I told the other brain cell, the Green Emperor actually has No Clothes”.
Haaallelluuuuyyaa. May the Great Spaghetti Monster be praised…..
.
Corruption of professional journalism ethics
Contrast “BBC’s Editorial Values”
See also “BBC’s principles: Accuracy”
3.2.3 The BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences. We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our audiences’ trust in our content.
crosspatch says:
November 27, 2011 at 12:27 pm
“”and solar electricity is already dominating its energy supply. Thanks to this source, the peak electricity price in that country has been falling, winter and summer. ”
This HAS to be absolute rubbish.”
It might even be that it has; don’t forget we also have thousands of wind turbines. So it might be that the average of the peak prices have fallen. But so what? These are momentary spikes of prices at the electricity exchange. The inflation adjusted electricity tariffs for industry and households are on the rise anyway since the introduction of the renewables cross-subsidy.
( http://luzifer-lux.blogspot.com/2010/07/merken-sie-dass-der-strom-immer-teurer.html ;
chart of inflation adjusted tariffs for households and industry since 1970. The lower industry tariff is available starting with an annual consumption of 60 MWh or so)
Even worse: due to the falling peak prices, there is less economic incentive to construct new peaker plants. Nobody builds them, yet we’ll need them when we’re deep in Winter and the winds don’t blow…
DirkH says:
November 27, 2011 at 2:32 pm
“chart of inflation adjusted tariffs for households and industry since 1970. The lower industry tariff is available starting with an annual consumption of 60 MWh or so)”
You might notice the increasing discrepancy between households and industry. Our politicians have at various times slapped on extra taxes on the private consumption. The renewable energy cross subsidy starts in 2000.
RE Sunday Times Letters
Thanks for all your replies, if I have the time and inclination I may well, for the first time in my life, write to the editior of the times.
Having done a bit of researh I don’t think Prof Keith Barnham is going to be neutral on this:-
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/college.asp?P=7522
http://www.sgr.org.uk/pages/sgr-sponsors#KBarnham
http://www.imperialinnovations.co.uk/node/286
Thanks
Sandy
What would you do if your pension money was partly invested in a carbon scheme?
International Investors Group on Climate Change – Members….BBC Pension Trust…
http://www.iigcc.org/about-us/members
BBC climate bias was set in stone some time ago.
As for any possible private investments by BBC journalists in carbon schemes – I plead ignorance………… for now. ;O)
I used to be proud when I once worked there, today I am ashamed that this once great institution has lost its way by joining the GREATEST SCAM EVER PERPETRATED ON THE HUMAN RACE (Co2 trace gas, man’s trace rise of the trace gas co2).
We must learn, as I should do, to avoid using the words “climate change”. I do not doubt climate change in the slightest. I do doubt Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as I have yet to read one shred of credible evidence to support the alarm.
The reason is because:
When [SNIP: This is not an endorsement, but that was a step too far. -REP], Steven Chu and Lisa Jackson finally realize they have been duped by the Goracle and Company to support junk science, it will be too late and they will remain laughing stocks for the rest of their lives.
How wonderful it will be to have 3 leading Democrats/environmental wackos/progressives recoginized as BUFOONS AND NINCOMPOOPS!!!
“Durotrigan says:
November 27, 2011 at 11:57 am
It does look suspicious. Although he has not been permitted to appear on BBC television or, to the best of my knowledge radio, Piers Corbyn has been referenced in BBC weather man Paul Hudson’s blog. Paul seems to take a pretty balanced approach to climat and weather and is at least willing to give Corbyn a hearing. However, following Corbyn’s recent dire prognostications with respect to an early blast of severe cold in Britain starting today, I wonder how his reputation will fare, for it is still pretty mild: http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2011/11/politics-of-climate-science-energy.html”
Give it a chance, the cold is indeed coming and probably snowy for parts of the UK over the next 10days, but the main push is still 24-36hrs away…
@ Sandy in Derby
Prof Barnham believes that “cold climates may be the new frontier in solar. “There are a lot of underdeveloped regions and communities living high up in the foothills of the Himalayas that could benefit from solar energy,” he says.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21061-himalayas-could-become-the-saudi-arabia-of-solar.html
If his photovoltaics work better in the cold they’re just what we need for an overheating planet :o)
mfosdb says:
November 27, 2011 at 3:49 pm
“@ Sandy in Derby
Prof Barnham believes that “cold climates may be the new frontier in solar. “There are a lot of underdeveloped regions and communities living high up in the foothills of the Himalayas that could benefit from solar energy,” he says.””
Scientists have found this out in 2011? That the Andes and the Himalaya get a high yearly insolation?
The state of academia is worse than I thought.
DirkH says:
November 27, 2011 at 11:55 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The number of sun hours obviously plays a big part. But that is not the full picture. The angle of incidence is also important. In Northern climes the angle of incidence means that there is far less power getting through the atmosphere and onto the panel.
Solar is an option for countries leike Spain but it is not effective for UK or Germany.
neill says: November 27, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Is the ENTIRE political class in Britain already too invested in CAGW to really address this in a meaningful way?
Not the ENTIRE political class no. Some have always been clear that there is scant evidence of success in controlling the climate through the tax system.
It is difficult to overstate though the importance of this coming from Mr Hilton. Expect others to “come out” in the near future.
But is it the US NSF & DOE who are the real enablers propping up this fiasco? Many say yes. Almost all alarmist papers I read are funded by these two. And does the BBC also have ties to these agencies of any kind? Don’t know, but would like to.
4663
date: Thu Nov 13 16:19:22 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: [Env.faculty] Global Environmental Change Projects
to: Claire Reeves
“The reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the
BBC) is generally one-sided, i.e. the counter argument is rarely made.”
How long is this going to go on? The science is suspect to say the least, sceptics are silenced and the great climate change con goes on and on. We need some people at the top to stand up , I live in hope
The truth about ‘renewables’ is slowly emerging. AGW adherents are falling by the wayside. Some are changing horses to try the sceptic approach.
Meanwhile we must keep the pressure on governments and the BBC to get back into the real world.
The last guy to get the memo that they’ve been made is Germany’s federal minister for the environment Norbert Röttgen who just demanded a CO2 limit for every human being on earth.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,800206,00.html
“His new doubts chime with the Prime Minister’s decision to tone down his previous emphasis on environmental measures to concentrate on stimulating economic growth”
Let’s hope this change of heart has come in time to prevent the desecration of beautiful parts of Wales and the destruction of the UK economy in the name of wind power.
David L. Hagen says:
November 27, 2011 at 2:11 pm
…
See also “BBC’s principles: Accuracy”
3.2.3 The BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences. We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our audiences’ trust in our content.
========
That should be easy to show, assuming we can get real scientists to deconstruct it, in the ‘experiment’ the Beeb showed to push the AGW agenda – comparing heating jar of air with jar of carbon dioxide, and the skeptics in the audience suddenly saw the light..
A “scare over man-made global warming” or a “man-made global warming scare” ?
“UEA’s Tyndall Centre rejects Mail on Sunday claims over influencing BBC policy”
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/uea_s_tyndall_centre_rejects_mail_on_sunday_claims_over_influencing_bbc_policy_1_1138178
wayne says:
November 27, 2011 at 8:05 pm
But is it the US NSF & DOE who are the real enablers propping up this fiasco? Many say yes. Almost all alarmist papers I read are funded by these two. And does the BBC also have ties to these agencies of any kind? Don’t know, but would like to.
=============
Jones picks some emails to explain, http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/phrasesexplained,one of which is this:
Here’s what the email really said: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1527
I’d certainly like to have more details about this “main funder”, how much and for how long, how much influence this has had on the British government’s introduction of more crippling green taxes, and so on. The Americans would be interested I imagine for the EPA connection – they did try at some point, don’t have the emails up now, to get EPA legislation stopped by saying the CRU data unreliable, unsuccessfully.
P.S. to my post above to Wayne http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/newsbytes-bbc-in-cahoots-with-climategate-scientists-prime-minister-green-guru-publicly-doubts-climate-change/#comment-811901
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1255100876.txt&search=Bank
This is what I’d found on the EPA –
From: Ben Santer
To: ???@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700
Reply-to: ???@llnl.gov
The exchange began with an email sent by Rick Piltz:
I can’t tell off-hand if this is from Climategate I or II – does seem very familiar, probably I? I wonder if they’re going to have another go against the EPA with more examples of the bad science practice?
Harold Lewis’ parting shot, calling global warming the ‘most successful pseudoscientific f***d I have seen,’ seems to have had a significant effect. IMO, it helped embolden many who are now speaking up.
Thanks again, Harold.
________
And a fan of Nigel Lawson in the UK cabinet! In charge of Official Greenness! Next, we’ll have an official endorsement of frak gas as a way to rescue its economy from suicidal ruin! Or maybe that’s a few steps further down the road. But we can see it from here …
[reposted starring out Lewis’ use of a verboten WP filter-word.]