Factchecking BBC’s “Reality Check”

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

The BBC has published a supposed reality check on what “climate deniers” say.

Unsurprisingly it is full of strawmen, omissions, half truths and disinformation:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59251912

CLAIM 1:

As they admit themselves, the sun does have an impact on the climate, and may be one of the reasons for recent global warming.

However they conveniently bypass the real argument of sceptical scientists, of whom there are many.

Nobody has yet put together a cogent explanation for what caused the Little Ice Age, and until we do we cannot fully explain subsequent warming. It is widely accepted that at least some of the warming since the 19th is a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age, and this is a crucial factor in projecting future temperature rise.

We also know that climate models have consistently run far too hot. The real debate therefore is climate sensitivity, and whether temperature rise will be so small as to be inconsequential, as many scientists argue.

CLAIM 2:

It is a fact that cold kills many more times as many as heat does. Meanwhile as countries become more prosperous its inhabitants can be shielded from the worst effects of heat, with for instance mechanisation, air conditioning and so on.

On the other hand, the abandonment of fossil fuels could have a disastrous effect on the health of people in colder weather.

The claims about extreme rainfall are simply absurd and not backed up by any hard data. And as we know crop yields have been rocketing in recent years, and not falling.

Finally, economists tend to agree that the world will actually be better off with a small amount of further warming, maybe as much as 1C.

CLAIM 3:

If renewable energy really is cheaper, and actually works, it will automatically gradually take over, just as societies have improved in all sorts of ways in the past.

But, of course, there is no evidence that they can replace fossil fuels, or that they are cheaper when all of the indirect costs are added in.

Climate sceptics are fully entitled to highlight the immense risk that are being taken with our energy security, and therefore our economies as a whole, in the name of climate change. The BBC fail to address this at all.

Instead they can only quote some junk studies that say the global economy could shrink by 18%. Even this is untrue, because they merely say it will be 18% smaller than it would have been otherwise. In reality nobody has a clue what the global economy will look like in 30 years time.

But given there is no evidence at all, merely GIGO computer models, that weather will become more extreme, there whole argument is bogus anyway.

CLAIM 4:

This is the classic “Watch the Pea” con!

The facts of the Texas blackout are indisputable. Wind power went over the edge of the cliff, when large parts were shutdown by the winter storm. It was ONLY the availability of back up gas power that avoided a catastrophic blackout. More wind and solar farms would not be able to help, because you cannot switch them on and off.

But even then, because of the closure of a lot of dispatchable gas and coal power capacity in recent years to make room for renewables, grid capacity in Texas was still tight. The stress that this caused the grid led to the rolling blackouts which followed.

ISD Global, by the way, are a far left think tank. Why the BBC even think they can offer objective advice about renewable energy is a mystery.

The argument about Venezuela is simply absurd, and thrown in as a red herring.

Why not ask the sceptics?

We know that climate sceptics are no longer allowed on the BBC, but if they want to know what sceptics think, why did not the BBC actually ask some of them to contribute and have a proper debate with them, instead of fabricating the BBC version of denialism?

4.8 44 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
150 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
fretslider
November 20, 2021 2:10 am

The BBC – aka propaganda service – constructs a narrative and the necessary facts to back the narrative up.

At £159 per year it’s an expensive liar

Abolition Man
Reply to  fretslider
November 20, 2021 6:42 am

fretslider,
Most relationships with liars end up being rather expensive; both of my divorces are evidence!

fretslider
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 20, 2021 7:55 am

And it seems there no escape from paying up.

BCBill
Reply to  fretslider
November 20, 2021 8:06 am

Novaya Pravda, BBC Branch. Marxism 101, gain control of the news media, distort the evidence so that the resistance is too confused and fractured to organise. Useful idiots can be manipulated to spread misinformation with sincerity.

Last edited 9 days ago by BCBill
griff
Reply to  BCBill
November 20, 2021 8:23 am

See also Fox news?

Abolition Man
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 8:35 am

griffter,
ALL corporate media slant and lie! Why do you gulp yours down so eagerly!?

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 20, 2021 2:08 pm

At least the BBC isn’t corporate media. It is paid for equally by everyone in the UK who owns a TV.

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
November 20, 2021 2:15 pm

Fascinating how the socialist is convinced that government owned and controlled media must be superior.
Plus notice how it actually celebrates forcing people to pay for the propaganda that it supports.

Richard Brimage
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 8:37 am

Do you watch. I once watched CNN until it’s distortions became too much. Fox has both sides of the spectrum and almost always presents the news honestly. MSNBC is the absolute worst with CNN a close second.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Richard Brimage
November 20, 2021 10:01 am

In the Rittenhouse Trial MSNBC was actually banned from the courtroom after one of its journalists followed the bus carrying the jurors in an attempt to reveal their identities.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Richard Brimage
November 20, 2021 12:49 pm

MSNBC also has the most content providers leaving to take jobs in the new Dem administrations of any media group. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence though. /sarc

MarkW
Reply to  ResourceGuy
November 21, 2021 7:04 am

With CNN being a close second.

BCBill
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 9:52 am

Yeah! Well my Dad’s bigger than your Dad.

Last edited 9 days ago by BCBill
Dave Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 10:35 am

Griff, I love the way you and the rest of the woke crowd rail constantly against Fox News. If the rest of the media would fulfill their original purpose of informing the public rather than indoctrination, in all likelihood Fox News would not even exist. What Fox does is tell the other side of the story, you know, the facts you and the rest of your ilk ignore, delete, obfuscate, alter, amend etc.ad infinitum because they show you to be lying, hypocritical, and/or duplicitous fools. And you can’t stand it!

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Kamakaris
November 21, 2021 11:02 am

In griff’s world, there is no news, only indoctrination.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 12:12 pm

Saying things that liberals disagree with is not lying No matter how many times liberals claim it is.
I challenge to actually list something that Fox has published that isn’t true.

ATheoK
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 3:01 pm

Hmmm…

BBC: Completely immoral, where any message no matter how fallacious is superior to the truth.

Fox News: Lots of leftist slant stuff that gets their information from the Whitehouse, McKibben and the BBC.

Fox news allows a few sometimes truth telling shows or otherwise they’d lose the majority of their audience. Just as CNN, NBC, ABC, CBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Grauniad and the BBC have lost all but the zealots.

MarkW
Reply to  ATheoK
November 21, 2021 11:09 am

If you watched anyone other than Fox news, you would have been surprised by the verdict in the Rittenhouse trial. If you watched Fox, you would have seen all the evidence that the other networks didn’t want you to know.

Phillip Bratby
November 20, 2021 2:22 am

For years the BBC has been practicing its left-wing bias. It has got its lying and propaganda down to a fine art.

M Courtney
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 20, 2021 2:42 am

Support for the Conservative Government is not left-wing.
The BBC s biased towards the people who set its funding level – the Government.

As for why they didn’t ask Sceptics?
The answer is obviously that they don’t care what others think.

A better question is “Why are they concerned that their readers might care what others think?”
And the answer is that they know they are losing control of the narrative.

fretslider
Reply to  M Courtney
November 20, 2021 3:15 am

Support for the conservatives may or may not be left wing, but the party most definitely is left wing. As is Parliament as a whole.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  fretslider
November 20, 2021 3:44 am

fretslider,

In reality it is NOT “left wing” to be right of centre..
The Tories are right of centre and have a large Parliamentary majority.

Richard

fretslider
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 3:57 am

Then you missed the seismic shift of the centre ground to the left.

These centre-right wingers happily call a male rapist a woman and put them in a female prison where they go on to rape real women prisoners.

They allow thousands of immigrants to wash up on the Southern shore and do absolutely nothing.

They would rather discuss online abuse than the islamist killing of one of their own MPs, let alone an islamist bomb attack outside a women’s hospital

Yes, you did miss it.

Last edited 9 days ago by fretslider
Richard S Courtney
Reply to  fretslider
November 20, 2021 6:16 am

fretslider,

NO!
The “seismic shift” of British politics was to the right and has resulted in the disaster of Brexit with its associated return of riots and firebombs in Northern Ireland, loss of GDP, and etc.

You obviously did not “miss it” but you are pretending it has not happened.

Richard

fretslider
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 6:41 am

NO!
The “seismic shift” of British politics was to the right

The people voted in a referendum to throw off the yoke of Bruxelles,

You clearly didn’t like the [democratic] result

Parliament did its best to thwart it. But that has nothing to do with how left wing Parliament and the parties are as you well know. A pretty lame straw man.

The examples I gave above are just a small part of the evidence for a woke Tory party.

Given your remain credentials it’s easy to see why you label anything you don’t agree with as right wing.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  fretslider
November 20, 2021 7:22 am

fretslider,

The issue was whether the country moved to the left or right.

You lied that it had moved to the left.
I refuted that with evidence by citing Brexit (i,e, the referendum vote you say you supported) and has caused much damage some of which I cited.

It is not relevant whether or not I supported the disaster which you say you did support. What matters is that the disastrous referendum demonstrates the UK has moved further to the right than Margaret Thatcher.

And your attempt to pretend that Parliament did other than its duty is a clear demonstration of you trying to change the subject because you know you have lost the argument.

Richard

fretslider
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 7:41 am

“The issue was whether the country moved to the left or right.”

No, it was not. I clearly said “Support for the conservatives may or may not be left wing, but the party most definitely is left wing. As is Parliament as a whole.”

Clearly I was referring to parties and Parliament.

And one referendum on the country’s position in or out of Europe does not mean the country has lurched to the right. Was Tony Benn a right winger? Peter Shore? Many in Labour like them hated the EEC/EU I believe Mr Corbyn had to bite his tongue on the matter.

“It is not relevant whether or not I supported the disaster which you say you did support. What matters is that the disastrous referendum demonstrates the UK has moved further to the right than Margaret Thatcher.”

I never said I supported the Brexit vote, you have chosen to assume that. I did in fact – having an Italian wife and dual nationality children – vote remain for obvious reasons.

But there’s the difference between us. Whilst the opposition won the vote as a democratic decision I accepted it in good grace. As should you.

And this is, frankly, where you lose the plot, Richard.

“And your attempt to pretend that Parliament did other than its duty is a clear demonstration of you trying to change the subject because you know you have lost the argument.”

Parliament’s duty was to enact the decision of the people, not oppose it.

I’m beginning to wonder what planet you are on.

Last edited 9 days ago by fretslider
Editor
Reply to  fretslider
November 20, 2021 11:52 am

fretslider – I don’t think that Brexit was so much a shift to the right as a move to preserve democracy. The people were simply doing what Sun Tzu (Sun Zhu) advocated over 2,000 years ago: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
The people, when they voted for Brexit, were voting to keep political power at home where the popular vote counts for something, rather than be ruled from remote unaccountable Brussels.

MarkW
Reply to  Mike Jonas
November 20, 2021 12:15 pm

Considering how opposed the left is to democracy, any move that protects democracy is at a minimum a move away the left, even if it can’t be directly considered a move to the right.

Reply to  MarkW
November 20, 2021 11:39 pm

 it can’t be directly considered a move to the right.” That is a fun argument when ‘representative government’ bought by corporations runs the de-mock-racy. ( That is Fascism BTW ) Mind, it never was an arrangement in England designed to be more than a farce to organize bitching. The Senate is there to keep the peons from being too uppity. There is nothing close to democracy anywhere I can think of.

MarkW
Reply to  John Farnham
November 21, 2021 11:12 am

I get it, you are convinced that whenever the people don’t vote as you want them to, that’s proof that corporations are paying people to vote against your interests and that really pisses you off.

Philip Rose
Reply to  John Farnham
November 22, 2021 4:36 am

Switzerland.

Philip Rose
Reply to  Mike Jonas
November 22, 2021 4:34 am

It was immigration wotdidit. Note, it has continued unerbated even after Brexit.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 8:04 am

When leftists riot because they disagree with something the right has done, the riots are the fault of those on the right.

MarkW
Reply to  fretslider
November 20, 2021 8:03 am

Then you missed the seismic shift of the centre ground to the left.

He didn’t miss it, he supports it.

fretslider
Reply to  MarkW
November 20, 2021 8:09 am

He’s no democrat, that’s for sure.

Derg
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 4:55 am

Lefties are one thing…the world is moving more left.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 5:55 am

Posted like a true leftard. I suspect you work for the BBC?

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 20, 2021 6:17 am

Chaswarnertoo,

I strongly suspect I have been opposing BBC bias since before you were born.

Richard

Abolition Man
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 6:57 am

Richard,
If you think that British, or any other Western nation’s, politics have been shifting to the right; you really ought to take off those horse blinkers, and go back to the basics to review what right and left used to mean!
A classical Liberal believed in the rule of law and individual liberties, like freedom of speech. Originally, a Conservative was a proponent of free markets and small government. The current definitions have almost NO connection to the old, beyond the words still used! Both have forsaken their previous positions; with “Conservatives” now avid proponents of open borders and crony capitalism, and “Liberals” looking like open advocates for Stalinism or Maoism! Cloaking it in neo-Marxist gobbledygook like climate alarmism or transgenderism shouldn’t be enough camouflage to fool the discerning eye!

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 20, 2021 7:36 am

Aboltion Man,

I am not wearing any kind of blinkers.

If you had bothered to read what I wrote you would have noticed my “eye” has discerned Brexit,

Instead of pointless verbiage about “advocates for Stalinism or Maoism!” which have no traction in the UK, perhaps you would try to “discern” that Brexit demonstrates the UK has moved further to the right than Margaret Thatcher.

Richard

Abolition Man
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 8:51 am

Since you didn’t bother to comment on whether you believe in the rule of law or individual liberties, I have to assume that those aren’t part of your ideology. Do you even believe in the concept of private property, or is that just for the elites, as well?
How is a popular revolt against unelected bureaucratic rule in any way a move to the right? You need to get out of your 1-D political thinking, and realize that there is a vertical axis as well called freedom!

DaveS
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 22, 2021 4:33 am

Sorry to be blunt, but that’s complete and utter garbage.

MarkW
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 20, 2021 8:08 am

RSC is fully in love with socialism and actually believes that it promotes freedom.
In a way it does, those receive the money that was stolen from others, no longer have worry about working for a living. For those who have been enslaved to support the government, not so much.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 20, 2021 2:16 pm

Actually conservatives were originally in favour of the divine right of kings and were opposed to democracy. Try reading “Rights of Man” by Thomas Paine to see what conservatives like Edmund Burke actually believed. And when forced to accept democracy the conservatives did everything they could to stop people voting and to keep power and wealth concentrated in a tiny group (look at the protests against the repeal of the corn laws and Catholic emancipation). They further complained about giving women the right to vote etc. etc.

ATheoK
Reply to  Izaak Walton
November 20, 2021 3:30 pm

Not here in the USA since the Puritans landed.
Doubly not believers in the divine right of kings since the 1750s.

For that matter, UK moved away from the Divine Right of Kings, centuries ago.

It’s the whole reason the UK has Parliament and the House of Lords. They reined in the divine right of royalty, starting with the Magna Carta.

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
November 21, 2021 11:15 am

So your only defense of your position is by using definitions that have been out of date for over 200 years.
Pathetic, but then we are used to you doing whatever it takes to change the subject when you are losing.

griff
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 20, 2021 8:22 am

Again with the insults… never a counter argument.

Play the ball sir, not the man!

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 8:27 am

This from someone who refuses to look at the work of anyone who isn’t funded by one of your approved sources.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 8:51 am

I notice you have no argument, griff.

How odd.

meab
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 9:13 am

You insult each and every one of us each time you tell a lie, griffter, and that’s a frequent occurrence.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 11:09 pm

It amuses this American t see a bunch of Brits arguing about whether or not the parliamentary Conservatives are to the right. I’ve got my popcorn here, and I invite you to come over to the former colony and see what the right wing is. British parliamentary Conservatives may be a bit to the right of AOC.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 20, 2021 8:54 am

The populace believes more in big government helping them, than they do in their capability of helping themselves…hence a leftward drift…

Mark Kaiser
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 6:42 am

Richard, in the communist world, a socialist is the “far right”

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Mark Kaiser
November 20, 2021 7:28 am

Mark Kaiser,

Yes, as you say, “in the communist world, a socialist is the “far right”/ It is also true that to a fascist a Tory is the “far left”.
But none of that is relevant because the dispute was whether the UK had moved to the political left or right.

As I pointed out, the fact of Brexit demonstrates that the UK has moved further to the right than Margaret Thatcher,

Richard

MarkW
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 8:09 am

Since fascism is a form of socialism, your analogy fails.

Mark Kaiser
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 8:14 am

Richard I was responding to your statement:

In reality it is NOT “left wing” to be right of centre..

The Tories are right of centre and have a large Parliamentary majority.

Not the UK voters.

Lrp
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 1:41 pm

Rubbish! UK at the time of Mrs Thatcher was different from the UK at the time of Brexit

MarkW
Reply to  Lrp
November 20, 2021 2:18 pm

Richard still hasn’t forgiven Thatcher for breaking the control unions had over the country.

DaveS
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 22, 2021 4:37 am

Repeating garbage over and over doesn’t make it any less garbage.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 8:02 am

When your political spectrum runs from communist to socialist, right of center is still far left.

Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 11:30 pm

Wow. Look at all those ‘down’ votes. Truth hurts. There is nothing even close to an anarchist party in the U.S.A. When a President comes to Canada they tend to find our Conservatives too “left wing”.

Philip Rose
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 22, 2021 4:29 am

Name a single right-of centre policy by this government.

MarkW
Reply to  Philip Rose
November 22, 2021 8:41 am

The oppose full on communism. That qualifies as a right wing position in much of the world.

MarkW
Reply to  M Courtney
November 20, 2021 8:00 am

Only in Europe, could someone who has no problem with government growing, but just wants the rate of growth to be slowed a little, be called a conservative.

You seem to believe that belonging to a party that calls itself conservative, proves that one is a conservative.

Megs
Reply to  MarkW
November 20, 2021 3:48 pm

Australia’s current ruling government is ‘supposed’ to be conservative. Yet it is perceived globally as totalitarian at this point in time. The fact is, the two major parties here are pretty much a twin of each other. It’s almost amusing to hear ministers describe themselves as moderates, when they are in fact so far left they would have a good shot at Greens leadership. It’s also amusing when politicians describe other ministers as ‘centre right’, when the reality is that there is no such animal in the politics of the major parties.

The sitting government actually thinks it has a chance of winning the election next year. It’s going to be interesting. Notwithstanding postal votes.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 20, 2021 4:17 am

yup aussie ABC uses the same hymn book Im seeing downunder as well
factchecking claimed
BUT no proof of what they found to supposedly debunk a damn thing climate vaccines whatever, we have to trust the experts(them)
lol advertising themselves as our trusted media is an utter lie.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 20, 2021 6:21 am

I hear Ivermectin is proving effective against River Blindness, and the West Nile virus.

For the West Nile virus, they are putting Ivermectin in bird feeders which helps suppress the disease because birds are a carrier of the misquito-borne disease.

Ivermectin looks like it is good for a lot of things.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 20, 2021 7:00 am

Tom,
Ivermectin can’t possibly be effective for human use! Why, that’d make our political and media elites complete lying murderers! Oh, wait!!

Last edited 9 days ago by Abolition Man
Derg
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 20, 2021 8:13 am

Exactly! Horse paste is what they called it.

Eff them

Abolition Man
Reply to  Derg
November 20, 2021 8:54 am

Derg,
I just read a substack about scientists wondering why the Dread ChiCom-1984 Virus seems to have largely bypassed Africa. Many African nations have fatality rates 20X lower than the US and European nations!
Perhaps the one thing they can all agree on is that it could not possibly be due to widespread use of HCQ for malaria, and ivermectin for river blindness!
There is also a new study out of Germany that show a direct correlation between vaccination rate and excess deaths! That should be rather disturbing to anyone with a brain!

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 20, 2021 9:47 am

the new party line is: “yes Ivermectin works – but at a dose 20 times too great to bear the side effects. Therefore, we must all have the newly invented and patented pill from Big Business.”

Robert Hanson
Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 20, 2021 7:16 am

“A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat agree that the media are “truly the enemy of the people,” including 34% who Strongly Agree”

That was from Friday, July 09, 2021. I’m guessing the number agreeing would be even higher now.

MarkW
Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 20, 2021 8:10 am

Here in the US, NBC just published an article claiming that parents have no right to a say in what their children are being taught because parents lack the training to know what is best for their kids.

Apparently on those who work for government are sufficiently qualitied to decide how others must live.

Oldseadog
November 20, 2021 2:41 am

The Government has instructed the BBC not to allow any “climate sceptics” on any programme nor are their ideas to be discussed at any time. I am surprised that the BBC has allowed this piece to be published.

Richard Page
Reply to  Oldseadog
November 20, 2021 7:31 am

They published this piece because it has little or no connection to reality. It’s simply a smear against climate change critics and sets up arguments that their target demographic can easily identify as false. The ‘remain’ campaigners did much the same thing during Brexit – identifying the ‘leave’ side as bigots and racists then creating false arguments that they could easily knock down, allowing themselves to feel smugly superior. Again, it’s all a con job.

griff
Reply to  Oldseadog
November 20, 2021 8:16 am

The UK govt can’t instruct the BBC to do anything. The govt is aiming to defund the BBC because it does not toe the govt line.

The UK govt IS right of centre – and yes, it all accepts climate science and has a net zero policy. Those things are not left wing and do not make a govt left wing.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 8:29 am

A communist calling a socialist right wing.

Abolition Man
Reply to  MarkW
November 20, 2021 9:01 am

MarkW,
We should always be happy when they attack their own! After all, if Hitler hadn’t launched Operation Barbarossa, England would have become a socialist country decades earlier; and they’d have had to have been bilingual in German, as well!

Oldseadog
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 12:20 pm

No, griff, several years ago the Government instructed the BBC that on pain of dismissal no BBC employee was to allow anything to be broadcast which contradicted the Government line that there is a climate emergency and that CO2 is the sole cause.

The GB Government line is that it accepts the science “proving” CAGW and ignores the science that disproves it.

MarkW
Reply to  Oldseadog
November 21, 2021 11:31 am

It might be more accurate to say that the BBC is the voice of the permanent bureaucracy, regardless of which party runs the government.

ATheoK
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 3:48 pm

The govt is aiming to defund the BBC because”

Because, the public hates the BBC license fee and for the garbage news propaganda they are forced to watch.

Not because the BBC fails to toe the government line. The truth is the BBC is the government voice of propaganda.

As their policy against honest science and scientists clearly demonstrates.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 4:36 pm

Griffy, I’m sure that made sense in your delusional little head, but not so much in the real world. While it is true that the Tories have had a traditional right-wing slant to the party, the government is not representative of this slant and occupies a moderate left-wing stance on many issues. To all intents and purposes they are a left-wing government, although not as far to the left as the Lib Dems or Labour. As to the rest, the government is not aiming to defund the BBC because they don’t toe the government line – they are trying to regain control of the British Broadcasting Corporation – an organisation that has become a dangerous loose cannon with a worrying corporate identity often at odds with the UK government, people, and in breach of its own charter.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 11:14 pm

No, not left wing at all.

Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 2:51 am

Paul Homewood,

You ask,

We know that climate sceptics are no longer allowed on the BBC, but if they want to know what sceptics think, why did not the BBC actually ask some of them to contribute and have a proper debate with them, instead of fabricating the BBC version of denialism?

I can answer that.
The BBC knows what climate realists actually think but their revenue stream would end if they stopped promoting the narrative which the government desires.

The BBC has been informed of true climate realism by many people including me. For example, I cite my complaint to the BBC at support of child abuse by broadcasting an interview with children who had be brainwashed by the Extinction Rebellion. I know the BBC read my complaint because in response to Ofcom (the broadcasting regulator) supporting my complaint the BBC has adopted the practice of only interviewing children who are accompanied by adult chaperones.

My complaint which I know the BBC read included this,

I refer you to this item http://allaboutenergy.net/environment/item/2208-letter-to-senator-james-inhofe-about-relying-on-ipcc-richard-courtney-uk . It is my reply to a request to me for information on climate change from US Senator James Inhoffe, Chair of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, that I provided in 2008. No information requiring any alteration to that letter has subsequently been found (but additional supporting evidence for its contents has been found). This demonstrates

(a) there is stasis in climate science,

and

(b) there was no imminent climate crisis in 2008 and there is no reason to think such an imminent crisis has developed since then.

 

For your convenience, I attach a file of the same letter to Senator Inhofe as is in the link. Also, should you doubt there is “additional supporting evidence” then, as example, I also attach a file of some correspondence which discusses how the recent work of Humlum is confirmatory of some of my published work referenced in the linked (and attached) letter.

 

Secondly, on behalf of the BBC, “Hollie Bann” asserted the BBC policy of deliberate bias in reporting matters of climate change is justified by a “scientific consensus”. That assertion ignored the comments in my linked (and attached) letter which say,

And etc.

The link is to a poorly formatted copy (Americans use strange paper size)

Richard

bonbon
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 3:17 am

A4 has a bigger carbon footprint than Letter! /sarc

Scissor
Reply to  bonbon
November 20, 2021 5:50 am

About 3% more, which turns out to be man’s contribution to annual CO2 emissions.

More importantly, if font sizes were reduced to the point to make copy illegible, then most problems might disappear altogether.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Scissor
November 20, 2021 7:02 am

Scissor,
Is that like 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

ATheoK
Reply to  Abolition Man
November 20, 2021 3:50 pm

Yo Ho Ho, and a cask of rum!

yirgach
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 6:28 am
November 20, 2021 2:53 am

(1) Plate Tectonics & The Loss Of Ground Ice

The thin Earth surface sits on a soft magma blanket that reacts to weight differentials on the surface. That means as ice runs off ground into the oceans, the weight of that added water sinks the oceans’ surface, while at the same time raising the land surface, resulting in an increase in (1) land surface; and (2) land capable of cropping. That means Greenland, with a landmass eight times greater than Great Britain, is slated to be a fertile land once again, and capable of sustaining a population equal to approximately 8X that of Great Britain.

The less ice on the planet the better for human growth, but that would violate the Satanist establishment’s objective of sabotaging God’s prime directive to be fruitful and multiply.

(2) Floods, tornadoes & hurricanes

A warming planet means LESS severe storms, as identified by simple physics that when two weather collision extremes are muted, so too are the severity of tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

Since the Earth is warming, we’re told, that means the upper and lower troposphere are now warmer, thereby damping [pun intended] the severe effects when colder air in the upper troposphere collides with warmer air in the lower troposphere.

(3) Drought

A warming planet means greater evaporation of water, hence increased rainfall.

ATheoK
Reply to  Dean M Jackson
November 20, 2021 4:14 pm

Sophistry and bafflegab.

That “thin Earth surface” is 3 miles deep at the shallowest, deep under the oceans near rift zones; and 20 miles deep under the continents before hitting the next layer, the Mantle. The mantle is approximately 1,800 miles deep and is described as viscous.

Earth’s surface is rock.
Water by itself is insufficient to weight down a continent. Especially when the mantle’s outer layer is very dense and not especially malleable.

Water falling or running down to the ocean does not sit on top and “weight” down the water.

Mile high over an immense area Ice age glaciers might’ve bent the crust down a little, an inconsequential distance given Earth’s diameter.

bonbon
November 20, 2021 3:12 am

As revealed here :
https://www.mintpressnews.com/spy-school-kings-college-london-churning-out-journalists/277582/
using declassified UK docs, guess where BBC journalists learn their craft ? King’s College London Department of War Studies.
No wonder the transatlantic ¨reports¨ in lock-step!
It would be extremely naive to assume the BBC simply had an ¨opinion¨. War footing anyone?

Check Reuters – Thomson Reuters Foundation, and the BBC – BBC Media Action, are 2 charities not the Corps. themselves. Funding?

Last edited 9 days ago by bonbon
DiggerUK
November 20, 2021 3:46 am

Us deniers in the UK always get a bad press off the BBC, perhaps they should make it clearer what they think we are denying. Denying their racketeering nonsense seems to get them peeved.

What they should accept, is that a policy that denies the absence of any coherent strategy to keep the lights on, is denying what needs to be done. Getting alarmist about carbon dioxide is just crackers when what is needed is a viable energy policy. A policy that accepts, not denies, the need for fossil fuels…_
https://www.netzerowatch.com/call-to-declare-emergency-as-britain-faces-energy-crisis/

Please also sign and circulate this petition…_
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602

fretslider
November 20, 2021 3:47 am

The BBCs Andrew Marr is going Global…

Marr has announced he is leaving the BBC after 21 years, including 16 fronting his BBC Sunday morning show. He said he was “keen to get my own voice back” 

An interesting phrase to use….

He’s joining LBC and Classic FM in an exclusive deal with Global radio stations. And will write for newspapers. Will the real Marr be any different to the BBC apparatchick?

“Andrew Marr: Treat people like grown-ups and they will fight climate change”

I doubt it.

Last edited 9 days ago by fretslider
DaveS
Reply to  fretslider
November 22, 2021 4:51 am

I haven’t watched the BBC for ages, but clips of his interviews sometimes turn up on YouTube, on which basis some of his political interviews are OK – he’s been as good skewering Labour politicians for spouting nonsense as Tory ones. Whether his own left-wing views will become more evident when at LBC remains to be seen.

bonbon
November 20, 2021 4:00 am

Nature reality checked the BBC and delivered a major lunar eclipse…
https://phys.org/news/2021-11-longest-lunar-eclipse-centuries-week.html
Last time was 580 years ago – 1441, what was happening? The Witch of Eye was burnt at the stake for an attempt on Henry VI (Shakespeare play).

Last edited 9 days ago by bonbon
ozspeaksup
November 20, 2021 4:14 am

in reply to the last Q
well theyd rather keep themselves from being caught out ,by actually having anyone able to cogently argue with facts and figures etc from the side they purport to “know all about”

RickWill
November 20, 2021 5:48 am

The fact that the BBC article exists means they must be concerned that an increasing number of people are observant enough to not be fooled by the CAGW propaganda.

So many people so cruelly deceived by errant nonsense produced by climate models. These monstrous insults to intelligent application of physics are a joke on humanity. Hans Christian Anderson The Emporer’s New Clothes so aptly foretells of the dullards who support the rubbish spewing from climate models – calling them junk science actually raises their status. They bear no relationship to science.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RickWill
November 20, 2021 6:27 am

“The fact that the BBC article exists means they must be concerned that an increasing number of people are observant enough to not be fooled by the CAGW propaganda.”

I think that’s the takeaway. They are trying to mass-debunk climate change criticism because they are seeing a lot of it.

I couldn’t copy and paste the BBC article as presented, or I would have probably had more comments.

Last edited 9 days ago by Tom Abbott
Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 20, 2021 7:06 am

Tom Abbot,

You suggest of the BBC,
They are trying to mass-debunk climate change criticism because they are seeing a lot of it.”

I agree, and I think they will be seeing more of it as the global warming scare slowly fades away.

There is a limit to the number of times most people can fail to laugh when told “This is the last chance to save the world”. So, the scare dissipates with the passage of each annual IPCC COP which achieves nothing but empty promises. Importantly, nobody has a reason the promises despite the silly hype about the world being on fire.

The global warming scare was killed at the Copenhagen COP in 2009 when it was decided there would not be a successor Treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. Since then the scare has been dead but continues to move as though still alive: it emulates the movements of life like a decapitated chicken running around a farmyard.

People making use of the scare continue to do damage. And like every bandwagon they have a great variety of purposes and reasons. For example, croney-capitalists promoting mandates to operate windfarms they own, far-right extremists using this WUWT thread as an excuse for attacking any who don’t share their unpleasant political beliefs, Malthusians calling for population reduction, and etc.

As the global warming scare continues to fade away I think all people of good will need to defend against those using the scare to impose bureaucracies to enforce their desires, to promote and/or impose divisive political beliefs, and to damage societies and human well-being.

Richard

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 20, 2021 9:31 am

I don’t see it fading away at all.

RickWill
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 20, 2021 12:49 pm

It is evolving to how can I milk this. The poorer countries are not attending COP because they have concern about climate change. They are there to get some of the “ambition” from the wealthier nations.

DaveS
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
November 22, 2021 4:56 am

We can but hope that climate hysteria will fade away, but a lot of people won’t like that happening and have vested interests in it not happening. COP27 and COP28 are already in the diary for the thousands of parasites who made it to Glasgow, they need to have something to continue to salivate over.

Abolition Man
Reply to  RickWill
November 20, 2021 7:06 am

Rick,
“They bear no relationship to science.”
Ayup! Definitely a religion of pieces; all that will be left of civilization if they get their way!

Ulric Lyons
November 20, 2021 6:56 am

Who knows what the mean global temperature was during the Maunder Minimum?
In this centennial solar minimum, and in the previous centennial minimum in the late 1800’s, the globe warmed, because of an increase in El Nino conditions and a warmer AMO. The rapid warming of the AMO and Arctic since 1995 is because of weaker solar wind states, not rising CO2 forcing.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
November 20, 2021 9:33 am

“Global Mean Temperature” is a fantasy, bogus in all aspects. It has no bearing on reality.

Abolition Man
November 20, 2021 7:29 am

Paul,
The BBC doesn’t dare allow climate realists (skeptics) on their programming because they ask TOO DAMN MANY inconvenient questions for which there are no good answers!
If the Holocene Climate Optimum is catastrophic and man made, then why were the last three interglacials even warmer than current temperatures!?
If CO2 levels have been falling for nearly 150 million years to levels dangerously close to the threshold for the death of plants, then why is today’s rise back to safer, more beneficial levels a worry? And how do we know that most of the CO2 isn’t being released by the oceans, as the warmth since the LIA cycles down into the depths?
In order to be a good, obedient climate alarmist; you can’t look back beyond the mid-20th Century without large scale revisions to the data! Ear plugs and horse blinkers are required, but I believe the ball gags are optional! Right, griffter!?

Last edited 9 days ago by Abolition Man
MarkW
November 20, 2021 7:55 am

Unsurprisingly it is full of strawmen, omissions, half truths and disinformation:

Not unlike the rest of their” stories”.

November 20, 2021 8:00 am

Actually, the Electric Universe nicely explains not only the Warm Periods and the Little Ice Age, but it also explains the glacial/interglacial swings of the current Ice Age.

Much of the observable universe can be explained and shown to be the results of charged currents between the stars. This is similar to static charge build up by air planes passing through the air and gaining charge, which eventually has to be transferred or dissipated. This current occurs as well as between our Sun and the planets (the solar wind is a great example of such activity). Such interstellar currents also explain the filamentous structure of the galaxies in the Universe, which the current Big Bang Theory cannot explain at all. So, during the current 12 million year Ice Age, into which we are only 2.0–2.5 million years, there is a charged current, broad and weak, but not to be ignored, that flows from the nearest star to the Sun.

So, think of the Sun as a capacitor, the interstellar space as a resistor, and you have an R/C circuit. The capacitor (the Sun) takes about 85–90,000 years to charge up the Sun, which BTW is not a hydrogen fusion engine but a supernova remnant (explains why sunspots are dark, and cold inside). Once a capacitor reaches its limit, it starts to discharge. The capacitor heats up and starts dispelling charge to its surroundings, heating the planets and producing an Interglacial Period.

As it heats up, the capacitor increases in current, reaches a maximum, the Holocene Optimum, and then, as the charge wanes, so does the discharge current and heating of the planets. Typically, the pattern of the discharge has an up and down fluctuation with decreasing current (and heating) as the charge dissipates. This explains the regular but downward peaks of the Warm Periods since the Holocene Optimum—an almost perfectly linear drop in current. Eventually, the capacitor lacks the voltage to keep up the current and it stops emitting current, plunging back into charge mode again. The exact same pattern is seen in a common R/C circuit on a bench top.

The only question is when the voltage will drop to the minimum and the discharge currently heating the Sun (and us) drops to zero for another glacial period.

The fact that the Sun is a supernova remnant is not only indicated by the fact that sunspots are cold inside (it should be brighter than the Sun if it was hordes of energy from a fusion engine). NASA has even seen condensation clouds in some. The neutrino flux from the Sun has been known for a long time to be wrong for a H fusion engine—shhhh, don’t tell anyone. Also, the core of the Earth (and all rocky planets) is very probably a chunk of the remaining supernova core and is rich with neutron rich elements from which their breakdown produces a lot of carbon and hydrogen through the neutron repulsion effect.

These lighter elements percolate toward the surface, forming methane and higher carbon structures as they lose H to the surrounding liquid rock. This explains quite nicely why we find natural gas and/or oil everywhere we drill deep enough, indicates that this is a renewable resource. There is simply no way that gas or oil from 10 to 12,000 feet down was ever a fossil bed of plant detritus. This is also why these gases and oils have a C-14 signature that is not related to solar activity—which is the basis of C-14 dating, as it is formed from N-14 in the atmosphere and solar emissions.

We live in an Electric Universe that is also a basically a Steady State Universe (ESSU) that has always been. Just as we will never know what came before the Big Bang (Theory, BBT), we will never know the SSU’s age or if it ever came from something. The BBT cannot explain much of the observable Universe and has to resort to inventing a Dark Physics of Dark Matter, Energy, and Force to explain 95+% of the Universe.

On the other hand, the ESSU can explain 99+% of the Universe without resorting to radical math and imaginary physics. BTW, string theory is NOT a theory, it is an hypothesis for which there is no real evidence. The whole idea of a multiverse of universes is an extension of the string hypothesis and should never have been explored, as it is a waste of human time and effort. There are nine models for blackhole, because none of them fit in the observable universe. However, never mind, we will look for them anyhow.

In the ESSU, electromagnetic nexi at galactic centers (explaining the powerful jets from galactic centers that BBT cannot explain) and electric current pinch effects at stars (Birkland currents) creates artifacts that BBT proponents misinterpret as black holes. For that matter, Einstein, Oppenheimer, and even Nasa have said there are no blackholes.

This also explains why there will be no peak oil, ever, as it’s forming under our feet as you read this. I have a tiny share of an oil well in Texas that had now been producing for 90 years, slow but sure. Many old capped wells have been found to have recharged over time, with even resorting to fracking.

MarkW
Reply to  Charles Higley
November 20, 2021 8:33 am

The sun is not and can never be a capacitor. The electric universe is and has always been, total nonsense.

As to wells recharging, that is not evidence of abiotic origin, that just shows that it takes time for oil to move through rock. Did you actually believe that when they stop pumping, that there is no oil left in the resevoir?

Last edited 9 days ago by MarkW
griff
November 20, 2021 8:13 am

The claims about extreme rainfall are simply absurd and not backed up by any hard data. 

and yet this year, just in the last 6 months, we have had 3 ‘1 in 1,000 year’ widespread extreme rain events in Canada, China and Germany.

And half a dozen extreme rain events in turkey, Nepal, India, Sicily etc

Weather records – not models, not predictions – show the UK is 6% wetter with six of the ten wettest years for the UK in a series from 1862 having occurred since 1998.

The claims there is NOT extreme rainfall are simply absurd and not backed by any data…

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 8:38 am

As always, griff revels in it’s ignorance of basic statistics.
In a world with millions of places, you can expect thousands of 1 in 1000 year events to occur every year.
Sometimes these events happen in populated places, most of the time they don’t.
As to the claim that rainfall has increase 6%, first off the confidence interval on the data does not support such a claim, beyond that 30 years is half the AMO cycle which is known to have a strong influence on British weather.

Prediction: In a couple of days when griff repeats this lie yet again, if I merely respond with a statement that this lies has already been refuted, griff will whine that I never support my claims.

bonbon
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 9:17 am

Actually you are right – there was an extreme event in Glasgow, FLOP26, definitely caused by global warming hysterics. In fact it was even worse than the famous Rio Summit of 1992 catastrophe with somewhat lower CO2. This did not produce the $150 trillion windfall for the City of London, :

‘I am deeply sorry’: Alok Sharma fights back tears as watered-down Cop26 deal agreedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLmaumUTqVE

My models predict a hysteria hockey stick at COP27 with slightly higher CO2, but maybe watered down to a lukewarm cup of tea.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  bonbon
November 20, 2021 10:04 am

 lukewarm cup of tea.”

Not enough Brownian motion. Must be hot.

Richard M
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 10:32 am

I see Griff is back cherry picking again. One wonders why. We now know the warming over the last 20 years was due to a decrease in reflected solar energy. Even if there were more extreme rainfall events what could we we do to stop them? The evidence shows a strong correlation to the PDO. Does Griff expect us to control the PDO?

“The TOA net flux was +0.75 W/m2 in 2020. The data shown in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 suggest that the root cause for the positive TOA net flux and, hence, for a further accumulation of energy during the last two decades was a declining outgoing shortwave flux and not a retained LW flux. ” – Hans-Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt, October 2021, journal Atmosphere, Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020.
comment image

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Richard M
November 21, 2021 8:38 am

Have you considered why the Earth’s albedo has decreased (more solar SW absorption)?
And it has nothing to do with what’s driving GW … though it is now a feedback to warming – at least until tropical Pacific SSTs becoming cyclically cooler again..

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/09/210930104851.htm

“Specifically, there has been a reduction of bright, reflective low-lying clouds over the eastern Pacific Ocean in the most recent years, according to satellite measurements made as part of NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project.
That’s the same area, off the west coasts of North and South America, where increases in sea surface temperatures have been recorded because of the reversal of a climatic condition called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, with likely connections to global climate change.”

And …

“”It’s actually quite concerning,” said Edward Schwieterman, a planetary scientist at the University of California at Riverside who was not involved in the new study. For some time, many scientists had hoped that a warmer Earth might lead to more clouds and higher albedo, which would then help to moderate warming and balance the climate system, he said. “But this shows the opposite is true”

Last edited 8 days ago by Anthony Banton
Rainer Bensch
Reply to  griff
November 21, 2021 3:19 am

And yet this week, just yesterday, we had no rain at all. Must be one of this terrible droughts continued from the last 3 years.

griff
November 20, 2021 8:19 am

How many articles and comments have I read in the skeptic websites saying there is going to be a new Maunder minimum and everyone will be sorry when people freeze to death because of renewables?

Hundreds!

And yet now the sun didn’t cause the minimum I read here? The cause is uncertain?!

The BBC had it bang to rights in what it wrote…

Last edited 9 days ago by griff
MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 8:39 am

Poor poor griff, he actually thinks climate changes in mere moments.
Are you actually ignorant enough to believe that the world went from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age in a couple of months?

griff
November 20, 2021 8:21 am

clearly if the gas power had not failed in Texas then there would have been no blackout. Fail of fossil fuel caused the problem – and then took wind down with it.

I see no evidence that Texas would NOT have had a blackout in a 100% fossil system, given the same level of lack of winterisation.

(Perhaps if replying to this post you’d like to answer that, instead of making schoolyard insults)

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 8:45 am

Once again with the tired lies.

Natural gas power plants increased their output some 20 to 30 percent during the cold snap.
Unfortunately, since they had been wasting money on renewables, which failed completely instead of building reliable energy sources, the remaining gas plants weren’t able to ramp up enough to cover the demand.

When you insult people’s intelligence, over and over and over again, you can’t demand only genteel responses

It often takes many lines of response to counter a lie you put out in just a few words. Rational people quite understandably get irritated at that.

M Courtney
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 8:47 am

The wind went down first.
It is true that the gas could have run anyway without the wind but then didn’t as the gas subsequently failed too. And so to avoid the problem it’s the gas that needs weather-proofing.
But the difference is that the gas can be weather-proofed and the windpower cannot.

MarkW
Reply to  M Courtney
November 20, 2021 12:25 pm

Because of problems with the gas delivery system caused ultimately by EPA rules to limit CO2 emissions, power from nat gas stations did not increase as much as it could have. It did however increase some 20 to 30 percent. That’s not a “failure” in my book.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  MarkW
November 20, 2021 5:06 pm

I’m not entirely sure about this. ERCOT were granted dispensation to allow higher levels of pollution and CO2 emissions temporarily if they were unable to meet demand. It’s unclear the extent to which it was used (I guess we will be waiting a long time for the formal reports). My hunch is that at least at some stations it was, but that pushed them into an unfamiliar operating regime (since such operation had been banned for many years) which may have had its own consequences for stability of operation.

MarkW
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
November 21, 2021 11:46 am

The CO2 regulations had to do with how the compressors that pressurize the pipelines were powered. They used to be powered from the natural gas in the pipelines. However new regulations required them to be powered from the electric grid. When the grid went down, so did the pipelines. This was not a flaw with natural gas power, it was a flaw in federal regulations.

Richard Brimage
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 8:49 am

The gas failed because the compressors were changed to run on electricity instead of gas to reduce CO2 emissions. When the electricity failed (rolling blackouts) the compressors shut down and the gas stopped flowing. This caused the gas powered generators to shut down. Nasty little feedback. If the CO2 nuts had left things alone the gas would have kept flowing. Also when it gets really cold like that cold spell in Texas the wind dies. Grew up in Texas and remember some really cold times from the 50’s and 60’s.

Last edited 9 days ago by Richard Brimage
Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 11:04 am

After a career in the electric power industry, including CEO/GM of an electric power company, I tell you that your comment has no basis in science, technology nor economics. You seem to allow your ideology and the fact-less spewing of other ideologues to cloud your reasoning powers.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 1:16 pm

There was never talk of winterisation when power generation and supply systems were hydro, nuclear, coal, and gas only. Water pipes were buried deep and insulated that’s all, and generators could start and operate without need to wait for unreliable wind energy to appear or not. But you know that already, hence your lies and misinformation.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 3:32 pm

We covered all this extensively before. Demand was running ahead of the total available generation, and the gap was going to get worse. Wind generation fell back late on the 14th, and ERCOT cranked up all available other capacity, leaving nothing in reserve.

ERCOT supply demand intertie.png
Last edited 8 days ago by It doesn't add up...
MarkW
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
November 21, 2021 11:48 am

All of griffs frequent claims have been refuted time and again.
The problem is that it only takes a few words for griff to repeat one of his lies, but it often takes many paragraphs to refute them.

griff waits for others to get tired of refuting his lies, and then proclaims victory.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 3:52 pm

Wind generation fell back from around 9GW to 5GW just after midnight – this was simply the result of wind speeds falling below turbine cut-in speeds as the air became almost still. See this map of windspeed

ventusky-wind-10m-20210216t0300-31n100w.jpg
It doesn't add up...
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 4:00 pm

Please note that at this point gas supply was operating normally to meet the demand from all the available gas power stations. The reality is that although production from wells was cut back, supply to power stations and other customers was being maintained by using dry gas in storage – some 156bcf drawdown of storage occurred in just a week, and there would have been sufficient working gas to have drawn more.

South Central NG storagechart.png
It doesn't add up...
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 4:30 pm

However, ERCOT’s bad decision to abandon having any spinning reserve – they should have started implemented rotating blackouts to create some reserve – meant that they were vulnerable to any further problems in the system which was creaking because of the continued high demand and the falling wind input: the ERCOT assumption that there would always be at least 6GW of wind generation was becoming increasingly unstuck. Demand was exceeding supply, and grid frequency started falling after 1 a.m. This really was last chance saloon for the ERCOT control room to impose power cuts. Then at 1:52 a.m. all hell broke loose, with a cascading trip against which there was no spinning reserve defence, knocking out several power stations almost simultaneously and sending grid frequency down to 59.3Hz, at which level automated load shedding takes place. This image is taken from a blog by Yesenergy promoting their grid monitoring software. the blog can be found here

https://www.yesenergy.com/yeblog/2021/generation-role-ercot-cold-snap

Some 10GW of load was shed, creating a spinning reserve, and temporarily leading to over-frequency. The loss was far greater than properly organised rotating blackouts would have been, and it had a sting in the tail. Among the loads shed were a number of gas pipeline compressor stations that were pumping gas to power stations, which became starved of fuel: had these compressors been operated as they used to be by using gas this problem would not have occurred, but gas compressors were deemed ungreen a number of years ago and replaced.

What followed on was a continual struggle to try to re-assign the areas of shed load to attempt to restore gas supply, and continuing problems for plants that had endured severe strains on their operations partly due to the weather, partly due to demand effectively being at more than capacity, and largely due to grid mismangement by ERCOT.

Texas grid freq febPic+4.PNG
It doesn't add up...
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 4:52 pm

Wind generation continued to fall reaching a nadir of just 649MW, almost entirely due to continuing stilling of wind speeds. That some turbines were halted because they iced up mattered little: had they been weatherised they would not have produced much at all.

ERCOT Wind.png
It doesn't add up...
Reply to  griff
November 20, 2021 5:02 pm

The really key point is that ERCOT were never going to meet 74GW of demand with 67GW of generation (the maximum achieved). They simply had too little dispatchable capacity available to do the job. Why? In part because some capacity was out for maintenance on the assumption that peak demand might be in a hot summer spell, not a cold winter one. But in large measure because wind subsidies and growing wind capacity had reduced the running hours for too many conventional stations, making them unprofitable, and leading to closure and inadequate maintenance. With no mechanism to ensure that sufficient capacity was available to cover for a wind shortage – and a belief that there would always be more wind anyway – ERCOT were caught out badly. Their own grid mismanagement was the icing on the cake, if not the wind turbines.

griff
Reply to  griff
November 21, 2021 9:34 am

I’ve looked at the responses (thanks for making them) and reviewed every result I can find online for ’cause of Texas power failure’ and I stand by my original comment.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  griff
November 21, 2021 12:12 pm

Then you failed to look at the data and understand it. Your original comment fails.

For a start, you fail to recognise that demand was running ahead of available supply, and forecast to go higher. See the first chart I posted. So blackouts were inevitable even if there had been no reduction in non-wind generation at all.

Secondly, gas supply was demonstrably adequate to keep the power stations running at peak available capacity.

Third, it is quite clear that wind output started dropping simply because the wind speeds were dropping even while fossil fuel output was increasing – quite the reverse of your claim that the reverse occurred.

Fourth, it is clear that the system became stressed with demand exceeding generation when frequency started eroding after 1 a.m. well in advance of the major cascading trips and automated load shedding.

Fifth, it is clear that ERCOT failed to maintain an adequate margin of spinning reserve, meaning that no power station trip was survivable. They had relied on wind output that wasn’t there in their planning.

If you do not understand these points then I suggest you make the effort to do so. You will note that they are all supported by real data, not by assertions by various parties seeking to deflect or assign potential blame, which is what you will find in most of the reports to be found on the internet.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 22, 2021 8:43 am

So you prefer to believe lies, over actual data.
Not a surprise.

WR2
November 20, 2021 8:30 am

Because they don’t care what skeptics think. They are constructing a straw man.

Eric Harpham
November 20, 2021 9:01 am

Please could all UK citizens sign the petition to parliament “Hold a referendum on whether to keep the 2050 net zero target”

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602

After 23 days it is at 19,291 with another 157 days to go. We need to reach 100,000, for it to be discussed in Parliament, before 27th April 2022.

Who knows if the UK public find out what the true cost will be of going net zero they may do a “Brexit” on the government and all the political parties that believe the water melon activists.

Please also encourage your family and friends to vote.

TheLastDemocrat
November 20, 2021 9:59 am

BBC has large pension funds to have invested.
BBC is part of the “Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change.” A group designed to promote “green investing” by its members.

Right there, BBC has a conflict of interest.They cannot be free to report with integrity since they have avowed a belief in climate warming, and have declared they put their money where their mouth is. Or, put their mouth where their money is.

BBC has their pension funds managed by Generation Investment Managment, LLC (GIM). This is a “green” investment management firm for very large institutional investors. I think the ante is $5 million plus.

GIM was founded by Al Gore.

So, Al Gore convinces everyone that the sky is falling. But if you invest in green, you can save the world. And, he pops up with an investment firm to allow you to go green.

“Green” is a strong investment only if everyone joins in and commits to invest in green. Hence the huge international hub-bub – all countries encouraging each other to create this need, so the market is strong.

If Al Gore convinces all of these large institutional investors to go green, his market is strong. He skims his bit off the top of investment growth.

Nice work if you can get it.

https://www.iigcc.org/

https://www.generationim.com/

Peta of Newark
November 20, 2021 11:25 am

Quote:”Nobody has yet put together a cogent explanation for what caused the Little Ice Age,”

Yes they did, Me, I did.

King Henry 8th caused it by chopping England’s forest so as to make cannons and cannonballs.
Folks across Europe did likewise so as to return Henry’s fire.
When you are below 40 degs latitude ##, forests and the water contained therein keeps you cool
When you are above 40 degs latitude ##, forests and their water store keeps you warm

King Henry thus triggered a long-lasting Eurocentric La NIna that spread all around the globe just as Ninos and Ninas disperse each their own ‘goodness’ around the globe now – via a mechanism called ‘weather’
Things warmed up a bit as the forest recovered somewhat but warmed even more as folks below 40 degress set of El Ninos by cutting their trees.

## I’m saying 40 degrees. What I’m alluding to is the ‘point’ below which, we often see mentioned round here, where Earth is a net absorber and above which Earth is a net radiator.

MarkW
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 20, 2021 12:30 pm

explanation, yes
cogent, no

AndyHce
November 20, 2021 11:59 am

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Thought it isn’t often admitted in public, everybody knows that the only real consequence of said “Little Ice Age” was to keep the vodka a little better chilled.

ResourceGuy
November 20, 2021 12:41 pm

Someone had to invent “Strawman Journalism” along the route of the Great Climate Crusades.

November 20, 2021 4:00 pm

Only 1.2 deg C rise in 200 years yet they say it yet it could “possibly” double that in the next 80 years.
What is the basis for that claim if they are in the business of “debunking”?

glenn holdcroft
November 20, 2021 5:20 pm

There are 2 sides to every story but not on the BBC .
And many other so called national broadcasters worldwide , a lot like Chinese news .

TonyG
November 20, 2021 6:42 pm

It’s so much easier to tear down strawmen than to actually engage with real people with real positions.

November 20, 2021 7:56 pm

The history the Marxist BBC, or any Marxist co-opted media, naturally conspired to not direct your attention to:

“Trust but VERIFY” – President Ronald Reagan’s watch phrase when dealing with the USSR…

In 1975 the CIA’s CounterIntelligence Staff (CI) chief, James Angleton, was fired along with the purge of 80% of his CI Staff, cementing the Marxist control of the CIA, explaining how in 1980 Marxist John Brennan was accepted into the agency, even though he told his polygraph examiner that he voted for CPUSA candidate, Gus Hall, for change.

Hence why…

(1) The West conspired to not VERIFY the ‘collapse’ of the USSR, even though the survival of the West depended on verification should the ‘collapse’ be a ruse, which proves (1) there was no ‘collapse’ of the USSR, because if there had been a ‘collapse’ the West would have immediately VERIFIED the ‘collapse’; and (2) the West’s institutions were co-opted by Marxists, explaining the West’s enabling of the fake ‘collapse’ of the USSR…quod erat demonstrandum.

Hence how…

(2) “On the initiative of the KGB, an army of Soviet vigilantes five million strong, the so-called ‘druzhiny’, was recruited from among the Komsomol activists. Their units were led by retired Chekists. They have been patrolling and policing the streets of all the Soviet cities. Their primary task has been to prepare the Soviet people to ‘behave’ during the forthcoming ‘liberalisation’.” – KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, ‘The Perestroika Deception‘, March 1989, pp. 14-15.

https://archive.org/stream/AnatoliyGolitsyn/Golitsyn-ThePerestroikaDeception-TheWorldsSlideTowardsTheSecondOctoberRevolution1995_djvu.txt

Hence why…

(3) Leningrad Oblast (Province) is still named Leningrad Oblast! Engels City is still named Engels City! Engels Air Force Base is still named Engels Air Force Base! Russian military personnel still refer to each other as “Comrade”! Kaliningrad Oblast is still named Kaliningrad Oblast! The State Emblem of the Soviet Union is atop the Duma building, and illuminated at night for clear viewing! Soviet Red Stars are still attached to the bows of Russian naval ships! The Hammer & Sickle logo is still on Aeroflot commercial aircraft! Not one statue to Lenin has been destroyed in Russia, where out of the 3,000 still standing throughout Russia, only a handful have been carefully taken down (in locations where tourists frequent) and hidden away in parks and museums, the remainder of these monstrosities to Russian nationalism/Russian Orthodox Church rubbing historical salt into still open wounds of Russian nationalists! The Russian ‘electorate’ are only ‘electing’ for president Soviet era communist party member Quislings, who persecuted the 85% of the religious population held captive by the Communist Party during the ‘Soviet era’! 

…and…

(4) When the USSR officially ‘collapsed’ on December 26, 1991, thereby liberating the 91% of the population that were held captive for 74 years by the 9% of the atheist, religion suppressing, civil rights suppressing, population that were Marxists, there were ZERO celebrations throughout Soviet Russia, when thousands of celebrations were supposed to have taken place.

…and…

(5) When the USSR ‘collapsed’ in late 1991, the KGB controlled Russian Orthodox Church was never purged of its KGB clergy, once again identifying the (a) fake ‘collapse’ of the USSR; and (b) Marxist co-option of the West’s institutions that conspired to not VERIFY the ‘collapse’, even though the West witnessed the KGB-led vigilantes patrolling the streets of Soviet cities, ensuring that the Soviet population “‘behave’ during the forthcoming ‘liberalisation'”.

The Historical Backstory

(6) The World War I Allies conspired to not immediately send a naval expedition to Petrograd to easily topple the Bolshevik coup of November 7, 1917 when the Bolsheviks were weak – bereft of a professional military force that wouldn’t be created until January 28 the next year – thereby promptly returning Russia to the war, Russia’s involvement in the war being a critical variable for the Allies’ victory strategy against the Central Powers, proving (a) that the Allies knew they were going to win the war; (b) that the war was set up to (i) weaken the West’s influence in the world; (ii) weaken the West’s people’s confidence in their institutions and what those institutions stood for; and (c) one objective of the war was to settle into power the first above board Marxist state, with more to follow. In fact, there already was an anti-Marxist force in Russia at the time that if ordered would have conquered all of Bolshevik Russia during this period when the Bolsheviks were very weak. The unit was the 60,000 strong Czechoslovak Legion (soon to be 100,000 strong) but instead of sending the legion 700 miles north to Petrograd, the Allies sent it on a 6,000 mile odyssey across Russia to Vladivostok for evacuation to Europe(!), once again proving the Allies knew they were going to win the war…that the war was a Marxist operation.

(7) Even more telling is neutral Denmark’s laying mines off its coastal waters in international waterways in August, 1914 [thereby violating the 1857 treaty opening the Danish Straits to all shipping, where, “No ship of any kind may, under any pretext whatsoever, be subjected to detention or obstruction at the passage of the Sound or the Belts”] at the prompting of Germany (Germany too lays mines in the Danish Straits) and Great Britain does nothing! Not a word from the Allies (and the usual deafening silence from the Marxist co-opted press), in fact, even though access to the Baltic Sea is critical for the Allies to roll up Germany quickly by (a) closing the Baltic Sea to all German surface/subsurface vessels; (b) denying German access to trade with Sweden; (c) bringing the Royal Navy and the Imperial Russian Navy together; (d) forcing Germany to relocate critically needed infantry divisions and heavy armaments away from the Western Front for the new Baltic Front; (e) allowing British and Russian troop landings across the Baltic coasts, preventing German forces from moving eastwards towards Russia; thereby (f) knocking Germany out of the war before one shot is fired.

(8) France and Britain follow slavishly the German trenches from the French-Switzerland border to the North Sea Coast, rather than immediately win the war by pivoting and rolling up the German lines, while also outflanking the German lines. Needless to say, the Marxist co-opted media is silent on this ‘oversight’.

Last edited 8 days ago by Dean M Jackson
%d bloggers like this: