On September 20, 2019 at 17:28, davidcasemore said...
So, it IS the dead one!
An interesting conundrum.
If the Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias of those with low intellect believing their intellect to be higher than it truly is, are those who are delusional able to comprehend their delusionality? Delusionality however must, by definition, also be a function of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Would, therefore, an individual afflicted with such a psychological disorder be able to rationalise a question about delusionality and offer a reasoned response? Or would said individual's limited intellectual resources simply resort to lowest common denominator insult to buttress a related cognitive bias of illusory superiority?
In essence, I believe one is unable to comprehend a world beyond one's constrained mental bubble and is lashing out with conspiracy ideation as a form of self-defence mechanism. Amusingly this is somewhat analogous to 'consensus science': ignoring (denying?) empirical evidence, for 'tuned' climate models, and denigrating those who have the 'audacity' to point it out. Consensus scientists, though, are well paid for their views (however misguided) whereas yours are just twaddle and merely highlights your ignorance and inability to formulate a compelling argument. Hardly surprising, therefore, that many regards you as a jackanapes and simpleton.
On September 21, 2019 at 10:00, BizarroTerl said...
WTH is the matter with these kids? Who cares if it is their future, we have an accountant that says it isn't happening!
I have no objection to passion and idealism, but it's clear their understanding of climate change is limited to headline news which, of course, is very much biased in favour of alarmism and not mainstream science. The situation is little different in the UK, even in my neck of the woods.1
As for this: "Who cares if it is their future, we have an accountant that says it isn't happening!" may I first direct you to one of your previous comments:
"No. You made an assertion. I quoted information that proved your assertion was wrong yet you still go on making the assertion. This makes it clear that you have no interest in discussing this, just interested in pushing a personal viewpoint which has been proven wrong. It's actions such as you're doing that just makes the denier movement less and less credible.
Since you're not willing to discuss this in an adult matter I leave you to your delusions. Good luck with that."
To which I replied thus:
"Well, what can I say? Doggedly sticking to the view you’ve 'proved me wrong' when I've proffered a detailed argument (with supporting evidence of my own) countering your 'quoted information' rather defeats me.
To have an adult discussion one needs to proffer a compelling argument of one's own. Copying and pasting a few easily refutable quotes doesn't cut it."
Yes, I make assertions (as do you), but I endeavour to offer supporting 'adult' arguments whereas, to date, you haven't. In your comment above not only do you repeat your Modus Operandi, you also add misrepresentation. This is precisely my argument against consensus alarmism: they are misrepresenting science to support a political objective. Hardly any wonder then the kids think as they do.
But it's not about arguing, it's about discussing real data that conflicts with the popular view. Why not take a few points, read for yourself, and think it through? Why would you let others do your thinking for you?
There is no truth anymore. Only assertions. The internet world has no interest in truth, only vindication for preconceived assumptions.
On September 16, 2019 at 00:02, Anthony said... Maybe and I addressed that, many pages back and agreed with you. I think it gets a worst wrap then it deserves. But that being said the IPCC is not here to debate the subject, it is me and you. And even though this is nowhere near my field of expertise if you have something better to bring up please do so.
Well, as it so happens, climate science is not my field of expertise either, but does that prevent someone from researching the issues and learning, if only the fundamentals? Furthermore, as I said in one of my responses to BizarroTerl (in regards to Andrew Montford's expertise) one doesn’t need to be an expert in climate science to appreciate the political nature of the IPCC and its willingness to use bad science to promote it.
A common misconception is one of the IPCC being a scientific body. It's not; it's political. It assess the science of climate change on behalf of the UN who, as previously mentioned, has the two imperatives of tackling world poverty and hunger; with everything else being subservient to these two imperatives. Surely then it's not too much of a leap to determine that the IPCC is seeking climate science evidence in support of those imperatives (evidence supporting demands for a profound political change) and downplaying, or even ignoring, that which doesn't.
In 1995 Ben Santer was appointed the convening lead author of Chapter 8 of the IPCC's second assessment report (SAR),1 entitled 'Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes'. In this position he unilaterally altered agreed text from this...
1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases." 2. "While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes." 3. "Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." 4. "While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue; they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification."
1. "There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate." 2. "The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate." 2
...and in doing so he…
"single-handedly reversed the 'climate science' of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The 'discernible human influence' supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the 'stopper' in millions of debates among non-scientists." 3 & 4
When this sleight of hand was exposed a quick cover-up article, entitled 'A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere' was produced and published in Nature in July 1996.5 The paper claimed a steady increase in upper atmosphere temperature and reproduced a graph reflecting this. When analysed by John Daly though it was clear the graph had been truncated (it was merely a section taken from a much longer series) and was thus clearly designed to mislead.6 Two rebuttal papers were subsequently written, but not published until December 1996 (some five months later) by which time a PR cover-up was underway.
The first paper, by Prof Patrick Michaels and Dr Paul Knappenberger, said in part:
"When we examine the period of record used by Santer et al. In the context of the longer period available from ref.5, we find that in the region with the most significant warming (30-600 S. 859-300hPa), the increase is largely an artefact of the time period chosen."
The second paper, by German scientist Geri R. Weber, explained that the warming trend highlighted by Santer et al. could be explained by natural factors.
"Regarding the role of natural factors, the early years of the period 1963-87 were substantially influenced by tropospheric cooling (and stratospheric warming) following the eruption Mount Agung, whereas the end of that period was influenced by several strong El Nino events, which have led to some tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, particularly in the southern subtropics of the lower latitudes. Therefore the general tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling trend between 1963 and 1987 has been accentuated by widely known natural factors and could at least be partially explained by them."
So not only was the graph an artefact of 'cherry-picked' dates (from a data series showing no overall trend) the warming section picked could easily be explained by natural factors and not necessarily the result of any man-made cause. This led John Daly to comment quite acidly:
"So, did Santer et al. really discover a 'discernible human influence on global climate'? Hardly. The obvious intent inherent in the paper's title, mounting external pressures for some unambiguous sign of human climatic impact, and the choice of a time period which just happened to show a warming phase in an otherwise neutral longer-term record, indicates only that there is today 'a discernible human influence on global climate change science'.
No doubt those holding more extreme views would see Santer's actions as little more than a form of noble cause corruption. I, however, do not subscribe to such an opinion. I find his behaviour both unscientific and appalling, and fully deserving of censure. And yet he wasn't. Indeed, in the crazy world of climate science, (where arguments regularly get turned on their head) he actually garnered support. This came in the form of an open letter from the AMS.7
For those appreciative of a little dark humour it rather hilariously states:
"We are aware of the tremendous effort you and other climate scientists from many countries around the world have put into this document, and the thought, care, and objectivity which have characterized the process throughout".
It is even critical of, what I believe to be, the quite legitimate criticism of Santer’s behaviour:
"The Wall Street Journal essay is especially disturbing because it steps over the boundary from disagreeing with the science to attacking the honesty and integrity of a particular scientist, namely yourself."
Is this an endorsement of the subversion of science? That outrageous behaviour is perfectly acceptable providing, that is, it supports a particular narrative?
The letter also goes on to suggest:
"The appropriate arena for debating the first, scientific question is through peer-reviewed scientific publications - not the media".
Sounds perfectly reasonable, but did they comment on the rebuttals to Santer's deliberately misleading Human Influences paper? And of course, as the Wegman report8 later found (and confirmed by the Climategate emails), the peer- review process became corrupted by a claque of individuals closely associated with Michael Mann. As Steven Mosher and Thomas Fuller say in their book about Climategate:9
[They] "Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands."
Needless to say they also comment on the efforts to avoid FOI requests:
"Actively worked to evade (Steve) McIntyre's Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents, and even climate data".
And also the altering of data shown to politicians:
"Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world, 'hiding the decline' that showed their data could not be trusted."
Having already discussed Mann's 'work' I’ll not waste time repeating it. What does bear worth repeating though is that the replication of bad science does not vindicate it, something that some appear entirely unable to comprehend. Neither do they seem able to understand the enormity of a paper overturning a vast swathe of previously accepted research, never mind that it's to be used to promote a policy of profound global political change.
Is it not reasonable to thoroughly scrutinise such a paper to ensure its findings are beyond reproach? Did the IPCC carry out their due diligence or merely accept it because it lent support to their preferred narrative? Did its authors provide free access to all for it to be assessed? Is not the proffering of evidence to support one's research the way science should work? Was Phil Jones of the CRU right in stating: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" Can one not see what a dangerous path we tread if we allow science to be subverted in such a way? As Dwight D. Eisenhower said in his farewell address:
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."
This is where bad science can lead: to a monumental waste of money which will do nothing to combat the problem it’s claimed it would and likely create its own unique catastrophe. 'Climate change' in this regard will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, though one for entirely different reasons. Lysenkoism and the Holodomor are stark examples of this.
Yes, the average global temperature has risen. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes, global atmospheric CO2 content has increased. Yes, there's likely an anthropogenic component to that increase. Evidence to support it being the primary driver of the late 20th-century warming though is at best flimsy and at worst corrupt. It also ignores the other natural factors surrounding the early 20th-century warming, the mid-20th-century cooling and, of course, history.
The IPCC, however, do not care for such niceties, for they have a political agenda to fulfil. They care not whether CO2 is the actual cause of the warming just so long as some 'science' can be found to attribute the warming to it. Analogous to this is the flaky science being used to support federal land management in the western states of the US. In this presentation,10 for example, Jennifer Fielder reports on how a part-time observational study of just two Grizzly Bears (a mother and her cub) is used in preference to a 24/7 study of 19 Grizzly Bears wearing radio tracking collars: the former supporting the predetermined course of action, the latter not.
Scientists questioning such 'science' do not help. Like Lysenkoism, independent thought is to be crushed and not tolerated. Those voicing concern, many more qualified than those supporting 'the cause', are to be denigrated and their livelihoods threatened. Bogus claims of consensus are produced. Powerful interests in industry and finance are keen to promote climate alarmism for the profits it will provide: Malthusians and environmentalists for seeking population reduction and a return to a utopian ideal of feudal living. And all the while the Chinese and Indians are laughing their little socks off wondering how Western nations can be so gullible.
I disagree with the notion of the IPCC getting a bum rap. The above merely scratches the surface of their increasingly strident attempts to force political change, and their use and abuse of science to achieve it. Donna Laframboise provides a far more comprehensive account in her book.11
On September 16, 2019 at 00:02, Anthony said... Maybe, but when my friends place got flooded this spring and two years ago because his house is on the border of the hundred years flood plain, it does not take a genius to figure out that global warming + melting glaciers mean that the water level will get higher I don't need fear mongering or crackpots to understand what is happening.
My condolences to your friend, but in a naturally warming world, sea-level rise is inevitable and something which has been occurring steadily for the past 160 years.12 - 14 I appreciate it's of little consolation (and contrary to what you appear to believe), but once again there is no clear evidence of a CO2 influence. As for fear-mongering and crackpots (Gore and Wadhams* perhaps?), claims of huge increases and polar ice cap collapse, such as that mentioned in the New York Times report of Hansen's testimony, are as you say, precisely that…
"The rise in global temperature is predicted to cause a thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century. Scientists have already detected a slight rise in sea levels. At the same time, heat would cause inland waters to evaporate more rapidly, thus lowering the level of bodies of water such as the Great Lakes."15
Of course, this hasn't prevented various environmental groups travelling to the polar regions to raise awareness of climate change/global warming; only to get entrapped by a 'mysterious hard white substance'16 necessitating their rescue.
*Note: Gore needs no introduction, but one may not be aware of potty Wadhams: the BBC's go-to Arctic expert, who has the seemingly unique ability of getting all his predictions wrong.17 & 18 There was also a time he thought he was on a hit list for knowing too much.19
As a bit of an aside, an excellent example of a man-made catastrophe is that of flooding of the Somerset Levels over the winter of 2013/14.20 As Booker reported at the time,21 the usual suspects initially attempted to blame climate change. It didn't take long, however, to discover that it was more the result of a toxic mix of low lying land, EU directives, Environment Agency/DEFRA incompetence, environmentalism, and an embarrassingly bad MET Office weather report.22
On September 16, 2019 at 00:02, Anthony said... Next glacial, next ultra warm period they will both be catastrophic. And yes maybe it will be futile and we can't make a difference. But you know what IMHO only losers give-up before even trying so, yeah if we can try and keep it stable by helping mother nature or working against it then I say let's go for it.
Although one lives in Canada, I'm not sure one fully appreciates the extremity of a glacial. Andy May has produced a graphic of the past 4000 years based on the GISP2 Central Greenland ice core temperature proxies.23 It illustrates how variable the Earth's 'stable' temperature can be and 'major events in human civilisation' such as the introduction of grapes to Britain and the settlement and then subsequent abandonment of Greenland when the climate turned cold again. The whole series though is all a part of the Holocene interglacial, but past what is known as the Holocene Thermal Optimum. In contrast, his previous graphic illustrates a period of 18,000 years starting at the end of the last glacial, some 8°C lower than today.24 If such were to happen today Canada, Britain, some Northern States of the USA and most of Northern Europe would cease to exist. It would be devastating, but we know from history that it WILL happen again.
On the other hand, your claim of the 'next ultra-warm period' has no precedence and the climate's previous variability, as illustrated, makes something of a nonsense of your belief in our having to try and maintain stability. One then has to ask what is stable? What is normal? And if it's possible for a minor atmospheric trace gas to have such a profound effect, as the IPCC would have us believe, is it then not also possible that attempts to 'control' it may interact with other more powerful natural factors and cause a counter climate crisis?
There may well be times when a 'what the heck' attitude is worthwhile: personal experience suggests Hereford United's 1971/72 season FA Cup run is, perhaps, an excellent example of this. When it comes to climate change though, your thoughts that those of us cautioning against knee-jerk actions/reactions are losers and that we should just give it go regardless is both insulting and extremely naive for it shows little, if any, understanding of the real cost and extremity of what you're proposing.
I believe that the IPCC and those with vested interests in maintaining alarm (whether political, financial or both) are over-accentuating the effect of CO2 to support the primary goal of political change. I further contend they are happy to use all means available including, questionable science, activist propaganda, the denigration of the reputable scientists who do not support 'the cause', threats to the livelihoods of those who otherwise would, and the stifling of debate, to support this goal.
The problem for them, however, is that nature isn't playing their game: that while atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, the climate for the past twenty years has, indeed, been relatively stable. Thus they have resorted to wild speculation about polar ice cap collapse, conflating severe weather events, wildfires, military conflict etc. which is simply not supported by empirical evidence. 'Darling' old Malthusian, David Attenborough, has been co-opted and happy to lend his name to documentaries purportedly telling us the facts about climate change, but are in reality nothing more than climate propaganda.25 NOAA and NASA/GISS are busily rewriting US climate records in an attempt to accentuate the 20th-century warming trend.26 The BBC/MSM/Met Office are desperately trying to promulgate fear of hotter/drier British summers,27 - 29 most recently on the back of a one-day weather event.30 & 31 And so it goes on. However let's, for the sake of argument, assume CO2 is the culprit it's deemed to be. What would the hopeless quest of trying to control it do for Britain and the world as a whole?
Here in the UK we are [sarc]fortunate[/sarc] enough to have Lord Deben's Committee on Climate Change providing us with a vision of our net-zero future.32 & 33 In common with all grand (virtue signalling) vanity projects though (of which the spiralling costs of HS2,34 Hinckley C35 and to a lesser extent Crossrail36 are prime examples) the plans are brimful of wishful thinking, make huge assumptions (particularly in the realm of public acceptance) and do not reflect the reality of the destabilising intermittency and inefficiency of wind and solar renewables, though I note that in other countries, solar is likely a more viable proposition. It's also interesting to note that The National Grid has also now launched their latest energy scenarios report which is not only also full of wishful thinking, it appears incompatible with the plans of the CCC.37 Right from the outset then, there is no clear focussed vision of what's to be expected, though certain aspects are beginning to filter through.38 & 39
In a previous response, I mentioned that the capacity of the UK electricity grid, as it stands today, is circa 60GW with the supply being derived from various fuels and interconnectors to/from France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Northern and Southern Ireland. Details can be found here.40 The CCC's net-zero plans claim that by 2050 the grid capacity will be in the order of 150GW and provides us with several future energy scenarios; the one below being considered closest to the likely mix.
Compare and contrast these plans to the existing supply, paying particular attention to the percentage of makeup. The CCC is expecting renewables to become the primary source of energy at 57% whereas presently unless conditions are unusually favourable, it's usually gas via CCGT - by a considerable margin. And if one is wondering, this is not rigged. Legislation demands that renewable generation (solar followed by wind) takes precedence over other sources; i.e. at the time of writing wind is presently supplying 2.182GW (9% of demand) which is ALL that's available. No solar, of course, because it's night-time.
UK wind installed capacity presently stands at 21.5GW and solar 13.5GW, so 2.182GW out of a total installed capacity of 35GW (6.24%) represents pretty poor utilisation. And this is typical, not cherry-picking, as the various Gridwatch graphs illustrate.41 Even in favourable conditions, utilisation rarely gets anywhere near installed capacity, which is one of the significant downsides of these non-dispatchable technologies and why using installed capacity as a measure of their capabilities (as the BBC regularly does) is such a nonsense.
The new scenario suggests that baseload dispatchable generation will represent only a about a third of the expected grid capacity, but note that the use of Gas and Bio (the latter being primarily wood pellet from US forests) is predicated on the development of a cost-effective CCS system. This presently remains a pipe-dream, but if they are successful, the question of why use intermittent low-efficiency generation at all then arises.
With or without CCS, there is no question of gas continuing to be required. Extrapolating the data from last night, for example, where renewables (wind) were supplying 9% of demand (at a utilisation rate of 6.24% of installed capacity), would give 10.92GW from the planned 175GW maximum. This represents only 45% of last night's demand, let alone what it might be if the expected increase in EV uptake (and its associated overnight recharging) actually occurs; an issue I'll return to later.
Here one might think that an increase in the proportion of nuclear generation would be an option, or should be considered. Indeed it is, and yes it has. One, however, may not be aware that for various financial reasons, plans for several new nuclear plants have been shelved.42 Additionally, while the building of Hinkley Point C continues apace, there are still concerns over its design (which is French, by the way) and its astronomical cost. With the opening date having been pushed back several times (due to the continuing problems being experienced by the other two plants of the same design), it remains uncertain as to whether it will ever open, or if it does whether it will be capable of running at its full rated capacity of 3.3GW.43
Turning our attention to wind and solar, this is what Wiki has to say about the latter:
"As of 2019 installed capacity was over 13GW, with the 72MW(DC) Shotwick Solar Farm being the largest in the UK; however peak generation was less than 10GW. As panels have a capacity factor of around 10% in the UK climate, average annual generation is roughly the installed capacity multiplied by 1000 hours, being slightly under 13TWh in 2018, somewhat under 4% of UK electricity consumption."
While it does provide some 'filler' output, solar in the UK will never be a primary source, as data from the Gridwatch website confirms.44 Land coverage is also a concern. As mentioned in the above quote, Shotwick Solar Farm in North Wales is presently the largest. There are, however, plans for a farm almost five times its size in the Kent Marshland.45
Unsurprisingly, the promotional blurb highlights the following:
The need for clean energy.
That it will not use government subsidies (though, as mentioned above, they do have a guaranteed market).
That the proposal includes an energy storage component (Musk batteries I believe).
That it offers a £1 million (plus) per year bung to the local authorities for its expected life span.
And claims it will provide enough clean energy to power 91,000 homes; based on an annual average usage of circa 3,500kWh (which I believe to be absurdly low).
It all sounds rather wonderful, but as per my earlier comment about assuming public acceptance, few in the area (including environmentalists) want it.46 Furthermore, its projected annual output of 337GWh pales in comparison to the nearby 735MW Medway gas-fired power station which can produce 5472GWh annually, work 24/7 and covers only 15 acres as opposed to nearly the nearly 1000 acres for the solar farm. As for the battery backup, regardless of its seemingly huge 350MWh capacity, it is only enough to store one hour’s output from the farm; which is enough for short term blips, but little else.
Given the above, I think it fair to assume the bulk of the CCC’s 'variable renewables' will be provided by wind. I also think it reasonable to expect the requirement will be closer to 175GW than 110GW. With this in mind, one should first understand some basic facts.47 Having done that, let's do a few back of an envelope calculations.
Total wind and solar nameplate capacity presently stands at 35GW. Assuming a not unreasonable further 10GW of solar means an additional 130GW of wind power will be required. And for such a capacity the building of another 16,250 x 8MW turbines will be necessary.
As previously discussed, the Burbo Bank Extension offshore wind farm comprises 32 Vestas V164 8MW wind turbine generators, cost £800m and took 2 to 3 years to build. This would suggest a unit price of £25m per generator and a total of £406.25b. More importantly though the build time, assuming a similar timeframe to the BBE, would be over 1000 years! Yes, we could mobilise the nation is similar fashion to WW2, but once again that presupposes public acceptance, their environmental impact, ignores their limited life expectancy (which could easily see that £400b investment double or more),48 & 49 their cost effectiveness50 - 52 and their destabilising effect on the grid (which increases as yet more turbines are added).53
Another aspect one, perhaps, doesn't appreciate is the cost to the consumer: wind power being far from being free. Buried in the depths a report for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS)54 we learn that with an average underspend of 10%, 69% of households consume less energy than they need (and possibly a factor in that low annual average electricity usage). What is more worrying, though, is that those in fuel poverty (where a decision between eating or heating is a regular occurrence), the underspend is 20%.55
As much as successive governments have tried to blame increasing energy costs (particularly electricity costs) on 'greedy' suppliers, it's clear that the environmental levies added to fuel bills (to cover those lavish subsidies enjoyed by renewables suppliers) have played a significant role. Details of this can be found in the UK Government’s latest Economic and Fiscal Outlook report (table 4.3 on page 76).56 This is set to get far worse if renewables are allowed to dominate energy supply to the extent the CCC wishes them to; ironically making something of a mockery of the UN agenda to end world hunger and poverty. But it gets worse.
As commented on by Andrew Montford at his website,57 & 58 the CCC's plans are a complete bureaucratic mess which bears little in the way of any form of proper scrutiny; from either a financial or engineering standpoint. Their plans for nuclear have had a huge hole blown in them, the gas generation, assuming the development of CCS, will need to be rebuilt and their faith in renewables is clearly misplaced; as to, I'm afraid, is the belief in a Green jobs bonanza.59 & 60 And yet the Government is forging ahead with its plans to phase out fossil fuelled transport and domestic Natural Gas; with the latter alone requiring a doubling in size of the electricity grid.
I believe I've previously mentioned the fact I don't drive. This is not due to some bizarre political statement; it's just that it was never a job requirement, and I've never felt the urge. The wife, however, has learnt and thus for the past few years we've been enjoying the freedom it has brought. No longer are we constrained by public transport timetables and we've also managed a few holidays exploring the country.
The wife's car of choice is an Audi Q5, and yes its diesel engine was one of those affected by the emissions scandal, though it's since had its correction tweak. Now, though we are told that such vehicles are to be phased out for those producing no emissions – effectively EV's, though hydrogen fuel cells may make an impact (hopefully not with a bang61). This, however, has already led to uncertainty in the UK's automotive industry62 and even threatens that of Germany.63
Having had personal experience of a hydrogen explosion, I must confess to having some trepidation over hydrogen fuel cell technology. I'm not, though a power source snob and would be perfectly happy for the wife to use either this or an EV. The former has the advantage of reasonable range and a fill-up time similar to that of petrol/diesel, but the hydrogen refuelling infrastructure in the UK is all but non-existent.64 EVs, on the other hand, can be recharged at home, but not that quickly as most UK domestic supplies are not designed for high output. A secure location for home recharging would be a necessity; posing a problem for apartment dwellers.65 Public recharging infrastructure is still generally poor and requires a considerable investment to improve.66 Range is still generally poor in comparison to FF vehicles. Refuelling, even rapid recharging, is significantly longer. Practicality for long-distance touring: an EV would have been all but useless for our touring around the north-east last year. And Initial vehicle cost is significantly higher: the Audi e-tron, for example, being £30,000 more than the base model Q5.
Other things to consider are the uncertainty surrounding National Grid development plans. Grid stability if we continue along the renewables route.67 The inevitable increasing cost of electricity. And the availability of the materials required for battery production.68 While environmentally friendly car registrations continues to grow,69 the prospect of there being seven million of them on the road by 2030 (as per the 'Air Quality News' story) presently appears a little fanciful.
Demands on the National Grid don’t just stop at road transport though. I've also previously mentioned that only half of the UK's rail network is electrified, the remainder being serviced by diesel/electric locomotives. In response to this, the CCC plans a program of electrification and hydrogen production; the former almost certainly driving up prices70 and the latter, once again, predicated on the development of CCS for the hydrogen steam reformation process, and will also require copious amounts of electricity. Furthermore, with its only having about a third of the calorific value of Natural Gas/Methane, the energy density of hydrogen is also a concern: heavy-duty haulage may be beyond its capability.
Admittedly the above represents something of a personal view, others have different ideas. What is clear though is my claim of there being no set plan of how these changes are to be paid for, implemented, undertaken and, above all, their ramifications. In summary, we have an electricity system already heavily biased in favour of renewables, which regularly fail to deliver and are environmentally damaging; nuclear appearing to be a lame duck, if not a dead one; gas-fired power stations creaking at the seams, but no one wanting to build new because of the unknown constraint of CCS and their not being as profitable (subsidy wise) as renewables. And CCS itself, of course, still remaining a pipe-dream. Regardless of this, though, the CCC believes that adding to its demands, by removing the domestic gas supply,71 enforcing change to electric transport and creating a vast hydrogen supply industry,72 all in the space of 30 years, is perfectly viable.
The mind truly boggles. It simply cannot happen, no matter how much of a can-do attitude one may have. Cunningly though, the CCC have hedged their bets by also advocating a programme of heat pump installation73 and home insulation upgrades.74 Once again, however, the costs are enormous: measured in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions.
Of interest may be the following graphic (from the Green Match website75) offering an appraisal of annual heating costs by fuel type. Note the disparity between gas and electric, and consider how this will affect low-income families already struggling with fuel poverty.
Now enters the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle: smart meters or, more accurately, the not so smart meters.76
The thinking behind them is pretty straightforward: monitoring usage helps reduce demand, and the automatic uploading of data reduces/eliminates the need for independent checking. But I manage without one. Since mid-2012, I've regularly monitored usage, taken monthly readings and uploaded them to my suppliers' website: npower (electricity) and British Gas (gas). I've also created my own Excel spreadsheet to monitor trend and have reduced our annual usage by about 33%. Government, however, have decreed that all homes should have one. Why? Because they can be programmed for flexible charging periods and they also have an OFF switch. The story of British Smart Meters, though, is one of grand technological incompetence and a few billion more (pick a number between 10 and 20) added to our bills. Nick Hunn77 has been following the story for a number of years,78 but a quick overview goes as follows.
In 2010 the Government mandated the installation of smart meters in all British homes by 2020. Rather than use off the shelf meters, DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) worked with vested industry interests to do a classic Government IT job and produced the most complex smart meter specification the world has seen. It was designated SMETS1 (Smart Metering Equipment Technical Specification), but not only was it the most complex, it was also the most expensive and, more importantly, woefully insecure. The boffins at GCHQ took a look at it, considered the implications of connecting it to an infrastructure of national importance and demanded changes, which resulted in the SMETS2 specification.
Due to time constraints forced upon them by the Government, a programme of installing SMETS1 meters had already begun, but it soon became apparent there were problems as those changing providers found their meters would stop working.79 It also now seems the software infrastructure between the two specifications is incompatible, possibly requiring the replacement of all those SMETS1 meters already installed.80 And now the smart meter rollout has been pushed back for four years as the technology is, apparently, still not ready.81 Now back to (what I believe to be) their real purpose.
All the plans mentioned above are going to cost a shed load of money the Government simply doesn’t have. Indeed, since the 2008 crash the UK National Debt has spiralled from circa £500b to over £2t, and debt interest repayments to over £50b a year, which even outstrips defence spending. Consider too that if the Government is concerned at the spiralling cost of HS282 what will they make of the cost of such radical changes to national infrastructures?
With so many if, buts and maybes it's difficult to quantify a precise understanding of what's to come: a bit like trying to determine the role of a minor trace gas in a little-understood chaotic multi variable climate system. However, I believe it's clear, the changes being demanded by the CCC are wildly optimistic in both makeup and timeframe and also take no account of the financial cost and hardship many will suffer as a result.
With an electricity grid already teetering on collapse,83 the increasing demands being placed upon it and little in the way of extra capacity coming online (other than for destabilising intermittent renewables), the likelihood of power outages and even rationing, becomes an increasingly likely proposition. This, I believe, is the real purpose of smart meters. The ability to control what people use and when they can use it; which assumes, of course, they can even afford to use it.
Once again St. Greta is at the forefront of climate strike action,84 but it's all too easy to be idealistic when one doesn't have to worry about footing bills and keeping the family warm (oh the irony) during the winter months, when the wind regularly doesn't blow, and the sun is too low for it to produce anything meaningful. The youngsters taking part claim it's their future they're fighting for, which not only shows an appalling ignorance of history but how little they understand of the civil unrest the greenmunist ideals of Extinct Rebellion will bring. The Gilets Jaunes protests in France, a response to the addition of a simple climate-related fuel surcharge, is a prime example of this. We to should know that societal division should not be underestimated, as the poll tax riots85 aptly illustrate. But that, of course is history (the dark ages of the early nineties) and the young, of course, don't do history. I think Delingpole sums things up rather well:
"So what we’re witnessing today is the bizarre phenomenon of tens of thousands of schoolchildren protesting over an issue which they do not remotely comprehend. And then being applauded for it by adults who – astonishingly – are even more stupid than the kids."86
And what will the grandest virtue signalling vanity project the world has ever seen mean to the world at large? Absolutely nothing! With China and India still forging ahead with their expansion projects, it will have no effect on atmospheric CO2 or climate change; the latter continuing on its merry way regardless, as it has always done. Even removing the USA from the equation will have little effect, such is the Asian influence.
So what do we do? We do what humankind and nature have always done: we adapt, unless, that is, one believes in the genocidal Malthusian madness of the likes of Paul Ehrlich87 and David Attenborough. Indeed, thinking about it, declaring war on China and India, for not toeing the line on climate change, might even be cheaper in the long run. And yes, just in case one doesn't realise it, I am being facetious. But when one sees the likes of John McDonnell, the Labour Party's Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, giving a speech in front of a banner proclaiming "For Trade Union Rights, Human Rights, International Solidarity" juxtaposed with another depicting the images of three of the 20th-Century’s most successful mass murders, one does tend to wonder about the thought processes of some people.88
Turning the UK into a European Venezuela, which is what these programmes will effectively do, will do no nothing, for climate change, nothing for atmospheric CO2 content, nothing for UK industry (other than destroy it), nothing for the people at large (other than make them poorer), and nothing for your friend. Indeed, it's a measure of how little people understand of the issues by firstly being deceived by the hubris of a CO2 climate control knob and secondly that in doing so by protesting against their own governments rather than directing their angst at the real problem of China and India. The UK Government, already over its head in debt, simply doesn't have the financial resources to fund such extreme changes, though Comrade Corbyn seems to believe it can be achieved by the simple expedient of printing more money; i.e. the magic money tree of Modern Monetary Theory (which, ironically, is neither modern nor a monetary theory). As Antony Mueller explains, MMT is the financial equivalent of weapons of mass destruction.89 & 90 To go through the pain of Brexit only to have the possibility of a Marxist/Leninist idiot in charge is beyond imagination and a far worse prospect than the effects of climate change.
Somewhat depressingly, Corbyn's rise has prompted a resurgence in the belief that communism (greenmunism) is a utopian ideal and truly the answer to life, the universe and everything - it just needs to be done the right way. The radical left has wormed its way into all aspects of life, media and Government. For them, climate change is its manna from heaven; a clarion call for political change and the young who know no better are lapping it up. The left’s infiltration of the education system, for example, is summed up quite well by Douglas Murray in an article about Goldsmiths University of London.91 The denial of history is both astonishing and shocking in equal measure:
"Eighteen months ago, Goldsmiths once again tried to prove it was real when its LGBTQ+ society made national headlines. The cause on that occasion was that the society’s Twitter account got into a row about ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminists’ (naturally) and speculated on the possibility of re-educating such people. The Twitter account then diverted itself by dwelling on the nature of the gulag in Soviet Russia. Specifically by attempting to absolve the Soviet camp system of its negative connotations.
Far from being the cause of death of millions upon millions of people the Gulag was apparently a harmless system, primarily dedicated to peacefully correcting the wrong-thoughts of subversive elements in the Soviet Union. That the denizens of the Goldsmiths LGBTQ+ group might have been thought subversive in such an era did not detain them. But what the long (and eventually deleted) thread did reveal was that the students of Goldsmiths were either criminally ignorant or wicked beyond words."
Is it any wonder the young have been so easily swayed by climate change propaganda when they’ve been egged on by those who should really know better. Of course, bunking off school every Friday is also a bit of a wheeze, but can they see the irony of 'fighting for their future' by deliberately undermining their education and endeavouring to unleash such a radical political change their lives will become a misery. But as always with the left, why bother with the inconvenience of facts and logic when there's the moral high ground to be claimed. Which neatly brings us back to the question of the science and the claims of their being an emergency.
Regardless of their previous story telling us of how the young are suffering eco-anxiety, the BBC recently ran another hysterical rant article by Roger Harrabin: the thoughts of Prof Sir David King and others on the 'scary' pace of climate change.92 This from Sir David:
"It’s appropriate to be scared. We predicted temperatures would rise, but we didn’t foresee these sorts of extreme events we’re getting so soon."
Followed by this from Prof Jo Haigh:
"David King is right to be scared – I’m scared too."
Then we have Dr Friederike Otto from Oxford University who is, apparently, an expert in the attribution of extreme events to climate change claiming:
"With European heatwaves, we have realised that climate change is a total game-changer. It has increased the likelihood (of events) by orders of magnitude."
Harrabin adds to this by commenting on the French heatwave:
"She told us that in a pre-climate change world, a heatwave like this might strike once in 1,000 years. In a post-warming world, the heatwave was a one-in-a-100 year phenomenon. In other words, natural variability is amplifying human-induced climate heating."
A post-warming world? Natural variability is amplifying human-induced climate heating? The BBC tell us of the almost 1,500 who died93 this year and link it to the heatwave of 2003 where the mortality rate was, apparently ten times higher. But what of the French heatwave of 1911, long before any possibility of a CO2 influence, when over 40,000 died?94 Similarly, what of this year's heatwave in Britain when compared to the summer of 1976, a time which was at the height of the global cooling scare?
Having lived through both I'm well placed to know that the summer of '76 was extremely trying whereas this year, apart from a few brief days, it was plain vanilla average.95 The summer of '76 is explained here;96 it being the result of an unusual combination of meteorological conditions. This too was the reason for this year's heatwave, an unusual combination of conditions driving warm air up from North Africa. Both were caused by weather events and little, if anything, to do with climate change. This uncertainty is also reflected in further comments from Dr Otto:
"Researchers had not yet had time to investigate the links between all of the major extreme weather events and climate change. With some phenomena such as droughts and floods there was no clear evidence yet of any involvement from climate change. And it was impossible to be sure that the slow progress of [Hurricane] Dorian was caused by climate change."
I have no doubt that in common with the Met Office's determination to find a record UK temperature this year,97 they will endeavour to find some link, however tenuous, to weather events. It seems, however, Prof King, has already made up his mind:
"Scientists like to be certain. But these events are all about probabilities. What is the likelihood that (Dorian) is a climate change event? I’m going to say 'very high'. I can’t say that with 100% certainty, but what I can say is that the energy from the hurricane comes from the warm ocean and if that ocean gets warmer we must expect more energy in hurricanes."
The IPCC's AR5, however, disagrees with this view:
"[There is] low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. More recent assessments indicate that it is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region."
This is confirmed by empirical data:
And a report from the GWPF.98
Harrabin claims to have cross-referenced Prof King’s views with the principal authors of the IPCC's AR5:
"The consensus among those who replied was that climate models had accurately forecast the rise in global mean temperature. But the models hadn’t been sufficiently sophisticated to foresee events like this year’s extreme."
“Others mentioned severe ice melting at the poles; Tasmania suffering record droughts and floods in consecutive years; record wildfires in the Arctic and an unprecedented two large cyclones in Mozambique in one year.”
As per usual, it's case of if, buts and maybes. How many of those authors do you think replied? What was the 'size' of the consensus? And as for the 'accuracy' of climate models, I've covered that in a reply to BizarroTerl. Here though is what the IPCC said in 2013.99
The divergence of CMIP5 models with reality is clear for all to see. And regardless of sophistication, why on earth would anyone think climate models should predict weather events. Long-range weather forecasts themselves are not particularly accurate; remember the Somerset Levels, where a presumed drier than average winter turned into one of the wettest winters known. Now with the all-new, all singing and dancing CMIP6 models (with added superdupercomputing power) we're told the situation is worse than we thought. Well, colour me shocked! Who would have guessed it?
"We have better models now," said Olivier Boucher, head of the Institute Pierre Simon Laplace Climate Modelling Centre in Paris. "They have better resolution, and they represent current climate trends more accurately." Surely though 'better' models should 'better' replicate reality than show an increased divergence? As Roy Spencer commented:
"It will be interesting to see if the new climate model assessment (CMIP6) produces warming more in line with the observations. From what I have heard so far, this appears unlikely. If history is any guide, this means the observations will continue to need adjustments to fit the models, rather than the other way around."
Unsurprisingly "a core finding of the new models is that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will warm Earth's surface more—and more easily—than earlier calculations had suggested." And so we return to the Mannian conundrum of calculations and conclusions being based on unverified climate models,100 - 105 which apparently show more warming than previous models which, in turn, are running significantly warmer than reality - and to hell with all those other academic papers claiming the complete opposite.106 & 107
Ken Haapala writing At WUWT is equally as sceptical of the claims.108 As previously explained, experimental evidence has shown a logarithmic link between CO2 and temperature, that to get to 800ppm a huge increase in CO2 emissions would be required:
"Observations and calculations show that a doubling of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and a modest increase in water vapor corresponding to the observed rise in temperatures in the atmosphere may increase temperatures by 1 to 1.5 °C (2 to 3 °F).
The physical explanation for this sudden increase projected by the French models may be a stronger positive feedback from increased atmospheric water vapor than the feedback speculated in the 1979 Charney Report. But that Charney feedback warming is yet to be found in the atmosphere, much less a stronger one."
Once again it would seem that a 'novel approach' is being used as a replacement for the scientific method: the result of model simulations:
"The scientific method [on the other hand] is based on repeated testing of assumptions (hypotheses) against physical evidence gathered by physical experiments or rigorous observations. It appears that the French climate modelers are completely abandoning the scientific method for something beyond normal science."
As Roy Spencer noted, until such time as models improve their correlation with observations, there is little reason to believe their results. Unfortunately though, allowing facts to get in the way of a good (scare) story is not something the MSM (and in particular the BBC) is renowned for.
In my reply to BizarroTerl I also commented on sea-level rise. This from Prof John Church of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia:
"Some things appear to be happening faster than projected. This may be partially related to the interaction of climate change and natural variability as well as the uncertainty in our understanding and projections. In my own area of sea level change, things are happening near the upper end of the projections."
I'm not sure what one should make of his claim about the interaction of climate change and natural variability, as the former is a function of the latter and as I've previously shown, the latter has caused more significant changes in climate than we're presently experiencing. His claim about things happening at the upper end of projections, regardless of his speciality in sea-level change is, however, utter twaddle.
The first IPCC report (1992) predicted a rise of 200mm by 2030: a rate of 5mm per year.
I’ve already shown the Jevrejeva et al. 2013 sea level reconstruction predicting a 2mm per year rise and NASA a 3.3mm per year. We can now also add NOAA at 2.9mm per year.109
Even the IPCC AR5 admits that the rate of rise has barely changed; i.e. no acceleration…
…which is a bit embarrassing for the authors of that other paper claiming a 2m rise by 2100. But, of course, this is climate science where anything goes.
Turning our attention to wildfires. In the USA, a slightly rising trend in burn acreage has, unsurprisingly, been attributed to climate change. But is this correct?
Whilst there is indeed a correlation between hot, dry weather and forest fires, slightly hotter weather doesn't, in itself, start fires. By accident or design, the most common cause of wildfires is human-made, which is then amplified by a lack of proper forestry management.10 By today's standard, burn acreage in the early 20th-century was far worse.
As for the specific concern regarding wildfires in the Arctic,110 it appears Messrs Harrabin and King have failed to read another BBC report which concluded that nothing unusual was going on.111
And so to the vexed question of melting ice caps. Remember this image?
Melting ice in Greenland, things must be bad.112 The image was taken by Steffen Olsen, of the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) who provide regular updates on Arctic Sea Ice Extent.113
Although stable since 2007, the graph suggests a downwards linear trend. As previously discussed, though, trends are a function of start and end dates, with the start date in this graph coinciding with the end of the mid-20th-century cooling period when sea ice extent was at a maximum; i.e. at the top of a cycle. Tony Heller discusses this very issue in this video114 and highlights how trends can be tweaked to provide evidence for a particular narrative. What's more relevant though is the cyclical nature of ice coverage, how closely it correlates with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) and how the sledge dog image above is not unusual at all.
Meanwhile, the trend in the Antarctic is slightly up and has, according to NASA, been growing since 1992.115
And though growth in Greenland has been low this year, it has been more than offset by the previous two high years.
Svante Arrhenius is credited with developing a theory of the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 within it. However, his original calculations were severely compromised by the many assumptions he made and his attempts to link it to glaciations; i.e. he grossly overestimated its effect. Early in the 20th-century Knut Angstrom carried out experiments which clearly showed that Arrhenius was wrong in that he had attributed all the greenhouse effect to CO2, whereas we now know it's barely a small cog in vast machine and that the primary greenhouse gas, by some considerable margin, is water vapour.116 This has been confirmed by further research, but in much the same way as Michael Mann's zombie hockey stick graph remains in the minds of those who ignore the bogus way in which it was created, so too does Arrhenius's theory of the effects of increased atmospheric CO2.
Experimentation has shown the logarithmic relationship between temperature and CO2 and that a doubling of its present level (circa 400ppm) would require a huge increase in the use of fossil fuels. Furthermore:
"Observations and calculations show that a doubling of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and a modest increase in water vapor corresponding to the observed rise in temperatures in the atmosphere may increase temperatures by 1 to 1.5 °C (2 to 3 °F)." 117
The astute will note that this is stark contrast to those latest CMIP6 models, which claim greater warming than previously thought. Models, though, as previously discussed, are still based upon many assumptions and can easily be 'tuned' to provide a preferred or predetermined outcome. Thus, regardless of computing power and program sophistication, rubbish in, rubbish out, as the old adage goes.
The divergence between CMIP5 models and reality is plain to see. How then can the new models suggest greater warming? One way would be to place greater emphasis on a water vapour positive feedback as speculated in the 1979 Charney Report.118 The issue with this, however, is that the Charney feedback itself has yet to be found let alone a 'greater one'. As Andy May says here:119
"Science is rooted in observations. If we make a prediction that is later verified with measurements, we have a proper scientific theory. A prediction, no matter how elaborately it was made or documented, that is not verified with data and observations is science fiction."
"99.9 percent of the Earth’s surface heat capacity is in the oceans and less than 0.1 percent is in the atmosphere. Further, CO2 is only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. It beggars belief that a trace gas (CO2), in an atmosphere that itself contains only a trace amount of the total thermal energy on the surface of the Earth, can control the climate of the Earth. This is not the tail wagging the dog, this is a flea on the tail of the dog wagging the dog."
For entirely political reasons, the role of increased atmospheric CO2 has, with the support of flaky science (e.g. Lacis et al. 2010,120 which Roger Pielke Sr described "as an op-ed presented in the guise of a research paper by Science magazine"121) been accentuated by the IPCC into a call for a radical change in global governance. This has been shamelessly turned into climate alarmism by a compliant MSM, climate hysteria by the 'useful idiot' St. Greta and the barking mad burghers of Extinction Rebellion, and exploited by increasing claque of renewables snake oil sales merchants. Anyone daring to challenge this view, even those with stellar qualifications and well versed in the nuances of the issues, are deemed deniers and, so it would seem, losers.
Nature, however, isn't playing the game. Global CO2 emissions continue to rise, but the temperature rise has slowed down, even stalled. St. Greta may whinge about a lost childhood, but she has experienced little in the way of climate change. Perhaps she should take a look at what life was like in the early 20th-century122 to appreciate how lucky she actually is.
In response to the failure of climate doing what was expected of it, increasingly spurious claims have been made. But the Polar Bears are not dying out.123 The polar ice caps are not disappearing. Severe weather events are not increasing - neither are wildfires. And sea-level rise is not accelerating. What is changing though are the temperature datasets underpinning the alarm. These are being 'homogenised' (even deleted) to create a false impression of temperature rise.124 & 125
In reality, the climate is not becoming more extreme, is not changing faster than expected, and it's certainly not scary no matter what St Greta has to say about it. Paul Homewood sums her whining up quite succinctly:126
"Betraying her generation? Stolen her dreams? If she had not bunked off school, they might have taught her a bit of history."
But, of course, the young don’t do history.
Prof King’s whinge is nothing more than a political statement: a demand that net-zero be brought forward to 2040. And if one is still unconvinced of climate change being little more than a political football, Comrade Corbyn and his cabal of fiscal illiterates127 now believe they can bring it forward to 2030.128
The mind truly boggles. It’s as if they’re in denial of the economic pain Germany is presently suffering as a result of its climate policies.129 That the country is becoming irreversibly divided by climate extremism; making St Greta’s comments appear all the more naïve:
"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words, yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing."
Indeed, people are already suffering; people are already dying and entire ecosystems will continue to collapse. Not as a result of climate change, but as a result of the criminally insane policies to 'combat' it.130 It seems though that the UN would rather indulge the emotional appeals of sixteen-year-old Asperger’s sufferer, than 500 scientists requesting a return to a rational dialogue.131 Pauperising half the world is a 'solution' to a non-problem and in common with many other ecological/environmental grand schemes it will create the very catastrophe that the likes of St Greta is worrying about.
N.B. No Polar Bears were harmed in the writing of this post.
Last autumn 'Nature' published a paper (Resplandy et al. 2018) concerning ocean heat uptake. Using a 'novel approach' it purported to claim the oceans had absorbed 60% more heat per year than previously thought; which implied the Earth was more sensitive to fossil fuels than previously thought. This was eagerly taken up by the MSM, but within hours it had been comprehensively trashed by Nic Lewis.
Full details can be found on Judith Curry's website in a series of posts linked below (which, contrary to some claims, illustrates one can have a serious academic discussion on a blogsite). Nic Lewis's final comments, though, are worth repeating:
"I believe that this saga, as well as showing how ineffective journal peer review tends to be in spotting problematic issues in papers, illustrates the need for a much closer involvement of statisticians in climate science research. That was a point also made in one of the articles highlighted in Judith’s latest Week in Review: Climate science needs professional statisticians [link below]."
On September 21, 2019 at 22:01, davidcasemore said...
You have way too much time on your hands! Other folks on here have shown much more of a desire to "argue" with you than I ever would!
And yet here you again are with more of your 'intellectual' masochism.
On September 26, 2019 at 21:01, davidcasemore said...
Right. Just like all of your footnotes linking to breitbart.com confirms mine.
And unlike you, I don't have so much free time on my hands to verify just how many other kooky links you've listed.
And really? You had to go all Ad Hominem on her by calling out her Asperger's? Classy!
If one were to look, one will find all 4 out of 131 Breitbart links (coincidentally meaning 97% don't go to Breitbart) are even more specific insofar as they link to articles by James Delingpole.
Link 16 reports on another 'Ship of Fools Expedition':
"Yet another greenie expedition to the Arctic to raise awareness of ‘global warming’ has been scuppered by unexpected large quantities of ice. This brings to a total of six the number of Ship of Fools expeditions where weather reality has made a mockery of climate theory."
Link 86 reports on climate striking children:
"Across the Western world tens of thousands of brainwashed kids are bunking off school in what has misleadingly been described as a ‘Climate Strike.’"
Link 125 reports on the Canadian Environmental Agency deleting 100 years of climate data:
"Environment Canada – the federal environment agency in Canada – has erased a century’s worth of observed temperature data, claiming its modelled computer projections are more accurate."
Link 127 reports on the Labour Party's intentions towards private (fee paying) schools:
Labour has announced it intends to ban Eton (and other private schools) and I’m really glad:
Perhaps one would like to share some thoughts on the stories?
Feel free to check out the other links, some of which I entirely agree are 'kooky', but that's the BBC for you - 12 out of 131.
And finally, the mentioning of a fact is an Ad Hominem? Like those ill informed and misguided schoolchildren, methinks one is directing one's ire in the wrong direction.
Passion aside, the ill informed naivety of Ms Thunberg's UN speech clearly illustrates the manipulation and ill advice being offered by those with few morals and scruples. If one believes we should heed the disjointed ramblings of an emotionally disturbed teenager over rational discourse, then I cannot help but feel one belongs with them.
Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.