71 posts • joined Wednesday 10th November 2010 13:45 GMT
Re: Funnily enough
That's stange. You appear to believe the BBC is an impartial disinterested party in all this. When in fact the BBC is packed with hard left tax & spend marxists who correctly view climate change hysteria as an excellent trojan horse for their anti-capitalist policies. These 5th columnists have been promoting the climate change scam for decades via every channel available to them: google 'BBC 28 gate' to read how the BBC organised internal climate change brainwashing seminars for producers from every department - including comedy and children's TV. Truely sickening.
Re: Build Nuclear
I'm interested to see the calculations behind wilco's assertion that "every watt of wind saves 2.5W of gas"
1) A CCGT is typically 55-60% efficient at turning gas into electrical energy.
2) The wind farm requires 100% hot-standby gas-powered backup consuming as much as 10% extra fuel per KWH compared to continuous full-load operation. Not to mention reduced lifetime and increased servicing costs.
3) sourcing power from remote windfarms typically incurrs an extra 3% transmission loss compared to power sourced from a conventional station near to the city.
So I get: Gas saving = 1KWh wind * 0.97 Tx loss * 0.9 backup loss / 0.57 avg CCGT efficiency = 1.5KWH "saved"
Of course this ignores the fact that that KWH of wind costed 4-to-7x as much as the KWh of gas power - due to the higher cost of the wind turbines, pylons and grid required to transport the leccy from the remote ruined beautyspot to the city + the cost of having the gas power station on standby for when the wind drops or blows too hard - plus the fact that the wind KWh maybe generated in the night when it is not needed compared to the CCGT KWh which can be generated on demand.
Re: So it cost me about a pound?
I was referring to your title which appeared to dismiss this example of BBC waste and political bias with an incorrect assertion that it 'cost me about a pound'.
Re: So it cost me about a pound?
> So it cost me about a pound
If you are referring to the legal costs in fighting this FOI, then no, they're a drop in the ocean of the BBC's £3.2Bn budget. But the end cost to you of the BBC's 'climate' campaigning is significantly more - since they have been largely successful in persuading the political class that they need to 'tackle climate change'. And the costs of that show up in every bill you pay - from your energy bills (about 25% green taxes and subsidies) to your food bill ( growing food takes energy) to your plane tickets ( APD etc ) to your car tax etc. So, in total, I'd say it cost you several thousand pound.
There are no privately run equivalents of our £3.2Bn state funded broadcaster. But there are individual private organisations operating in the genres of news and drama who produce programmes as good or better than those on the BBC eg. HBO or AMC, AlJazeera. That's the whole point of a free market: you have multiple companies competing to produce the best programmes and the best naturally rise to the top since they get the most customers.
So the idea wouldn't be to replace the Beeb with an equivalent privately run monopoly. It would be to open the market up to free competition by hundreds of different program makers. This is already happening with internet video on demand, Youtube and Netflix etc - although the BBC's guaranteed funding is stifling competition in this area ( eg. iPlayer, BBC news website etc) and stunting the market. There is no longer any justification for the BBC's taxpayer monopoly funding. The 28gate debacle is just one of many examples of why a monopolistic control of the media by one organisation is a bad thing for freedom and democracy.
Yeah, that's why they produce all those rubbish programmes like Mad Men, Homeland, The Soprano's, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, The Simpsons, South Park etc. And we get 20 variations of a Miss Marple whodunnit and David Tennant gurning thru endless left-wing preachy episodes of Doctor Who.
> I don't want them to become biased
Become? You think their existing coverage of issues like climate change, immigration, Israel & the EU has been unbiased? Give me a break!
Ain't the BBC great
Broadcasting completely false accusations of child molestation with absolutely zero attempt to corroborate or verify the claims - purely as a smoke screen to distract from their 30 year nurturing of one of the most vile paedo's in history. And as if that wasn't bad enough, they continue to promote catastrophic man-made global warming - the greatest financial and scientific hoax in history - using every available programme and channel - including Ceebies - making them responsible for the abuse of children in more ways than one.
Re: "China accepts the link"
Not to mention the billions they get from the CDM (clean development mechanism) for building the hydro dams and power stations they were going to build anyway. Hell, they even have factories in China specifically set up to produce CFC's which they can then claim various credits for destroying. They even threatened to release tonnes of CFCs into the atmosphere when the UN suggested they might cut their credits.
The chinese are more than happy to take momey from posturing green western politicians.
99% are State funded, and of course the State is eager for them to find a problem for goverment to 'solve' by imposing new taxes. And your point is?
>Used to justify anything, but not by scientists...
Oh yeah? How about Dr Stephen Schnieder - IPCC lead author who said the following:
"we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Or IPCC head Pachurai who has repeatedly advocated new taxes, and lifestyle curbs despite the IPCC's role as a supposedly unbiased, policy-neutral scientific organisation.
The climate 'scientists' have their snouts buried just as deep in the climate scaremongering trough as most corrupt politicians.
When it's hot we're told it's man made global warming. When it's cold we're told it's just weather or maybe ' climate disruption' caused by man. When there's a drought we're told it's man-made climate change. A flood? Another extreme caused by man-made climate change. Is there any natural weather phenomenon that these money grubbing scaremongerers don't blame on man-made CO2? Time to face facts buddy: global average temperatures have't increased this century. Your religion is dying.
Re: Another day, another scare story
Agreed, India and China haven't fallen for the green lunacy infecting Westminster and Washington. Perhaps it's because their leaders know that if they get energy or economic policy wrong, a public lynching is still a real possibility. Whereas our lot of useless troughers can shaft the country and still look forward to a luxuious retirement in the Lords or some cushy EU post.
PS. By the way, CO2 isn't pollution. It's a natural plant food essential for all life on Earth. K thx bye.
Re: Another day, another scare story
> Don't worry about the AGWers. They seem to have very little power...
Are you kidding? These scaremongering loonies infest every branch of government: 99% of LibLabCon MP's, 100% of DECC, the Foreign Office, DFID, the environment agency and countless quangos from The Carbon Saving Trust to the idiotic Climate Change committee. Same in the US from Obummer all the way down..
Re: Denialism is essentially an anti-science movement
Regarding your attempt to smear McKitrick: He is a professor at a publically funded university. Just like any other professor he speaks at conferences and holds advisory posts. There's no difference between his funding sources and that of say UEA's Phil Jones who has obtained funding of over £13M from government bodies with an interest in promoting man made global warming alarm, and even funding from large corporations like BP and Shell who too stand to make billions from carbon trading and biofuel mandates and such like. It's important to realise that both sides have vested interests in this debate. Therefore it's important to read a bit about the debates yourself, and make your own judgements on the trustworthiness of the various commentators. Best not to gullibly accept the word of someone with a vested interest - whether he be promoting alarm or scepticism. That said, it should be noted that one side of the debate has vastly more funding than the other: We're talking $Billions of funding from government organisations seeking greater tax raising powers, millions from bankers and carbon traders, and millions from the biofuels industry, the wind industry, the solar industry and not forgeting the environmental lobby - all promoting the scare. That doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong - but it certainly means you can't just accept all they say without question. On your technical points: I suggest readers checkout the Climate Audit website, or read 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' and make up their own minds.
Re: Muller was never a sceptic
Firstly - as the quotes I linked illustrate, Muller was an enthusiastic supporter of man made global warming alarmism from his earliest utterances. He only spoke out about 'Hide the decline' and the hockey stick illusion AFTER the climategate emails showed beyond doubt the mendacity and dodgy dealings of the alarmist 'hockey team'.
Muller's latest flawed work only looks at the last few hundred years. In no way does this 'verify' the bogus hockey stick graph which purports to show flat global temperatures throughout the Roman and Medieval warm periods which are well known to have been as warm or warmer than the present.
Muller was never a sceptic
Checkout what he was saying way back in 2003:
"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003
So the whole 'ex-sceptic' thing is a sham. A false identity adopted to give his alarmist ravings the air of impartiality. If the man is lying about his own history, then why should we trust anything he says about climate history?
Re: Industrial scale development
"question is which kind of energy is subsidised the most."
Answer: Renewables receive by far the largest subsidy per useable KWHr generated.
You guys don't seem to realise: misanthropic environmentalist dogma has completely over-run all three main UK political parties. This is a result of polling and focus groups which told the politicians that a significant portion of the electorate were worried about green issues. This provided the ideal opportunity for politicians to posture and claim to be 'saving the planet' by spending huge sums of taxpayers money on green boondoggles. Fortunately the public are starting to wise up so the politicians are starting to change their tune. However, make no mistake, at the moment the greens *are* the establishment - and will remain so for many years.
Re: She has a point
Uh, the well-worn alarmist smoking analogy:
1) The link between smoking and cancer has been proven by real world double blind experiments comparing outcomes of smokers and non-smokers. There has been no such proof nor evidence of CAGW. In fact there's an absence of evidence. No warming since 98 despite CO2 increase, no hot-spot as predicted by models. No ability of GCMs to predict weather 6 weeks ahead, never mind 100 years in the future.
2) The Medieval and Roman warm periods and the little ice age tell us that periods of warming and cooling occur completely naturally. (There's no smoking/cancer analogy for this )
3) smoking is an unnecessary habit with no benefits to the individual so there is no cost to giving up smoking. By contrast cheap fossil fuelled energy is the basis of our entire culture and society. The costs of deindustrialising society are huge.
You can always tell someone has no decent arguments when they make idiotic comparisons between completely different situation (global warming = lung cancer and fossil fuels = smoking) or they try to demonise or dismiss those who respectfully disagree with them as mentally ill.
'GW' is for the estimated 0.8oC of global warming that occurred last century (none since 1998)
'A' is for Anthropgenic, to distinguish between natural warming which we know has occurred countless times over Earth's 4Bn year history, and hypothetical man-made warming.
'C' is to distinguish between beneficial and harmful warming. It is generally agreed that a couple of degrees of warming would be beneficial to most countries (longer growing seasons, less deaths from cold, less storms as the temperature differential between the poles and equator drops).
Therefore, alarmists need to prove all three: C, A and GW to justify the Trillions being spent on this bollox.
Re: So what happened?
Yeah right - an anonymous letter written in Gleick's own style, using his favourite phrases. A letter that bizarrely bigs up Gleick as 'prominent'. A letter which no one else received. A letter which, refers to details of the Heartland accounts documents which Gleick claims he only subsequently purloined. A letter which he carefully refused to deny he wrote in his press statement. Yeah perhaps the global warming fairies wrote it. Seems unlikely that Gleick's wrote it himself to sex-up his innocuous dossier.
Re: Re: Re: Identity theft
Yeah - the one who didn't fake a single one of the thousands of publicly funded FOIAble emails he released.
Re: Re: Re: Big deal
> It only proves the document was scanned in after those other documents were obtained.
True dat. I trust Gleick will submit the original to the authorities as part of his defence when he's prosecuted for wire-fraud and libel.
Also notice that Gleick's carefully worded press statement neither confirms nor denies whether he wrote the fake memo: At no point does he say that the faked strategy paper was the anonymous document he received in the mail. One suspects his highly paid legal team are now dictating all his public statements with a view to his upcoming prosecution.
Re: "Key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science".
Al, I'm assuming you know the 'dissuade teachers from teaching science' smear came from the fake strategy document. There is nothing in the real documents to support this claim. On the contrary - it is the climate profiteers and greenpeace luddites who are seeking to brainwash school children with sickening climate change propaganda like DECC's 'Bedtime story' ad and the 10:10 'No Pressure' sceptic extermination video.
The correct title is 'Fakegate' not 'Denialgate'. The only denial going on is among the warmists: Denial of the global cooling since 1998 - and denial that the wheels are falling off their bogus $Trillion climate scaremongering CO2 taxing scam.
Re: Big deal
I should add that the fake memo meta data confirms it was generated AFTER the genuine stolen documents. Which again tends to confirm my suspicions. This story has some way to run yet.
Re: Big deal
> He received the data anonymously
Hang on. So your saying a Heartland insider wrote a fake strategy document (containing detailed account information), he sends the fake document to Gleick - who then fraudulently obtains the actual accounts just to check the faked memo? Makes no sense. Why didn't the leaker supply the original documents? Why would a leaker write a half-arsed fake memo. I suspect there was no leaker. I suspect Gleick obtained the accounts (which show nothing untoward) and wrote the memo himself to spice up the story.
I'm sure lying cheating and smearing people with views differerent to your own is 'no big deal' to global warmists like you. Afterall - you think you're saving the world - who cares about the law?
<2495> from the Climategate2 collection. Email from CRU director Phil Jones to his minions:
"I can't overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish."
Chutney cancer crisis :) Love those pics. Great post Andrew. What we need is more humour like this. Once people start ridiculing and laughing at these scaremongers then we might start to reduce the funding to these green parasites. Just imagine the huge sums now being wasted on non-solutions to this non-problem of non-existent warming. Roll on the day the subsidies and grants end, and these green leeches shrivel up and drop off. Then maybe the £Billions can be diverted back to real environmental protection, medical research, promoting development and alleviating human suffering.
Nom - if you want the full context just checkout the rest of the emails using the number I provided at www.Foia2011.org In each case the apparent skullduggery in the quote is confirmed by the rest of the email.
Why are Pollack and his colleagues trying to "make the medieval warm period go away"? It's because it totally destroys the case for alarm over the mild warming last century.
As regards Tyndall sponsoring the BBC journalist propaganda group CMEP - BBC environmental reporters Harrabin and Black have & continue to be at the forefront of attempts to silence and downplay the corruption exposed by the climategate emails. They have also been complicit in silencing any criticism of MMGW "science" and economically suicidal climate change policies. And now we have evidence in these emails of inappropriate cozy relationships between BBC editors and activist scientists.
You can find detailed articles on the many failings of the Muir Russell inquiry by googling "climate audit Muir Russell"
Not least among them was that Russell was funded and paid for by UEA (£340,000) - so was in no way independent of the organisation he was supposed to be investigating.
And contrary to claims the Russell panel was independent, most of the report writing was done by Geoffrey Boulton, alarmist IPCC contributor, ex-UEA employee and colleague of Phil "Hide the Decline" Jones. Boulton's name even appears 14 times in the latest batch of emails!
No suprise the inquiry they failed to interview sceptics and published blatant lies about illegal data deletion: http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/22/blatant-misrepresentation-by-muir-russell-panel/
DrXym - your reply reminds me of Alec Baldwin in this famous scene from Team America:
Just a couple of emails to prove my point:
<5111> Pollack: "it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland"
<4944> Haimberger: "It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots [opposite to MMGW model predictions]... it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts."
<1680> Mann: "I have been talking with folks in the states about finding an
investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his
thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the
same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy."
<2496> Hulme : "This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme [run by BBC's Roger Harrabin] to starve this type of reporting at source."
Investigation by UEA? So they were investigating themselves? And what did they conclude? Was it "Nothing to see here.... move along" ? Quelle suprise.
HOC 'review'? Half a day of gentle discussion by a panel stacked with pro CO2 taxing government yes men. But despite the obfuscation the Information Commissioner did say there was clear evidence of illegal data deletion and FOI obstruction - although the 6-month time limit prevented prosecution.
'Several independent panels'? What - like the 5-page Oxburgh report. With Lord Oxburgh of Persil up to his neck in subsidy-farming wind/solar/CCS directorships? He was even mentioned in the climategate2 emails as a "good person to sell the "product" [MMGW alarmism] to industry and government".
The Penn State inquiry? You mean the kiddie fiddler cover-up crew? Some of the key people that cleared Mann have now been sacked in disgrace. http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/12/wendell-courtneys-last-day/
> Muller found no evidence of any misleading or wrong-doing by the climategate team
That's not what he said here: "They deceived the public and they deceived other scientists".
Absolutely nothing to see here people. Move along.
> There is absolutely nothing about the leaked emails
> which supports the notion that there is a conspiracy.
Yeah, nothing except page after page of evidence of peer review corruption, illegal deletion of contradictory evidence, pledges of allegiance to "The cause", expressions of public certainly about MMGW while concealing private doubts, high level discussions with BBC journalists and NGOs on how best to scaremonger, how to smear sceptics, keep them out of the scientific literature etc. All by supposedly unbiased 'top climate experts' and IPCC lead authors.
Yeah - absolutely nothing to see here.... Move along.
This paper has been widely discredited. Criticisms include:
1) Thermogenic methane occurs naturally in 85% of water wells across the entire region. Gas migration has been a problem in Pennsylvania for decades, well before the first Marcellus well was drilled in 2005.
2) The study has no baseline data for the selected wells so there's no way of knowing if the naturally occuring levels have been increased by fracking.
3) Rather than being a random sample, the 'wells near fracking sites' were specially chosen to be in areas with a high natural thermogenic methane content. And the control wells away from fracking sites were in low natural methane level areas. Creating a false picture that the drilling caused the methane - when in fact the methane caused the drilling.
4) The authors use the lefty slogan "sustainable future" in their conclusion. This indicates they believe poor people should suffer higher energy bills in the present, so theoretical future generations can have an easier life - despite the fact those future generations will have infinitely more wealth, technology, a higher standard of living and a longer life expectancy than those expected to make sacrifices today.
My Reaction to the Win8 Demo
Can I turn off all that crap and make it look like XP please?
Green Jobs Myth
Bravo to Professor Hughes for his clear and definitive demolition of the idiotic 'green jobs' myth.
Reading some of the economically illiterate comments posted above shows just how much work there is to do in rescuing our future freedom and prosperity from the clutches of irrational eco-alarmists. These people are already doing huge damage to our economy and our environment with their daft medieval energy policies.
How's that 'green energy' working out for you?
> China with the worlds largest PV manufacturing capacity
They have the world's largest manufacturing capacity of everything - not just PV. It's because they have millions of degree-qualified young people willing to work for a pittance. And they're happy to supply us with whatever useless junk we want - including solar panels.
> Germany with the largest installed PV base
Despite this, their PV only meets 2% of their demand and has increased their cost / KWHr to 60% above UK prices. They're currently slashing solar subsidies and building 26 coal fired plants to meet demand.
> Demark who generate up to 20% of peak electricity use with wind
They have the most expensive electricity in Europe - over 2x UK prices. Due to the erratic uncontrollable nature of wind farms they have to export 80% of their output to Norway for hydro storage then buy it back at a premium. And despite this - they haven't closed a single conventional power station - on the contrary they need more to backup the intermittent wind output.
Brazilian Biomass? Currently contributing to massive forest clearance and surging food prices as subsidized fuel crops replace essential food crops.
This is what you get when you put know-nothing eco-alarmists and climate profiteers in charge of energy policy.
CO2 = Poisonous Effluent ? Srsly?
CO2 is a natural trace gas essential for all life on Earth. Plants stop growing and die if CO2 drops below 200ppm. Growth rate increases up to 1500ppm. Current atmospheric levels are only 390ppm. Natural sources are responsible for 96% of annual CO2 emissions. If man-made CO2 has been responsible for some of the mild warming seen last century then it's undoubtedly a good thing: Milder weather, longer growing seasons, less deaths from the cold. We haven't had it this good since the Medieval Warm Period.
It's the Sun wot dun it
Funny how the zealots at Real Climate and various other tax-payer funded alarmist blogs had their silly "Move along. Nothing to see here" posts up even before the paper came out today.
First ClimateGate now this. Please explain to me again why we're all paying a 30% surcharge on our energy bills to "save the planet" from man-made CO2? Money which goes straight into the pockets of corrupt climate profiteers and bogus weather scaremongers.
I'll take that bet
- although I won't be around in 50 years to collect:
At the moment coal provides 25% of world energy, and wind <0.3%
In fifty years I guarantee that coal-fired energy use will still be at least 10 x wind-energy
250 year's supply not enough for you?
According to the IEA the world has 250yrs supply of shale gas in deposits distributed all over the world. At a stroke, shale gas has wiped out two of the eco-doom-mongers favourite arguments: Namely 'peak oil' and 'dependency on undesirable regimes'. What arguments are left? Climate change? None since 1998. And with the sun entering a quiet phase - and Svensmark's theory of solar/cloud interaction gaining support - well, it's not looking good for Vestas in the medium-to-long term.
Re: Nuclear. The good thing about natural gas plants is if there's an accident you may get a fire, an explosion, a few broken windows - maybe even some casualties on site - but you don't get a Chenobyl/Fukushima incident and the costs associated with of contamination of huge areas of land.
Numbers Don't Add Up
If you placed wind turbines all round the M25 and all up the M1 - using the optimum spacing of 8 x 100m rotor diameters - you would only have room for 500km / 800m = 625 turbines.
Assuming each turbine is 3.6MW rated capacity and 25% average power output due to wind variability = 625 turbines x 3.6MW x 25% = 562MW total average power output.
This is less than half the output of a single 1GW gas-fired power station such as Seabank near Bristol, which only occupies 0.6km2 and reliably generates electricity 24/7 - not just when the wind blows.
3.6MW turbines cost £3M each so that's £1.8Bn total. By comparison a plant like Seabank costs £0.5Bn to build.
The trouble with wind is that any way you slice it, the numbers just don't add up. That's why our forefathers had the good sense to abandon wind for fossil fuels 230 years ago.
Big Green vs King Coal
I beg to differ:
Thanks to exhaust scrubbers our coal plants are the cleanest in the world. Air quality tests show particulates at an all-time low. Strict regulations are already in place and much research has already been done on power plant emissions.
Your paranoia about an all-powerful coal lobby is sadly misplaced. Wind power is heavily supported by all three main political parties and the EU. In the UK the wind-lobby has secured an £18B/yr tax-payer subsidy for the next 20 years. The beneficiaries are the same "evil capitalist" corporations like EDF and EON who also run conventional power stations. They are quite happy to collect huge taxpayer subsidies for expensive inefficient "green" energy. There's also a multi-billion pound carbon credit trading industry, and a multi million pound green pressure group industry, not to mention huge ranks of government funded scientists and bureaucrats, all riding the climate change gravy train.
So sorry to inform you that the "profit motivated industrialists" are all working for Big Green now. Not King Coal.
Rated Power vs Average OutputsSource for Rare Earth Requirement Per Turbine
The quoted capacity of a wind turbine is the power output in optimum wind speed conditions.
Due to wind-speed variation the average power output of onshore wind turbines is only 25% of rated power, maybe 35+% for offshore.
This is known as the "capacity factor" - try googling it if you don't believe me.
Power varies as the square of wind speed - so power rapidly drops off as the wind slows - and rapidly cuts to prevent damage in a gale. Hence the 25% onshore capacity factor.
As for a source on the 1 tonne per turbine rare-earth requirement. Try here:
a) Seabank 1.1GW gas-fired power station near Bristol measures about 600x600m = 0.4km2
Even a giant like Drax 4GW power station occupies only 1.7km2.
b) Seabank is located in an industrial area close to Bristol. Drax is close to tut pit near Selby.
c) We're discussing onshore windfarms here. Offshore are twice the price and even more economically suicidal.
You're neglecting the area and impact
A regular power station occupies < 1km2 and is typically located in industrial areas which may already have some noise. The equivalent windfarm(s) occupy > 1000km2 and are typically located in previously tranquil areas.