Friday, 31 May 2013
This is the interpretation of this article on Bishop Hill blog. The extraordinary thing is that this is an official answer to a parliamentary question.
Thursday, 30 May 2013
I am referring to Tim Yeo, Chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee. According to this piece in the Telegraph he is no longer certain that humans are responsible for global warming, although he still believes it is happening. Even so this is surely a big step for a senior climate alarmist, to which I give a small cheer.
Wednesday, 29 May 2013
This report is a shocking exposure of what environmental extremism can lead to. It is quite shocking and leaves no room for discussion or debate.
Tuesday, 28 May 2013
Yes that is in essence Stern's position. He just cannot stop believing that he was right, even though the evidence is piling up against him. See here for the details.
Monday, 27 May 2013
Sunday, 26 May 2013
Saturday, 25 May 2013
This piece on Bishop Hill tells of an Oxford professor who has criticised Matt Ridley for an article he wrote in the Times. Matt has been denied a reply so has written one on the Bishop Hill blog. When you read the piece you can judge who gives the most reasonable argument.
Thursday, 23 May 2013
This post by the excellent Donna Laframboise highlights an upcoming conference which wants to explore more radical ways to force us to go without. I think most governments will ignore such ideas which are simply suicidal for any democratically elected administration.
Monday, 20 May 2013
This report is yet further proof that the world, or even the Arctic is currently refusing to conform to the alarmist view of catastrophic climate change. Remember the Arctic is the place where global warming has been the strongest over the past decade or so, yet it is currently 5C be low average.
Sunday, 19 May 2013
At last governments are beginning to realise that wind farms are ripping off the public. In this report looks at the situation in Scotland where they are considering measures to take away some of the income from wealthy landowners. Seems rather like socialism to me, but that has always been closely related to the climate change business.
Saturday, 18 May 2013
This article explains the reasoning. Yet another reason why there is no consensus on this issue. Clearly the science is very far from being settled.
Friday, 17 May 2013
Thursday, 16 May 2013
This may well be old news to some of you, but I only came across it recently and thought it had been under-reported, so here is the report of the court case in Auckland which took place last August (2012). The result shows that the NZ scientists had no confidence in their work; there is a presumption by many people that they had been falsely adjusting the data. What an extraordinary state of affairs.
Wednesday, 15 May 2013
This article reports the prince's latest speech in which he ramps up the rhetoric on the effect of global warming. Some say he should keep his views to himself, but I feel that he should be free to give his views even though I disagree with him on this issue. I suspect that by straying into controversial subjects he will create enemies as well as friends and this may not be helpful to the long term future of the monarchy.
Tuesday, 14 May 2013
If you haven't read Steven Goddard's excellent blog Real Science, then I recommend that you do, and this section on how the climate data has been altered by James Hansen is a good place to start. How Hansen attained such power and influence I don't know, but what is extraordinary is that there has not been more debate on this by other climate scientists who don't agree with his rationale.
More on the same subject is here.
More on the same subject is here.
Monday, 13 May 2013
This piece on WUWT includes a fascinating, if a little scary video, of ice advancing on lakeside property in Minnesota. While the threat of global warming appears to have stalled, we should not forget that ice-ages have dominated the earth for much of its past and could easily return.
Sunday, 12 May 2013
Saturday, 11 May 2013
Friday, 10 May 2013
According to this report the UK government's climate advisors are leaving as they come to believe that the will to continue down the path of rapid CO2 emission reductions is appearing to wane. The spirit is willing but their flesh is weakening as the spectre of high energy prices coupled with an ever closer election date focuses their tiny minds. When the ship starts to take in water the rats look for an escape route. One can only hope that the next lot of "advisors" are more down to earth, but I am not overly optimistic.
Thursday, 9 May 2013
This is the conclusion reached by Peter Lilley MP in his recent article in the Spectator, according to this report in the Telegraph. Lilley spells out the danger of not challenging the green lobby. This is a key reason to come out of the EU where we can control our own energy policy.
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
Monday, 6 May 2013
This article looks at recent reports purporting to make out that China has strong "green" credentials. The truth is rather different as the report shows. Of course if the public understand that China has no intention of reducing its CO2 emissions then they are unlikely to support costly efforts by the UK.
Sunday, 5 May 2013
Friday, 3 May 2013
EU policy makers have grossly underestimated the difficulties and risks of their drive to decarbonise the power sector. They have failed to take into account the huge changes in the economic, commodity and financial environments and adjust policy accordingly. A crisis in UK energy policy looks increasingly likely and therefore utility companies and investors would be prudent in limiting their future exposure. -- Peter Atherton and Guillaume Redgwell, Liberum Capital, 30 April 2013
When the crisis hits there will be three possible casualties, the government of the day, the consumer, and the investors who have funded the government’s radical energy policy. Whilst no doubt there will be plenty of pain to go around, in our view investors should be under no illusions that the government of the day will seek to protect itself and the consumer (who are also the electorate) by heaping most of the financial pain on to investors. --Peter Atherton and Guillaume Redgwell, Liberum Capital, 30 April 2013
The U.K.’s 376 billion-pound ($582 billion) program to switch from fossil fuel to renewable and nuclear power is headed for crisis because of looming energy shortages and spiraling costs, Liberum Capital Ltd. said. “Moving from a largely fossil-fuel based power system to one dominated by renewables and nuclear in just a decade and a half, whilst keeping the lights on and consumer bills affordable, may simply be impossible,” Peter Atherton said. --Sally Bakewell, Bloomberg, 30 April 2013
[It's a] struggle to find a single fund manager who believes UK energy policy is credible... That is why they are not investing. --Peter Atherton, London 1 May 2013
It's interesting then to see today's House of Lords report on EU energy policy. Their calculation seems to be that investors will be enticed in if the public are fleeced sufficiently; big bad capitalists will simply be unable to resist all that easy money. Liberum Capital, on the other hand, seem to have thought things through a little further, asking themselves whether the public will tolerate being fleeced to the extent envisaged in Westminster and Brussels. They conclude, correctly in my opinion, that transfers to big business on this scale will be seen as intolerable. The difference in opinion between the real world and the political world is rather stark, don't you think? --Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 2 May 2013
British leaders are making some truly bizarre decisions in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and comply with European renewable electricity mandates. For example, they are converting a coal-fired plant to burn wood chips that are shipped from the United States. A wood burning plant qualifies under the European rules for meeting electricity generation mandates from renewable energy for the purpose of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from energy producing sources. But this move is sheer lunacy for it will increase rather than decrease emissions while increasing the price of electricity to consumers. Yet the British parliament has whole-heartedly embraced the move. Have legislators gone mad? --Institute for Energy Research, 30 April 2013
The irony of the situation is that Britain is moving away from coal as other countries which have been big proponents of reducing carbon dioxide emissions are moving to build more coal-fired power plants. Germany is building 20 new coal-fired power plants to back-up its wind and solar plants and to replace its nuclear plants; the first of which (2,200 megawatts) came on line last September. China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, is building at least one coal-fired unit a week and is planning to build 363 more coal-fired power plants to fuel its fast growing economy. India is also planning to build 455 new coal-fired power plants to fuel its growing economy. And then there is Japan, who is building coal-fired power plants to replace its nuclear power after the accident at Fukushima in 2011. --Institute for Energy Research, 30 April 2013