UK PEER TALKS SENSE IN ENERGY DEBATE

Here is a link to this recent debate on the UK Energy Bill:

Energy Bill [HL] - Hansard - UK Parliament

Of particular interest is the contribution by Lord Moylan. Here is a short exerpt:

"Net zero is not an energy strategy but a constraint on how we might achieve our energy strategy. Nobody seriously thinks that the UK’s commitment to achieve net zero by 2050 will have any significant effect on the heating of the planet, since we produce only 1% of global emissions. At best, it is setting an example to the world; its practical effect will be very small indeed. The core strategy for this Government has to remain abundant and affordable energy for the UK."

"One of the things the Bill does is encourage investment in wind power. Despite claims that the cost of wind power is constantly falling, that is simply not true. Although it has fallen from its early days, it is ceasing to fall; the fall is declining as a result of the maturity of the industry, as you would expect with any industry that matures. But even if the marginal cost of wind power can be brought down to something close to zero—in other words, that it is similar to nuclear power in that regard—none the less, the capital costs required would still require subsidies, in addition to the feed-in tariff, and these are very large indeed when it comes to offshore wind.

Moreover, despite providing in excess of 20% of our energy, there are many days when wind power falls close to zero, and much the same can be said of solar. This means that gas generation has to be available to take up the slack at those times."

It is good to see that there are still some politicians who are willing to speak the truth instead of simply repeating the usual mantra. I hope the next PM will take note.

GLOBAL WARMING DATA "RIDDLED WITH ERRORS" SAYS AUDITOR

It's important to remind ourselves of the fact that the whole global warming/climate change scare is based on data and just how flawed that data is. Read this report to refresh yourself: 

 UPDATE – BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors – Watts Up With That?

I know there are one or two people who won't believe anything that is written on Watt's Up With That, but that is simply prejudice. This report was undertaken for a PhD thesis and was reviewed as part of the process.

BBC TRY TO LABEL ALL CLIMATE SCEPTICS AS DENIERS

Here is an article I have only just come across on the BBC website:

 COP26: The truth behind the new climate change denial - BBC News

It turned out to be a hatchet job, lumping all climate sceptics together with as many loony conspiracy theorists as possible, just as I suspected they would.

Here are a few of the arguments put forward:

1. Sceptics claim a grand solar minimum will reverse global warming. This claim is only made by a small number of people. It is certainly not the main argument used.

2. Global warming will make parts of the earth more habitable, and that cold kills more people than heat does. This argument is a valid one, depending on the degree of warming. But this nuanced argument is completely ignored by the BBC. Presumably because it would be much harder to refute. 

3. Limiting fossil fuel use will inevitably stunt economic growth and increase the cost of living, hurting the poorest. The article then claims that renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels, while not mentioning that they suffer from unreliability and so need back up. It then claims that increases in extreme weather events will cause more harm to the poor. Something which is not supported by the data.

While no doubt there are some "loonies" who say global warming is a hoax, there are also clearly many people with impressive qualifications who still remain sceptical of the  predictions of doom and destruction put out by the climate extremists. Look at the list of people on the Global Warming Policy Foundation Advisory Council : Who We Are - The Global Warming Policy Foundation (thegwpf.org) 

The BBC has made a big mistake by not admitting any slight doubt to any of the predictions, nor even to allow a proper discussion of the policies being enacted to deal with it. Such a stance will drive reasonable people to find that it's the BBC and the government who are the extremists.

A WELL MADE COMPLAINT

Here is a well-worded serious complaint made to the BBC by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It highlights a typical situation where a programme seems to be used to further a political agenda, instead of providing balanced information. It is unusual for a so-called public service broadcaster to be so one-sided not only on the science, but also on the political policy where balance is normally taken for granted.  

Complaint-A-Perfect-Planet.pdf (thegwpf.org) 

HOW GREEN EXTREMISM BROUGHT A NATION TO ITS KNEES

Be careful what you wish for is the message to give to those green zealots who want to go back to simple "chemical free" farming. it might sound attractive to many of the public who have been fed a constant diet of how wonderful organic farming is. So, before you go out and glue yourself to some "evil" chemical works read this: 

The anarchic scenes in Sri Lanka are a lesson for all governments, says MARK ALMOND | Daily Mail Online

GREENLAND ICE CORES SHOW THAT WE LIVE IN THE COLDEST PERIOD OF THE LAST 10000 YEARS

The following post contains an interesting video link showing how the ice cores were examined to reveal the past record of temperature. At the very least this shows that the past 10000 years have been warmer than the present - something that climate alarmists have tried to deny. Of course this does not mean that increased CO2 levels do not cause warming, but the unknown factor is how much of the current warming is cased by CO2 and how much is due to natural causes?

 “We Live In The Coldest Period Of The Last 10.000 Years" | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

USA SUPREME COURT STANDS UP FOR DEMOCRACY

The control of CO2 emissions was always going to be very difficult in a democracy, as it involves people having to have restrictions placed on their rights and freedoms. It would require a lowering of the standard of living of the bulk of the population. For some time in the USA the government has relied un an unelected agency to bypass democracy and enforce some quite draconian regulations, but now this agency (EPA) has been stopped by the Supreme Court.   

 BOOM! Supreme Court ruling : EPA doesn’t have power to regulate carbon dioxide – Watts Up With That?

WHY WE CANNOT TRUST COMPUTER CLIMATE MODELS

Steve Baker MP warns of risks of computer modelling - The Global Warming Policy Foundation (thegwpf.org)

"Climate models are tuned, climate models are fudged Perhaps it is because of the complexity, or perhaps because of our relative lack of knowledge of the climate system, but when climate models are put together they rarely perform in a realistic manner, with too much or too little heat being retained by the virtual atmosphere. This results in the virtual temperatures rapidly drifting away from the observed ones. In order to address this problem, climate models are ‘tuned‘ – in other words some of the parameterisations are arbitrarily adjusted – so as to make the model warm at a more realistic rate. An example would be to adjust the way clouds are represented in the model. Clouds are one of the great areas of uncertainty in the climate system, so many of the possible parameterisations are plausible. Different combinations of input values could give a virtual global temperature record similar to the real one, but completely different estimates of future warming. Which climate future is the real one is, again, anyone’s guess, and is therefore possible to simply pick the one that gives a desired answer."