Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« More links | Main | Mann Q&A »

In the news today

The Guardian reports on the vast risk-free profits made by wealthy titled landowners as a result of the windfarm revolution that the Guardian itself has done so much to bring about through its incessant harping on about the dangers of climate change.

In unrelated news, I understand that Mike Kelly has an article a letter in the Times today. Richard Horton (of Russell inquiry fame) tweets:

A Cambridge Prof of Technology writes in The Times today that climate change "science has been consistently over-egged to produce alarm."

Prof Michael Kelly writes, "All real-word data over the past 20 years has shown the climate models to be exaggerating the likely impacts."

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (57)

The cynicism (hipocrisy?) is completely lost on them...

Feb 28, 2012 at 9:12 AM | Unregistered Commenterjones

And the Guardian does not have comments activated, so no chance to comment on the article ... at the Guardian anyway!

Feb 28, 2012 at 9:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

They will be reading them here.....Their mods will be having a spaz attack for sure.

Feb 28, 2012 at 9:41 AM | Unregistered Commenterjones

Should Scotland vote for independence, the rest of the UK could have problems meeting its target to boost renewable electricity generation to 30% by 2020, according to industry body Scottish Renewables. Scotland is expected to provide a third of the power needed to meet the target.

But the target was for the whole UK including Scotland.

Feb 28, 2012 at 9:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterNicholas Hallam has Sir Michael's letter.

Feb 28, 2012 at 9:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe Englishman
\"real world data\" - finally a light goes on in someone's brain and the words \"the models are wrong\" are uttered.

cAGW only exists in modelled assumptions.

AGW currently only exists in the lab.

GW exists in the real world.

We have no Hot-Spot, the CO2 enriched atmosphere is not trapping heat. The physicial mechanism of the AGW hypothesis is missing

The oceans are not storing heat that the AGW hypothesis requires, neither in the upper layers nor in the deeper layers, no heat transfer has been detected.

Modern increases in temperatures are not unprecedented, neither in magnitude nor in rate.

This planet has never experienced runaway Global Warming.

Current GW is both modest and beneficial, and likely to remain so.

Finally, the environmental movement have practiced a great deceit on humanity.
Feb 28, 2012 at 9:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac
Sorry Professor and MA, PhD, SCD, FREng, FRS - but not yet Sir - and if he doesn't toe the line he may never be.
Feb 28, 2012 at 9:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe Englishman
According to the Guardian story, there are currently 4.5 GW of wind power installed in the UK. From the screenshot that I took of the neta website at 12.55 on the freezing cold 6 February 2012, wind power over the UK had provided a mere 45 MW over the half hour from 12.00 to 12.30. This electricity, produced by ALL the wind generators in the UK was sufficient to power just 15,000 3KW kettles. It was just 1% of the reported total UK installed wind capacity and 0.1% of the country's requirement!

\"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad\"

It is also noteworthy that the environmental editor makes the fundamental error of confusing power with energy.
Feb 28, 2012 at 10:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Post
Will there ever come a time when Monbiot expresses anxiety over the cost of plans for energy generated from unreliable sources? If that day ever dawns then even our politicians will know that it is time for a rethink.
Feb 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoy
Roy : 'Will there ever come a time when Monbiot expresses anxiety over the cost of plans for energy generated from unreliable sources? If that day ever dawns then even our politicians will know that it is time for a rethink.'

I seem to recall that he is against Solar in the UK, so perhaps there is some hope already?!
Feb 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterIan E
Surely solar in the UK has the same characteristic as Errol Flynn. You could always rely on him to let you down.
Feb 28, 2012 at 10:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Post
Regarding the Mike Kelly letter: no wonder he's blunt, he's the *Prince Philip* Professor of Technology ;-)
Feb 28, 2012 at 10:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterNeil McEvoy
I am reminded of a German land owner who took advantage of low over-night electricity tarriffs to install electric arc lights that shone on solar panels during the night to make even more money from German government solar subsidies. That man was a frigging genius in highlighting the absurdity of it all.
Feb 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac
I would like to know how much of this profit landowners are making is subsidy?
Feb 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterShona
Why is this suddenly news? This has been known for years, or has the Graun only just woken up to the inequities of the system? Maybe now we have a coalition government, it is only now that they feel able to comment. Although it is making very little comment, just reporting a few facts. Fence sitting, I would say.

In the side bar, thermal lined trousers are the best sellers in the Guardian shop. Fleeced every which way while the earth boils over.
Feb 28, 2012 at 11:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterBiddyb
Wasn't Professor Kelly a member of the Muir Russel enquiry? If he was, I seem to remember that his comments on \"experiments\" using computer models were not complimentary to the \"science\". But his words did not seem to appear in the final report, as I recall.
Feb 28, 2012 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A
Dunno why \"backslashes\" have appeared in my comment...
Feb 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A
Looking from the other side of the pond it appears you folks are getting royally screwed in the UK. From what I remember the people let the government disarm them 15-20 years ago. The ruling class have no reason to fear the little people. The royal screwing will continue unabated.

Maybe you should have a tea party.

After posting this I will have black SUV's with dark tinted windows patrolling my street. LOL
Feb 28, 2012 at 11:25 AM | Unregistered Commentereyesonu
Time for a new edition of a Raymond Briggs book.
Retitled to \"When the Wind Doesn't Blow\"

Showing an elderly couple, endlessly assured that the weather is getting warmer, and wind will produce all the power needed, slowly freezing/starving to death....
Feb 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM | Unregistered Commentermalcolm
eyesonu # Feb 28, 2012 at 11:25 AM
''From what I remember the people let the government disarm them 15-20 years ago.''

Brits never were 'armed' - it's only the USA where the handgun is regarded as a household utensil.
Feb 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A
Can we take conversations about firearms to the discussion board please.
Feb 28, 2012 at 11:38 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill
Ye Hielans an ye Lawlans
O whaur hae ye been
We maun pay the Earl o' Moray
Because we're ganging green.
Feb 28, 2012 at 11:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought
The Guardian reports on the vast risk-free profits made by wealthy titled landowners

Someone scrape me off the floor!!!!

There is a real tipping point ... it is the point you realise that the evil capitalist conspiracy isn't against wind energy ... but are pushing it to the hilt,

The point you realise that \"evil BIG-OIL\" are very very very very happy that gullible greens have been telling the world that these eco-capitalists (aka BIG-OIL) are the good guys.
Feb 28, 2012 at 12:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Haseler
Why does he say he's correct to castigate deniers? I mean does he mean people who deny climate change, or people who deny man-made climate change, or people who deny the alarmism about climate change, or people who are sceptical about the integrity of the science concerning climate change?

He doesn't make himself too clear on this point. Can someone with a little <i>gravitas</i> email him to find out?
Feb 28, 2012 at 12:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobinson
Oh... my attempt to italicise the word gravitas failed miserably :(.
Feb 28, 2012 at 12:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobinson

I love your idea about a revised ‘green’ version of Raymond Brigg’s book. I wonder if he’d endorse it? He’s an old man now, but it would be interesting to know his views.
Feb 28, 2012 at 12:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

I think Wordpress is having an off day...
Feb 28, 2012 at 12:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P
Or should that be Squarespace? I think 'Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically' is new, too...
Feb 28, 2012 at 12:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P
Commentereyesonu \"Maybe you should have a tea party.\"

You say we are getting screwed. Well according to my research, the key event that led up to the Americans breaking from the UK, was when American juries refused to convict under British law.

In effect, British law was rendered totally ineffective by the refusal of American juries to enforce British laws. This right of juries to refuse to obey the judge's direction to convict was won by a certain William Penn ... the founder of Pennsylvania. The result was that the British authorities had no option but try to get people shipped to Britain to be tried, but that so infuriated the Americans that they revolted.

This is in fact the origin of the \"Not Proven\" verdict in Scotland ... or more accurately the origin of \"Not Guilty\" which is the assertion by the jury of their right not to judge the facts, but to apply justice (irrespective of the law).

Guns had nothing to do with it. However, you will notice that very quietly and stealthily, both the UK and US legal systems have been repressing the right not to convict, till we have reached the stage where almost no one is aware of this key right and how it led directly to US independence.

In other words, the people who are really getting screwed are you in the US who have all but lost your independence.

Of course, the real irony these days, is that the US now demands British \"wrongdoers\" be sent to the US without any right to a trial by their peers.
Feb 28, 2012 at 12:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Haseler
What on earth does \\\\\\\"All hyperlinks will be escaped\\\\\\\" mean? Is it a guard's poor English for a successful Stalag Luft IT POW's tunneling attempt?

Testing -

Feb 28, 2012 at 12:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterGrantB

sigh...All HTML will be escaped

Feb 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterGrantB

There's a bug somewhere at the moment. Plain text comments only until fixed.

Feb 28, 2012 at 12:45 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill
There's a bug somewhere at the moment.

I am sure the medicine will sort it out very quickly.
Feb 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A
Mind you, Kelly does start with a genuflection: \"Sir, Andrew Motion (report, Feb 23) is correct to castigate climate change deniers,...\".
Feb 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme
James P:
I have a feeling he wouldn't approve. The original was (rightly) ridiculing the \"Protect & survive\" government booklet. I've always had the feeling that P&S had been written sometime in the 1950s then filed away, as having been useless since the time fusion weapons were invented. Then in the 1980s, with escalating nuke fears, the government thought it would bring a bit in of loose change by reprinting it. No point in revising it, shove it out unchanged .

But the overall impression I got from WTWB was of Briggs being a Grauniad reader, so no chance of anything questioning wind subsidy farms...
Feb 28, 2012 at 2:12 PM | Unregistered Commentermalcolm
Michael Kelly wrote, \\\" ... there are already 14,000 abandoned windmills onshore in the US.\\\"

I haven't been able to locate an authoritative source for this number -- just blogs pointing to blogs. Anyone know where it originated? I hope it's not just all those water pumpers on abandoned farms.
Feb 28, 2012 at 2:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterSpeed
It's odd that scientists from top universities (Lindzen / MIT, Kelly / Cambridge, etc) tend to be disproportionately more likely to question ecofascism than dullards from third rate universities (Jones / UEA).

It's almost as though climatism only appeals to relatively thick people.

Of course the correlation between low IQ and religiosity is quite well attested:
Feb 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka
Well - along with the lunacy of wind farms (unless, of course, you're Sir Whatsisface and have a nice empty grouse moor) - we are now having 'Renewables, Chapter Two - the Fire Risk of Biomass...'
Tilbury Power Staion, having converted from coal (horrible, nasty stuff) to biomass (hooray..! lovely and renewable) only last DECEMBER - caught fire spectacularly yesterday as I'm sure you all saw - and will be off-line for weeks..
Now, this is a facility which ACTUALLY powers 1.5m homes - so this is not a few wind turbines grinding to a halt due to lack of fairy breath.
It really is going tits up for the 'Reinventing the wheel because the previous one worked too well' brigade, isn't it..?
Feb 28, 2012 at 3:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid
Mike Post, thankyou for those figures on wind energy production and capacity. If it wasn't so tragic it would be hilarious.
Feb 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterJonathan Bagley
Jonathan Bagley

It is actually worse than I thought! The Guardian's figure of 4.5 gigawatts of installed wind power capacity did not include off-shore. The total capacity including off-shore (according to Wikipedia) is 5.9 gigawatts. So at midday on 6 February the UK's wind power stations were producing 0.763% of total installed wind capacity.

BTW, the excellent neta website may be found at Just scroll down for the table showing generation by fuel type.
Feb 28, 2012 at 5:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Post
I particularly admired Prof Kelly's concise engineering term, \"Premature technology deployment .....\".

Despite their 'satisfying' shape and appearance, and comfortingly expensive raw materials and components, wind turbines are quite evidently not yet 'fit for purpose' as a reliable source of power, and furthermore lack any effective means of storing such energy as they actually DO produce.

An analogy that comes to mind is to imagine that Henry Ford had started to mass-produce copies of Bleriot's cross-channel plane instead of his simple motor cars; I doubt if he would have survived commercially for long.

And when I see a picture of a turbine 'lighting up' I recall the similar chronic problems encountered with early helicopter gearboxes in the 1950's (my father's experiences, not mine!).
Feb 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered CommentermikemUK

It seems Professor Kelly did NOT start with a genuflection: the Times edited his words. Here's what he actually said:

\\\"Andrew Motion (report, Feb 23) is correct to castigate climate change deniers, as the climate has always been changing, but he is profoundly mistaken in linking all those who oppose the current climate science orthodoxy into one group.\\\"

The Times removed the words \\\"as the climate has always been changing\\\" thereby completely altering his meaning. Amazing.

(See story - and Professor Kelly's comment on WUWT.)
Feb 28, 2012 at 6:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobin Guenier
Feb 28, 2012 at 8:12 PM | Unregistered Commenterjones
It's great to see that Michael Kelly put the record straight on that first sentence on Watts Up With That. Hats off to Anthony once again.

Even so, it's worth asking the question how one defines climate change denier and how many people fit the definition. Over at Englishman's Castle I quoted the classic comment from Steven Mosher when someone tried to define the term on Judith Curry's: 'In 4 years on the web I do not think I have met a single person who rejects “out-right” and “without thought” “ALL” climate “Science” To be precise. Watts is not a denier. Willis is not. Monckton is not. Lindzen is not. Spencer is not. Nobody here rejects outright without thought all of climate science. No one. The worst reject most of it after considerable amounts of confused thought.'

Other than that it's a brilliant letter, a sign of real progress at the moment.
Feb 28, 2012 at 8:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake
Feb 28, 2012 at 10:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme
My Lord Bishop, I will make no protest if you choose to moderate my language on that last comment. But I meant every word of it. Did I make a mistake there: was it the Times or the Beeb who altered Kelly's point? Or is that a distinction without a difference?
Feb 28, 2012 at 10:41 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme
Feb 28, 2012 at 11:17 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme
From the letter:
" ...if the models cannot account for the near term, why should I trust them in the long term?"

Just how slow do these people's brains work? They couldn't see that 5, 10, 20 years ago?

Where was their mental capacity then? If they can think of these failures of models now, why on Earth did they not think of them long ago?

And the others! Like Oxburgh's panel members - If this question was PUT to them, and they blew it off, then this question they knew about and yet did nothing with it, and they intentionally did nothing. They were faced with it and buried it, covered it up - obviously hoping it would go away.

This is all such an indictment of their mendacious cover-up scam on the U.K. public and the world.

And why was Kelly not screaming bloody murder back in 2010? If he can write now about it, why not then?

This is not even a "shame on them" thing - this is "Let's lock 'em up and throw away the key, for attempted robbery from the public till."

* * * * * * Let us not lose sight of the fact that this demonstrates that the momentum is against the Hockey Team and CAGW - and growing, * * * * * *
Feb 29, 2012 at 4:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Garcia

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>