Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Grantham style | Main | Speak truth to power »
Monday
Apr152013

Chatham House on biofuels

A new report from the Royal Institute of International Affairs has found that biofuels are pretty much a disaster. Author Rob Bailey declares that they are not sustainable, they are hugely expensive, they are not a cost-efficient way of reducing emissions, and that the EU is going to insist that production is ramped up anyway.

Since the biofuels mandate comes from the EU Commission (which was subverted by the farm lobby), it is, of course, impossible for national governments to do much about this appalling situation. Roger Harrabin tweets that governments will not want to do anything about biofuels anyway because they fear that if they do business will not support future government initiatives.

One wants to weep at the corruption of it all.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (127)

Sensible report, but there's nothing in this that couldn't have been foreseen before any physical shift in agriculture or biofuel technology had been made. Same goes for biomass.

Apr 15, 2013 at 8:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterCapell

I was just about to post this link Bish - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22127123 - the Beeb are on the case. We can all relax

Apr 15, 2013 at 9:01 AM | Unregistered CommenternoTrohpywins

@ noTrohpywins

Thanks for the link to the BBC coverage of the biofuels report. The BBC article has the headline:

Biofuels: 'Irrational' and 'worse than fossil fuels'

Our politicians are bound to support biofuels, then. Since when have they ever supported a rational energy policy?

Apr 15, 2013 at 9:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

It's also a situation that Harribin has played a part in creating.

Mailman

Apr 15, 2013 at 9:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

The original "Catch 22". Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

There is, of course, a way out of the "damned if we don't". Tell the E.U. to take a long walk off a short pier.

UKIP take notice of this latest hubris from the Commissariat.

Apr 15, 2013 at 10:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

I posted this on unthreaded. We need a second enlightenment to rid us of the EU and its mad policies:

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals in the 17th and 18th centuries, which began first in Europe and later in the American colonies. Its purpose was to reform society using reason, challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition, intolerance and some abuses of power by the church and the state.

Apr 15, 2013 at 10:05 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

My latest paper submitted to Biogeosciences, may be relevant here. This looks at the implications of the latest IPCC emissions and land use scenarios for land ecosystems and river flows. A key sentence from the abstract relevant for this discussion is this:

In the model, the scenario with the lowest global warming results in the most extensive decline in tropical forest cover due to a large expansion of agriculture.

This is relevant here because a significant contribution to the expansion of agriculture in the low emissions scenario is the use of land for bioenergy.

Please note that this paper is still under peer-review - indeed, it's in open review so anyone can submit a comment on the paper, so please feel free to do so via the discussion page at the journal.

Apr 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

So the biofuels policy can be summed up as: "We had to destroy the planet in order to save it."

Apr 15, 2013 at 10:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-Record

Not only are biofuels a poor imitation of the real thing but their cropping increases food costs which pushes the levels of starvation in the third world to new heights.
The only biofuel of choice would be methane from a biodigester, using up degradable waste, and that gas used for power production. Small scale projects are saving the users money hand over fist. The farming version is greenhouse heating with the gas, exhaust CO2 piped into the greenhouse to increase crop yield and the waste at the end of a crop digested for methane.

Apr 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Marshall

'Inch by inch, row by row', this report on bio-fuels sounds like it is heading in the right direction.

Here is what may be another straw in the wind: the leftwing readership of Daily Kos expressing a marked lack of awe for Mann in a poll at the end of an article heaping praise on that unfortunate soul: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/14/another-internet-poll-goes-horribly-wrong/.

Bio-fuels have perhaps been the cause of the most extensive tragedies and losses of the 'Carbon Cause' to date, but we may not yet be past Peak Harm from that malevolent madness. Generations have been taught contempt for industrial progress, along with nightmarish visions of the future. Just what impact that will have is surely impossible to predict, but it can hardly be good if it has been taken seriously on board by enough young people.

The 'cause' seems to be in moral and intellectual ruins, but I don't 'get out very much' so that might be wishful thinking. But even if it is right, the political and financial heads of steam that have been built up over it during the past couple of decades will not just fade away. Perhaps the bio-fuels fiasco will serve to illustrate this.

Apr 15, 2013 at 10:49 AM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

RB - can you please recommend a graduate level textbook on climate science that explains in detail the physics of it, what is known, and what are currently open questions? Does such a book exist?

[NB - please not the IPCC reports, nor books on climate science for geography students]

Apr 15, 2013 at 10:58 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

"...One wants to weep at the corruption of it all...."

Or, in my case, join in.

Money is money. However, I never thought that my various nefarious activities would be so comprehensively capped by government.

It just goes to show that:

To err is human
To really fuck things up you need a big computer
But for professional levels of incompetence there is nothing to beat government...

Apr 15, 2013 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

Dodgy,

But to really, really, really screw things up you need agreement of the left and big business.

See Climate policy, Europe, subsidies (energy, farming etc), mass immigration.

Apr 15, 2013 at 11:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-Record

Drafts for a book in progress have been found amongst Eric Hobsbawm's papers, which are currently being studied by archivists. They appear to be a continuation of his famous 'Age' series:


The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789-1848
The Age of Capital: 1848-1875
The Age of Empire: 1875–1914
The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991


The working title for this new work appears to have been: The Age of Incompetence: 1991 onwards


/laboured humour

Apr 15, 2013 at 11:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

Martin A

RB - can you please recommend a graduate level textbook on climate science that explains in detail the physics of it, what is known, and what are currently open questions? Does such a book exist?

At the risk of self-promotion for the second time in this thread, I can recommend a book called "Understanding the Earth System" (editted by Cornell et al) in which I wrote a chapter called "Climate change impacts and adaptation: an Earth System view". This chapter covers what I view as the key issues and uncertainties (including some which are not widely recognised). One section is entitled "Difficulties of assessing 'dangerous' levels of global warming'. Other chapters cover other aspects of climate science and Earth System science, again including what is known and unknown.

The book is on Amazon (see here, but I also have a small number of spare copies so if you email your address to me at my Met Office address (following the format name.surname at metoffice.gov.uk) I'll be happy to send you a copy.

I've also written a chapter for another book, with Ed Hawkins, in which we discuss climate projections, their uncertainties, and how they compare wth observations. The book itself is on climate change and plant genetic diversity. This is currently in press, but I'll try to remember to let you know when it's out (or I can include a pre-print of the chapter when I send the Earth System book).

Apr 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

@Richard Betts "Although climate related changes are slightly larger in scenarios of greater warming, the largest differences between scenarios arise at regional scales as a consequence of different patterns of anthropogenic land cover change. In the model, the scenario with the lowest global warming results in the most extensive decline in tropical forest cover due to a large expansion of agriculture."

So why on earth are we trying to restrict carbon dioxide emissions and screw our industrial economy as well as our agriculture?

Apr 15, 2013 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

@ Richard Betts 11:41

you wrote

"including what is known and unknown"

BLOODY MAGIC how can it include the unknown? Have you been looking into Senna the Soothsayers crystal ball again?

Apr 15, 2013 at 12:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

Interesting paper discussed over at "Tallbloke"
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf

When are the model-numpties with their CO2-driven wet dreams going to sit up at take notice?
There are any number of papers out there that show better correlations of aspects of solar activity
with global temperature than CO2.

I know correlation does not equate to cause, but CO2 has shown little correlation with temperature over longer timescales (1000s and milions of years) than the pathetic 25 years, or so, that the IPCC and their hangers on have got their knickers in a twist over.

So to the modelers what happens if you discount CO2 as a primary "driver" in your models and replace it with solar activity, weighted appropriately and hang the mechanism? (Svensmark has a good crack at this):
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive

If one tenth of the time expended on polishing the turd that is the CO2 driven climate model, was spent on exploring the influence of the big yellow ball in the sky, I believe that the conclusions would be rather different.

Apr 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

RB - That is all very well, but even a lukewarmer like me is still not completely convinced that your models have much idea what CO2 actually produces in warming - so the idea that

"In the model, the scenario with the lowest global warming results in the most extensive decline in tropical forest cover due to a large expansion of agriculture."

is surely torturing the whole idea of cause and effect.

Apr 15, 2013 at 12:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterRetired Dave

Don

So why on earth are we trying to restrict carbon dioxide emissions and screw our industrial economy as well as our agriculture?

Ask your MP :-)

Bear in mind that my paper only covers impacts on land ecosystems and river flows - we didn't look at sea level rise in this particular paper, that's covered elsewhere.

Nuclear power offers low-carbon energy without using up loads of land for bioenergy or taking over the countryside with windfarms. Do you think a move to nuclear would maintain the industrial economy?

Re: Svensmark - we'd need a mechanism in order to include cosmic ray effects in the models, as the models are mechanistic. We already include direct solar effects, see this paper, and this has potential for improving seasonal forecasts.

PS. Happy to send you a copy of the book I mentioned above, if you like.

Apr 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

More evidence that logic flying out the window is the atmospheric pollutant that causes global warming.

Apr 15, 2013 at 12:33 PM | Unregistered Commenterssat

@Richard "We already include direct solar effects" - that is one of your blindspots. It is the indirect mechanisms that are the most important.

"Re: Svensmark - we'd need a mechanism in order to include cosmic ray effects in the models" and that is the second. And this is your second. Svensmark has proposed a mechanism and got empirical results at CERN to support it. In anycase CO2 driven warming doesn't work without a positive feedback- for which empirical data is poor, to say the least. It hasn't stopped the modellers from assuming that this is the case.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

Apr 15, 2013 at 12:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Don

I don't remember the CERN paper coming up with anything that was yet ready for application in climate models, it was all at much smaller scales. I'd be genuinely interested if this was done. If there really is predictability from indirect solar effects then it would be massively useful for seasonal to decadal forecasting, so we are not opposed to it at all. It's just that it doesn't seem very convincing yet.

The humidity observations are consistent with a positive water vapour feedback, see this paper.

Apr 15, 2013 at 1:26 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

Anoneumouse

When I say "including what is unknown" I mean we discuss the areas which we think are relevant but for which we have little understanding, to make it clear where the main uncertainties are.

Apr 15, 2013 at 1:28 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

Some of our local buses have 'runs on 100% biofuel' emblazoned on the side...
I would have thought they would want to keep quiet about their contribution to wrecking the environment...

As an aside, I am an ex-nuclear engineer who supports nuclear power 100%.
HOWEVER, I actually don't want EDF to build Hinkley Point C - not if they are going to stuff the government with an unrealistic charge per MW for the next forty years...

Apr 15, 2013 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered Commentersherlock1

Apr 15, 2013 at 11:50 AM | Don Keiller:

... why on earth are we trying to restrict carbon dioxide emissions and screw our industrial economy as well as our agriculture?

Why indeed? But, quite apart from absurdities such as biofuels, the overriding reason for asking is that the so-called developing economies (responsible for at least 60% of global emissions) plus Russia and various oil producing countries have made it clear they have no interest in restricting their emissions. Even the US (another 20%) doesn't expect its fossil fuel consumption in 2040 to be much different from what it is today.

Yet the UK - with its paltry (and shrinking) 1.7% of emissions - is determined, as you say, to wreck its industry and agriculture. All at great expense - and for no purpose. 'Inch by inch, row by row' (John Shade) isn't likely to be fast enough for the poor benighted UK.

As for asking my MP, there's no point: he (Peter Lilley) agrees with me.

Apr 15, 2013 at 1:43 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

sherlock: I agree with you; I have ex-colleagues working on Hinkley C. We shouldn't be paying a fortune to the French Government to buy an over-engineered expensive 40 year old design of reactor with expensive and unnecessary safety systems. We should be going for the modern design Westinghouse AP1000 (as the Chinese are), despite the fact that Gordon Brown virtually gave Westinghouse away to Toshiba.

Apr 15, 2013 at 1:48 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Anyone else surprised that their rule allows the author to be named? ;-)

Apr 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

What surprised me in the paper is that there is a significant portion of Biodiesel which is derived from tallow: i.e. animal fat. Biodiesel therefore leads unwitting vegetarians and ethical vegans into being consumers of animal products. One cannot even travel by train or bus without exploiting animals. There should be more regulation to ensure that biodiesel is only ethically sourced from organic grains.

(btw: :-))

David

Apr 15, 2013 at 2:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Chorley

@Richard you say "The humidity observations are consistent with a positive water vapour feedback, see this paper."

Which says:

"Adjusted trends, accounting for documented and undocumented break points and their uncertainty, across the extratropical Northern Hemisphere lower and midtroposphere show warming of 0.1–0.4 K decade−1 and moistening on the order of 1%–5% decade−1 since 1970."

"Adjusted trends"- that is as far as I need to read to know it is a crock.

Apr 15, 2013 at 2:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

"@ Richard Betts 11:41

you wrote

"including what is known and unknown"

BLOODY MAGIC how can it include the unknown? Have you been looking into Senna the Soothsayers crystal ball again?

Apr 15, 2013 at 12:03 PM | Anoneumouse"

There are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. The latter are the worrying ones. Seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw


cheers David

Apr 15, 2013 at 2:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Schofield

anoneumouse: you wrote

""including what is known and unknown"

BLOODY MAGIC how can it include the unknown? Have you been looking into Senna the Soothsayers crystal ball again?"

These would be known unknowns, you can't include unknown unkowns because you don't know what they are.

Apr 15, 2013 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Apr 15, 2013 at 2:32 PM | Don Keiller

that is as far as I need to read to know it is a crock.

And that's why we don't get anywhere! Instead of reading the paper properly and finding out what it's really doing, you jump to conclusions and find an easy, superficial excuse to dismiss it.

I have spent a lot of time reading "sceptic literature" if I can call it that - I mean things like The Hockey Stick Illusion, The CRUtape Letters, An Appeal To Reason, Delinquent Teenager, and Svensmark & Calder's The Chilling Stars, amongst others. I've gone to a lot of effort (and continue to do so) to look at the arguments against the mainstream findings of climate science, to test my own beliefs. This is what a true sceptic should do. It would be good if you could do the same - instead of just dismissing things out of hand if you don't agree with them, and blindly accepting other things at face value if they do happen to align with your preconceptions, be a true sceptic and test out every assertion whichever side it is coming from.

Do you want to read the book I mentioned above?

Apr 15, 2013 at 3:02 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

David Schofield, geronimo

Yes, I mean the known unknowns. And yes indeed, there are unknown unknowns. We cannot see into the future, we have no crystal ball. We can only make estimations. We do not know for sure how the climate system will respond to the change in the Earth's energy balance that we are imposing. We are not certain that the changes will be large, but we are not certain that they will be small either. We do know that the climate is capable of large change (it has done so in the past).

Apr 15, 2013 at 3:09 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

"We do know
that the climate is capable of large change (it has
done so in the past)."

Richard, can you give a couple of examples and briefly explain why they occurred please?

Apr 15, 2013 at 3:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

I note that the BBC's piece, astonishingly frank in its criticism, also carries a comment from the 'biofuels' industry body, which implies that 'if farmers didn't grow biofuels they wouldn't grow anything' - which is, quite patently, ridiculous.
So, anyway - government/taxpayer support continues, one assumes...

Apr 15, 2013 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered Commentersherlock1

Rob Burton

The Earth has gone through several ice ages, with warm interglacials in between, probably initiated by changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit and/or the angle of tilt of the Earth's axis in relation to the sun, amplified by other factors such as albedo of ice & snow and the release / uptake of CO2 by vegetation, soils and oceans.

Plenty of other info on ice ages and other climate changes in the past can be found here.

Apr 15, 2013 at 3:44 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

Richard Betts
Believe it or not, I agree with your request that we should all be "true sceptics" but like Don, when I read about

Adjusted trends, accounting for documented and undocumented break points and their uncertainty ...
my bullshit antennae waggle so fast they give me a headache.
Starting with "adjusted". Why do they need to be adjusted? What's wrong with them as they are?
"Documented and undocumented break points" — I'll confess to my ignorance about what exactly this means but for sure the "undocumented " bit has me reaching for the Nurofen. If they're undocumented they may (or may not) be total flannel. Back to the land of the unknown unknowns, I think.
Finally, "and their uncertainty". Warming at .1 to .4 is meaningless because I can get a bigger change than that simply by moving a thermometer from one side of a window ledge to the other. Increased moistening of between 1 and 5% per decade is about as uncertain as you can get. You can drive a bus through that gap.
So in my opinion Don is right. I don't need to read the paper because I have read plenty like it relating to climate or medical research or any other of a dozen fields. Treating models as the equivalent of observations (not forgetting actually preferring model output to observations), data dredges, selective application of data, complete absence of any understanding of statistics, attributing significance to things that out in the real world are irrelevant. That one sentence tells me all I need to know — or if it doesn't and I'm wrong then the author needs to sharpen up his thinking because he is pressing all the buttons that have sceptics crying "no!"
Is it any wonder that from being sceptics we are turning into out and out cynics?

Apr 15, 2013 at 3:50 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Richard Betts

"probably initiated by changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit and/or the angle of tilt of the Earth's axis in relation to the sun, amplified by other factors such as albedo of ice & snow and the release / uptake of CO2 by vegetation, soils and oceans."

If the "amplification" (increasing effect) is from "other factors" how could we get a change of state - Ice Age/Interglacial/Ice Age?

Apr 15, 2013 at 3:56 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

@Richard "I have spent a lot of time reading "sceptic literature" if I can call it that - I mean things like The Hockey Stick Illusion, The CRUtape Letters, An Appeal To Reason, Delinquent Teenager, and Svensmark & Calder's The Chilling Stars, amongst others. I've gone to a lot of effort (and continue to do so) to look at the arguments against the mainstream findings of climate science, to test my own beliefs."

In that case here is a sceptic question I have asked before.
Is the paper by Marcott et al "good science"?

Note. We don't have to be experts in "reconstructions" to pass judgement on this.

Apr 15, 2013 at 4:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

"Ask your MP :-)"

Anyone else noticing that people who have made a mint throwing logic and science out of the window are now shuffling the blame onto politicians? There may be some guilt involved given that it is quite clear that people are dying because of their activities. I suppose the enthusiastic eugenicists of the 1920s similarly pointed to the politicians when they began to feel a tiny bit uncomfortable. I wonder if any of that distinguished crew attempted to hand out textbooks to the masses?

Apr 15, 2013 at 4:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Richard Betts: Have you read fellow physicist Jo Postma's papers?

Apr 15, 2013 at 5:06 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

@Mike Jackson 3:50

"......my bullshit antennae waggle so fast they give me a headache."

Convert it onto a propellor and claim a generous FIT.

Apr 15, 2013 at 5:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

Because the statement that something cannot be socialistic if business supports it may be one of the great fallacies of our time, Dirigisme is a good word for us to add to our quiver of retorts to Statism ploys. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/why-the-world-makes-far-more-sense-if-you-add-dirigisiste-to-the-things-you-understand/

With government in a position to give monopolies of taxpayer revenue and block competition, of course, established Big Business adores this Corporatist vision of a government-Big Business centrally directed economy for their benefit.

It's just not in our interest. Which is why the EU handles it beyond the ballot box and the US treats it as within the power of federal agencies.

Apr 15, 2013 at 5:13 PM | Registered Commenteresquirerobin

Don

My (non-palaeo expert) view on Marcott is that it is an interesting attempt to reconstruct temperatures over the last 11000 years or so, but its significance has been over-sold. It does not appear to support claims of "unprecedented rates of warming" because the time resolution is too low.


Mike Jackson

Adjustments in the humidity data were needed because of changes in other factors affecting the observations. If these are not accounted for then you just end up detecting a change in, say, instrumentation rather than the thing you are actually trying to measure.

Similarly, sea surface temperature records from before WW2 had to be adjusted to account for differences in measurement technique (the famous "bucket correction", accounting for cooling of water when drawn up to the ship's deck). This resulted in a reduction of the apparent warming over the 20th Century - ie: without this adjustment, the warming would have appeared larger than it really was, due to the bucket measurements in the early 20th century being slightly cooler than the actual SST.


Green Sand

I don't see why feedbacks like the ones I mentioned should not lead to a change from ice age to interglacial. If you've got cooling driven by orbital factors, and this causes increased snow and ice cover (increasing albedo) and then ultimately loss of boreal forest cover (with further increases in albedo) then this is positive feedbacks amplifying the initial change.


ZT

You must be referring to someone else not me, as I've not made a mint out of anything, least of all "throwing logic and science out of the window". However, the talk of eugenics and "people dying because of their activities" unfortunately shows that, yet again, the conversation is turning away from scientific debate and getting ugly. This is a shame because Don and I are managing to not fall out for once! And I only mentioned textbooks because someone asked me to recommend one. So, ZT, please stop lowering the tone.


Philip Bratby

I'm not familiar with Postma, and a search on Web of Science didn't turn up anything relevant to climate - can you give the references to the papers to which you are referring?

Apr 15, 2013 at 5:27 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Betts

I love the idea that the EU regards Energy as its 'Competance' !!
We must leave the EU ASAP.
There is now no chance whatever of a Referendum. As from 1st Jan 2014 ALL REFERENDA must be approved by Brussels. Cameron is a either ignorant or .... in promising a referendum in 2017. Even if (impossible I know) he were re-elected, he could not deliver!
Therefore we must elect a government that is committed to withdrawal. This removes any need for a referendum.

Apr 15, 2013 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip Foster

Some might argue that James Hansen's retirement "gift" to us, is that not only does he not know where all the atmospheric CO2 is going, but that he doesn't know where all of it is coming from either. A "curate's egg":

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/011006/pdf/1748-9326_8_1_011006.pdf

Back to square one for IPCC carbon-cycle models and everything built on them?

Apr 15, 2013 at 5:45 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

This sentence "it is, of course, impossible for national governments to do much about this appalling situation" is a bit of mystery to me. Can the national governments not just choose to bow out of the EC, or better yet, refuse to comply with nonsensical EC Commission decisions? Seems unlikely the EC Commission is going to raise an army to invade and force compliance on countries which refuse to follow idiotic rules. Heck, EC countries don't follow the EC rules on budgetary deficits... with no apparent consequence; why should the crazy rules on biofuels be treated any differently?

Apr 15, 2013 at 5:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Fitzpatrick

http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/03/08/the-fraud-of-the-aghe-part-11-quantum-mechanics-the-sheer-stupidity-of-ghe-science-on-wuwt/

The above is one of Joe Postma's rants. In it he demonstrates his inability to understand basic arithmetic and common sense.

I wouldn't advise anyone to spend time investigating his theories. He's also, as it happens, a rude and obnoxious jerk, as the linked article demonstrates quite nicely.

Apr 15, 2013 at 6:03 PM | Unregistered Commentersteveta_uk

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):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>