Bishop Hill Dogs that didn't bark
Oct 18, 2014 Climate: Parliament Greens Owen Paterson's GWPF lecture continues to make waves, with further supportive comment appearing today in the Times and the Telegraph.
Meanwhile, there's another attempt at a rebuttal, this time by Professor Gordon McKerron of Sussex University. The green blob has certainly been stamping its feet a great deal at Paterson stepping out of line, and who can blame them when their jobs and rents are on the line? However, as a reader points out to me by email, it's quite revealing to consider the areas of Paterson's speech that have not yet been attacked. This is, presumably, a partial list, formulated as direct quotes from Paterson's words:
- "Our current policy will cost £1,300bn up to 2050”
- "The 2050 target commits us to a huge expansion of electricity generation capacity, requiring vast investment."
- "it amazes me that our last three energy secretaries, Ed Miliband, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey, have merrily presided over the single most regressive policy we have seen in this country since the Sheriff of Nottingham”
- "DECC wrongly assumed that the price of gas would only rise"
- “the unambiguous failure of the atmosphere to warm anything like as fast as predicted by the vast majority of climate models over the past 35 years"
- "Planning approval for renewables overall, including onshore wind, needs to come to a halt or massively over-run the subsidy limits set by the Treasury’s Levy Control Framework."
- "Offshore wind is proving a failure"
- "Biomass is not zero carbon. "
- "the huge investment we have made in wind power, with all the horrendous impacts on our most precious landscapes, have not saved much in the way of carbon dioxide emissions so far"
- "We are the only country to have legally bound ourselves to the 2050 targets"
It's possible, of course, that my correspondent has missed people disagreeing with these points, but it would certainly be interesting to see whether anyone is willing to do so now.
Reader Comments (59)
Paterson also gets a ticking off at
https://theconversation.com/why-climate-uncertainty-is-no-excuse-for-doing-nothing-32924
and
https://theconversation.com/climate-change-its-only-human-to-exaggerate-but-science-itself-does-not-33150
the former article by a certain Lewandowsky
The only comment to the MacKerron article you mention links to a “rebuttal” of Paterson at
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/environmental-bullies/
This latter article has attracted 101 comments.
THe BH Boys have their work cut out today.
Some may not be surprised that I think the most important item in that list is No. 10. And here Charles Moore in this morning's Telegraph article thought Paterson was:
A quick look through the Economist reveals a complete absence of either a report of his remarks or any comment on them. This is entirely consistent with Establishment policy of seeking to deny sceptics publicity by ignoring them.
I completely agree with Robin Guenier. We know the whole thing is a scam because if AGW was a massive problem for the future of the planet (never mind the human race) then the whole world would wish to cut its emissions.
Whether you believe the warmists ideas on climate or not (I remain open to suitable evidence of which there is none) there is no point in us bankrupting our society in the UK and Europe if it will have no effect.
The real lie is from those like Ed Davey who continue to tell us that renewables will be cheaper in the long run, keep the lights on, and not drive industry away or into collapse. The evidence so far is just the opposite.
Posted this at Prof. MacKerron's blog. I wonder if it will survive moderation
'Umm
Prof.MacKerron surely notes the flaws in his own commentary.
1. It may be true that factors other than green taxes have also contributed to rising prices. But that does not mean that green taxes are blameless. Two wrongs do not make a right.
2. Perhaps some of the money raised by green taxes is used to reduce some people’s energy bills. But the remainder does not.
It is a straightforward tax to pay for a simple transaction: poor folk pay higher electricity prices to bribe rich folks to put up wind turbines on their land.
Mr Patterson calls this ‘the most regressive tax since the Sheriff of Nottingham’. He has a good point'
oldtimer
I think that might be a bit harsh on The Economist although I agree with a overall comment.
http://www.thegwpf.com/the-economist-wind-and-solar-energy-even-more-expensive-than-thought/
http://www.thegwpf.com/the-economist-raise-the-pressure-and-get-cracking/
These just a couple of recent articles
Here is a fuller list from a search at GWPF
http://www.thegwpf.com/?s=economist
From the political standpoint, the most important 'factoid' is no.9.
The fact is simple, both wind and solar are intermittent energy sources. Both require 100% back up, produced by conventionally powered generation, for when the sun does not shine, the wind does not blow.
Even though windfarms produce on average about 23% of their installed capacity, this does not result in a 23% reduction in CO2 since the backup is not running in an efficient manner. It is being operated in ramp up/ramp down mode and this produces high levels of CO2. It is akin to urban driving which is the most fuel intensive mode for driving a car.
We all know (ie., the general ublic and politicians alike) that when driving a car, the car consumes most fuel (and hence produces most CO2) when driving in urban conditions. The most fuel effeicient is a steady motorway run about 60mph (depending upon gearing). This is a fact that is known to politicians.
The problem for politicians is that wind/solar makes no sense from the engineering/energy production point of view; it is expensive, unrelaible (solar in high latitudes in winter is a farce) and incapable of providing base load energy. The only reason for wind/solar is reduction in CO2, so if it does not result in reducing CO2, it has no purpose.
The facts are clear, wind and solar do not result in any significant reduction in CO2. This is a fact that any 11 year old would readily appreciate since it requires 100% backup produced by fossil fuel generation.
Whilst politicians may not be able to understand the difficult science of the atmosphere and how the climate works (heck even the scientists do not understand this), they can be expected to know whether installing windfarms will result in a significant reduction in CO2. If they do not result in such savings, then they serve no worthwhile purpose (they fail on their primary objective) and merely lead to high energy costs and unreliable energy supply.
It is factoid no.9 that will return to haunt politicians when the edifice that is climate science implodes.
What the public needs is accountability from politicians in public office.
Surely the most damning indictment of the current policy to expand wind energy is that it simply doesn't work. Averaged over the last 12 months Wind Power supplied just 5.7% of UK peak demand. The minimum was on 31st May 2014 when wind supplied just 49MW ( 0.15% of demand). This was barely enough to power a couple of trains out of Kings Cross up the East Coast line.
The green lobby always quote the total energy supplied by Wind. This is because most of it is generated at night when we don't actually need it. To keep the lights on we must have reliable power delivered at 6pm on weekdays during winter. Wind will never be able to provide such guaranteed power. Nor will battery backup by electric cars work because the extra cost then makes wind uneconomic. Can you imagine the chaos trying to get to work with flat car batteries after a windless night !
I note that McKerron is an economist, not an engineer, nor a nuclear physicist. I think most (all?) of what he claims about OP's remarks are incorrect and I've posted my views on his blog.
richard vverney
Yes I was told recently that the large wind farm of the southeast coast of England is burning 1 million lires of diesel per month just for the support vessels. If that is true (and I have no direct way to find out) I bet it isn't factored into the CO2 "savings".
Phillip Bratby has told us many times of the considerable number of things that a wind turbine "uses" electricity for and doesn't appear to be accounted for either.
Geoff Chambers: I took a look at ATTP's item on Paterson and was immediately taken aback with a line in the post from ATTP:
Say what?
Edit: PS: And I see that BBD has found a home and a soul-mate. Ahhhh.
I have also submitted a comment to Prof McKerron's blogpost. If he is more sensible than me, he will keep away from his blog to have a weekend off, but I hope come Monday he may let my comment through. Here it is:
@ reireddave
When I was Master of an aggregates dredger working on the east coast of the UK I used to wonder if the fuel costs etc ... of the support vessels & construction craft had been factored into of the calculations for any of the offshore wind farms.
There certainly seemed to be an awful lot of CO2 going up the funnels of those ships!
"The fact is simple, both wind and solar are intermittent energy sources. Both require 100% back up, produced by conventionally powered generation, for when the sun does not shine, the wind does not blow."
The simplest fact is that if wind or solar were, in fact, cheaper in any way there would be private investment that needed no unbelievably massive incentives to get people to invest. (Even in the mostly socialist UK)
~Mark
Wind power is currently producing utterly uncharacteristicly high levels of output (approx. 50% of capacity so in reality still p*ss poor).
Stand by for someone to pop up and claim, as a result, just how good windmills are.
Naughtie had a go the morning after the scream Hussain/Mantague style with some unknown from Prof (Turner?) of Lancs Uni. An attempt to rubbish OP naturally and no doubt Lancs Uni wants a lump of money. No pressure on The Lancs dreamer.
@seasick rickyOct 18, 2014 at 10:55 AM
I think the EU is on the shipping case...competitiveness again!!
http://shipandbunker.com/news/world/162047-cyprus-shipowners-say-eu-only-co2-rules-harm-competitiveness
I think Paterson could take the description by McKerron as a
as quite a compliment. Too many political "environmentalists" have abused both the word and the concept for too long. Politically, the environment has long been in the same category as "Mom's apple pie."------------------------------------------
My problem with point (1) is this:
In the political area just who believes statements like "This policy will cost (or save) £ xxx bn up to 2050" ?
Tesco and Google have a hard enough time working with their accounts for last year, now, and tomorrow, never mind many decades into the future. Yet we are always regaled with future numbers that must be effectively worthless. The best thing I can say about them is that at least they don't run up to, and beyond, the end of the century like a cli-sci model.
Ever notice how the people who rebut or critique aren't the people who have experience in the engineering or real-time application of alternative technologies?
Where are the honest numbers about windfarm use: day by day backup fuel use and electricity generated per farm or better per windmill?
It's very easy to hide behind discussion and theory. On the other hand it's very hard to pass an audit with bullshit like this.
Maybe what Owen Patterson can do is ask for an independent engineering audit to be done on windmills and solar. After all shouldn't this be part and parcel of DECC procedures? In fact if it isn't it can fall under criminal negligence.
A few engineering companies in the UK would love to get some government money to do run audits. Might even turn a few around.
Your point 10 has been attacked here: http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Owen-Patersons-speech-to-the-GWPF-the-CCCs-response1.pdf
Doesn't time fly when DECC are screwing energy policy. Didn't realise is is a year since Dieter Helm produced this - http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/sites/default/files/Labour’s%20energy%20policies%20FINAL.pdf - it is long but well worth a read and contains the immortal "Intermittent renewables render everything else intermittent too." in paragraph 99.
@ Oct 18, 2014 at 10:05 AM retireddave
I was not being harsh, just factual. I could see no reference in the latest issue. As for ignoring sceptics I refer you to rule 2 of Futerra`s Rules of the Game, published in 2005 on behalf of the government and others:
".2. Forget the climate change detractors
Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but
unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate
change, but how we should deal with climate change."
Perhaps the Economist will write about it next week after it has had the chance to check out the numbers he quoted.
Just posted the comment below on Prof MacKerron's blog. It'll be interesting to see if this posting gets past moderation.
I would like to comment on this piece but have reason to believe that contrarian viewpoints are not being allowed through. Am I correct Professor MacKerron? If so, perhaps you would like to explain your motivation for suppressing debate.
As you drive around the country, when the wind is actually blowing, try counting the number of 'feathered' wind turbines. These are broken turbines probably damaged by strong winds. By my reckoning this figure is about 10% of all wind farm turbines. To replace a turbine is very expensive so I wonder if maintenance costs are too blame for why so many are now off-line. At least the access to on-shore wind farms is relatively easy.
Now scale the maintenance problem up for off-shore wind farms. The cost of replacing a single 3MW turbine must be enormous due to the access problems and the specialised floating platforms needed. Furthermore the wind strength in open seas is far higher than on land so the risk of damage is higher.
Another little reported problem is the risk of theft. The copper in the turbine windings is worth many thousands of pounds, and wind turbines are in isolated locations. There have already been several thefts in Germany and at least one in the UK.
TC - 12.33
Why did you use the word "contrarian" as opposed to "contrary"?
Patterson is to be thanked for having the guts to speak as plainly as possible about the failure of the climate obsessed policies that have been imposed.
Over at Wattsupwiththat is a piece by Dr Tim Ball, entitled A Simple Truth: Computer Climate Models Cannot Work, in which is the following paragraph:
'IPCC computer climate models are the vehicles of deception for the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) claim that human CO2 is causing global warming. THEY CREATE THE RESULTS THEY ARE DESIGNED TO PRODUCE.' (My capitals).
This is just so fundamental to the whole scam that it has to be publicised at every single opportunity...
Supposing (just supposing - kindly indulge me) that the UK doesn't meet its 'legally binding' target of reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 - what is the government going to do..?
Fine itself..? Put itself in prison..? OR - much more likely - fine every person/business which has not reduced its CO2 emissions by 80% - and in that case, how are they going to prove it..?
WFC queried: TC - 12.33
Why did you use the word "contrarian" as opposed to "contrary"?
WFC - I think you're missing the point. The issue is suppression of other people's views. Do you not think MacKerron should allow comments from others in the same way as you are allowed to post comments to BH?
THEY CREATE THE RESULTS THEY ARE DESIGNED TO PRODUCE.' (My capitals).
This is just so fundamental to the whole scam that it has to be publicised at every single opportunity...
sherlock1
This is a fundamental tactic. Look at the 97% lie; they started with a desired outcome and worked in whatever way was required until they got their targeted outcome, which is then rolled out as gospel.
It's obvious right across the board. Eg someone disses 'ocean acidification'...and like a rabbit from a hat comes a 'new report' claiming runaway ocean acidification, and so on. It's just a giant, corrupt shell game. The one thing they couldn't rig was the actual weather & climate itself, which is now causing them acute embarrassment. Oh dear.
TC
It is you who is missing the point. "Contrarian" (like "denier") is a warmest word meaning "somebody who has a different point of view" or "somebody who is unconvinced by specious arguments".
Why validate this language abuse by adopting it as a self-description?
1, 2. To de-carbonize the economy we do need more electricity (e.g. for cars). That might even save the utilities. Accumulating anything significant over such a long period gives a huge number. Try accumulating the amount we have to spend to replace existing plant whatever the replacement technology. Or the amount we'll spend on pensions or hip replacements or stomach stapling etc. Europe spends €500bn annually on fossil fuel imports. Over 35 years that is €17 trillion at current prices.
3. I can't refute his amazement.
4. Prices can rise and fall. If you or Paterson have a model that reliably predicts fuel prices out 35 years, let's have it (validated of course).
5. Confusing. Is he talking about predictions from 35 years ago, or model runs from now "predicting" what would happen in the last 35 years (which clearly aren't predictions). I think he's just trying to play the "pause" card without doing so directly.
6. Whatever
7. "proving a failure"? So where's the proof he claims.
8. "not zero carbon"? So what?
9. Horrendous? That is very subjective. Not much CO2 savings? Quantify please.
10. That doesn't seem right - see http://eciu.net/briefings/international-perspectives/is-britain-going-it-alone-on-climate-change
WFC notes above that item 10 on the above list ("We are the only country to have legally bound ourselves to the 2050 targets") was attacked in the Committee on Climate Change response to the Paterson. It's interesting that their response to what they call 'Claim 2' ('The UK is uniquely committed to cutting carbon') demonstrates that Paterson was right.
Their response is based on a GLOBE International (ex President and now Honorary President - Lord Deben) report that identifies 66 countries as having enacted climate laws. Well maybe they have but, with the possible exception of Denmark and Finland (and as small countries in the EU they hardly count), none are remotely the same as the UK's. For example, they ludicrously include China and India both of which have made it wholly clear that they (along with a huge list of developing economies, including most of the 66) have no intention of accepting any binding obligation to reduce their emissions. The fact that the CCC thinks it important to highlight Mexico - who's 30% reduction pledge is subject to their getting 'adequate financial and technical support from developed countries' - confirms their desperation.
PS: the post applies also to the response to Item 10 just posted by Raff. Incidentally the seriously misleading ECIU article to which Raff refers did not permit any comment. And they showed zero interest when, in view of their objective of 'informed debate on energy and climate change issues', I offered to write a short item on the subject.
Raff,
Item 10
couldn't find legally binding anywhere in your link for this. Lots of vague waffle
has effectively pledged
published a proposal
overall target is to
For the rest the question was disprove what Paterson claims. As usual you fail to do this, waffling in a similar way to your link for Item 10.
Not THE Richard Black surely?
SandyS: I agree about the vague waffle in that ECIU article (see my PS at 2:54 PM). However, having dug more deeply into that Committee on Climate Change 'refutation', it does seem that Finland may, like the UK, have legally bound themselves to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050: there's a link here for anyone who can read Finnish - I can't. So perhaps technically Paterson was wrong. But, as that's all a desperate CCC was able to find and in view of 'the exception that proves the rule' and maybe the de minimis non curat lex aphorisms, he clearly got it right.
It's interesting that, of the five Paterson claims that the Committee on Climate Change has rejected (LINK), the first three rejections have themselves been refuted:
Claim 1: There has been no temperature increase for 18 years - LINK
Claim 2: The UK is uniquely committed to cutting carbon - see my posts above (2:54 and 3:40 PM)
Claim 3: The lights will go out because of decarbonisation - LINK
Any takers re claims 4 and 5?
Retireddave (10:25 AM): you might not be far out, there, with a million litres per month. I would expect a support vessel to burn at least 7 tonnes of fuel per day (7 tpd), though it might be as much as 15 – 20 tpd (“seasick ricky” might be able to give a better estimate); that is approximately 7,000 litres per day, or 210,000 litres per month (more pedantically, it is closer to 8,750 and 263,000, but let’s keep it simple). As there could be several of these in operation about any field, as well as the various ancillary craft involved, a million litres a month (roughly 780 tonnes, depending on density) is a realistic – though possibly on the low side – estimate. As the cost of this fuel can be as high as $1,200 a tonne, it does seem pertinent to the viability of off-shore wind-farms. Given the specialised nature of the ships, the crew might not be as cheap as could be available, elsewhere, either.
For a “low-carbon” alternative, this does seem to be emitting rather large quantities of CO2, as well as costing a lot of money (a million dollars per month per field, as well as crewing costs ($2-3 mill?), and the general upkeep of these vessels, plus associated costs ashore). I have pursued this argument on more specialist sites, in the hope of getting more information regarding this apparent conflict, to no avail, so far.
Given the costs of their construction, both in monetary terms and in CO2 emissions, the corrosive atmosphere in which they are located, and the difficulties there will be in getting maintenance crews to them, I suspect that the average life of an off-shore wind-farm, even if they continue to receive subsidies at their present levels, will not exceed 10 years, after which, they will be abandoned to the elements.
Oct 18, 2014 at 4:06 PM Robin Guenier
Google does a translate. This is the first section with what might be a working link below. They do add several caveats including that it is to be achieved in the most cost efficient manner possible and what looks like limited impact on the private sector. :)
"The Government approved the draft law on climate
05/06/2014 at 13:34
The Board of Directors has today approved the proposal for climate law. Climate Act should be recorded on at least 80 per cent emissions reduction target by 2050. The law would, above all, the Government and Parliament tool to reach emission reduction targets in the most cost efficient and systematic manner. It would enhance the public sector emission reduction goals, and building a low-carbon society, but does not impose any new obligations on companies or other operators.
"Climate Law Finland strives to be a pioneer in low-carbon society and success. It combines an ambitious climate policy, economic success and human well-being to strengthen. Climate change and its mitigation change the entire world and human activity significantly in the coming decades. Climate Law in Finland to improve the public sector to act a smart community planning, in order to cope Finland at the same time as we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, "Environment Ville Niinistö says.
Act, are key elements of the emission reduction objective, the planning and monitoring, as well as state authorities climate policy planning division of labor clarification. The law would cover both climate change mitigation and adaptation.
"Climate Act to raise the level of Finland at the future of the increasingly important area of policy-making. At the same time, it ensures that towards the 2050 emission reduction targets to proceed systematically, and that climate policy is prepared openly. I'm really pleased that the government is to leave this heritage of Finland in securing the future ", Minister of the Environment Ville Niinistö stress."
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&ie=UTF-8&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ym.fi%2Ffi-FI%2FAjankohtaista%2FValtioneuvosto_hyvaksyi_esityksen_ilmast(29798)
Oct 18, 2014 at 4:26 PM | Radical Rodent
You might also like this one but not a lot. :)
The support ships also supply diesel for the wind turbines, apparently offshore turbines are required to have generating capacity on board to keep them warm and snug and protect the bearings by rotating the blades when there is no wind.
The company below is proposing to have wave generators provide power as a further alternative when the wind does not blow (and make waves) in order to reduce wind turbine refuelling costs.
"New Approaches to Providing Offshore Power – Reducing Risk, Reducing Cost
Want to learn how to reduce the risks and costs of providing offshore power? Read on…
Trident Energy has spotted an opportunity to reduce the risks and costs of providing offshore power. Offshore wind farms are being built in ever deeper, harsher waters. Diesel generators are used to provide power when these are without grid connection – but access for refuelling in this challenging environment is increasingly uncertain. Turbines without power are not an option. Turbine warranties are invalidated, with major implications for insurance and financing. Diesel refuelling costs are very high because of the costs of getting the fuel to the wind farm. The solution is to use the sea to provide the power. A small wave device attached to the wind turbine provides the primary source of power backed up by a diesel generator. This gives a diverse source of auxiliary power to protect turbine warranties and reduces refuelling costs."
http://www.tridentenergy.co.uk/press-releases/trident-energy-releases-white-paper-on-auxiliary-power-for-offshore-wind-farms/
McKerron entitles his blog post: 'Response to Paterson’s unremarkable and nonsensical speech'.
If the speech was unremarkable why is McKerron remarking on it?
As for the pathetic blog header photograph ...
Mick J: yes, I hadn’t forgotten about that: refuelling the diesel tanks on each individual windmill. It is a picture that takes some conjuring – and I have had some experience in similar fields! Wave power? Well, keep dreaming; it might come true.
So, they are building them in deeper water… now, let’s add on the cost of the enlarged structure, the costs of working at those depths for stable foundations, the costs of the extra cabling required to bring it that greater distance, the cost of the specialised ships involved in the construction, the costs of the even larger support vessels that would be required, and the costs of the other, unmentioned, logistics of the project. Now, remind me, who is paying for this? Oh, yes – NOT the company involved in the installation (I mean, who wants to take the hit on that level of risk!?), it’s… wait for it… the tax-payer! That ever-munificent giver who has bottomless pockets, and cannot wait to give others the benefit of his largesse (or so goes the wet-dream of a politician). As that includes me (removing the gender relevance), I have to say it is not something I want to waste my money on. Now, the 4:15 at Kempton Park is something different – with the added benefit of a greater chance of a return!
Thanks, Mick J - that's helpful. But, as you indicate, it's rather difficult to understand what Finland's new law really says. What, for example, does "does not impose any new obligations on companies or other operators" mean? Does the law apply only to the public sector? Hardly ... that wouldn't make sense.
Anyway there's nothing here that changes my view that - given that the exception proves the rule - Paterson was right. And especially as Finland's 2012 share of global CO2 emissions was 0.1% - compare that with the UK's massive 1.3%!
Waffle? That is all the above quotes from Paterson's speech amount to. Having seen the speech deconstructed elsewhere, these were clearly the only things the Bishop thought remained standing, and they don't amount to much, do they? Slow news day perhaps.
Paterson's alternative proposal is not exactly ground breaking either is it? Shale gas? Maybe and maybe not, there's been none extracted yet in the UK and many people don't want it near them. CHP? It's been done for decades and it is clearly stupid to throw away the waste heat if it can be used economically (but hey, most conventional plant throws it away), but it is not revolutionary. That is hasn't been done in the UK implies that it wasn't economically justified or that people were stupid. Has the reason changed? Small nuclear? Do you want one in your backyard? Where does the waste go? Who insures against accident (answer: not the developers/owners/Paterson). Demand management? Obviously sensible, except for contributors to Bishop Hill who are bound by peer pressure to be offended by the very concept, or else (if they can't see what the big deal is) to say nothing.
Robin
It looks like you may be correct
http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/finland-cut-co2-emissions-80-2050-legally-binding.html
Although it is a recent development and Finland isn't a major producer of evil CO2 so may have slipped under the radar.
sandyS: that treehugger story doesn't add anything much. In fact, by linking it to a subsequently denied (and later shown to be incorrect) story that China was 'pledging an absolute cap on emissions', it rather diminishes its credibility.
in my post yesterday at 4:06 PM, I provided three links showing how the Committee on Climate Change's rejections of five of Paterson's claims had themselves been refuted. Since then, Paul Homewood has added another refutation of the CCC's first rejection: LINK
This comment is worth repeating:
PS to the above: Paul H has added another refutation - this time of CCC's second rejection: LINK
Geoffchambers (Oct 18, 2014 at 9:27 AM): Here is a curious quote from a comment on the second article you have linked us to (from Peter Morero, a “Rural Doctor”):
He denies being a sceptic (with the implication that such denial is a Good Thing), yet goes on to declare that he is “just not convinced” – in other words, he is sceptical. He has also absolved Dr Edwards’ of any scepticism, despite her sceptical views; she must be greatly relieved. Most curious. Why are people so reluctant to admit to ANY scepticism about the climate? I am sure that there must be some grant available to investigate this strange social phenomenon.RR, the catch 22 is that paying obeisance to the cause is widely seen as being necessary to obtain research grants. If your research might lead to you uncovering latent skepticism then you would be most unwelcome at the feast.
Oct 19, 2014 at 11:42 AM | michael hart
This is one case where a largely public sector academic institution behaves like a private sector company. The primary goal of both is to bring in money and this is the measure where success is mostly judged on.