Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« What New Scientist wouldn't print | Main | Still going slow »

Yorkshire goes unconventional

Well this was enough to lull me from my blogging stupor:

Fracking given green light in North Yorkshire

Protesters booed and jeered as councillors gave the go-ahead for the first fracking operation in the UK for five years.

The problem the greens are going to have now is that when the sky doesn't actually fall in, they are going to be left looking pretty dishonest. 


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (487)

'Low carbon fossil fuel"

Good one, I am going to add that to my collection along with business ethics, fun run, and MacDonald's Happy Meal

May 28, 2016 at 9:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

@Julian Flood May 27, 2016 at 8:43 PM
You didn't put a link to your energy price petition

Which Magazine : Sign our petition for fair energy prices ... 460,219 petition signatures so far

May 28, 2016 at 10:16 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Phil Clarke, you seem to be in denial, among many things, of the reality that burning natural gas has, per BTU, fewer emissions than CO2.

May 28, 2016 at 11:32 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

How much carbon dioxide is produced per kilowatthour when generating electricity with fossil fuels?
US Energy Information Authority:
Pounds of CO2 per kWh
Natural gas 1.22
Lignite 2.17
Therefore German Lignite generates 80% more CO2 than British shale gas, when used in electriciy generation.

Coal power plant proposals in Germany
Germany seems to have approx.7 GW coal power constructed or under construction and 3.5 GW applying for permits.

British shale gas exports can save a hell of a lot of CO2, when displacing German lignite.

May 28, 2016 at 11:35 AM | Unregistered Commenterrotationalfinestructure

Alan Kendall 6:20am re vvussell and Phil Clarke

Climate Scientists have made up so much, about so little, and never admit any mistakes.

Application of the Precautionary Principle, so beloved in predictions about the climate, means that it is cheaper to throw out 100% of climate science, as 97% of climate scientists can not be trusted to identify the 3% of climate science that can be relied on.

It is so useful to have a bunch of climate science swillwrangling trough buckers to confirm it all.

May 28, 2016 at 12:18 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Yup. Basic chemistry thermodynamics. As I said, the global warming zealots like to ignore it. This is probably because the BBC and most greenpeace supporters seem to think "chemicals" are inherently dangerous and evil.

May 28, 2016 at 12:20 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Hansen: The original Texas sharpshooter. "I'll give you a load of predictions and hope that one of them comes close in 30 years' time. Some green idiot is bound to quote me then."

May 28, 2016 at 12:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

One of Hansen's predictions was indeed very accurate - that labelled C.

However, that prediction was labelled 'CO2 levels reduced to 2000 levels'.

May 28, 2016 at 1:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterCapell

PC, EM, et al
Perhaps those signing the petition against fracking (bless) should read M J Kelly's paper Lessons from Technology development for energy and sustainability? Nicely carries forward the work of Jevons, McKay and the like.

Too many big words? In short: renewables are useless.

May 28, 2016 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterCapell

Phil Clarke's deceptions are about a decade out of date. I suspect he doesn't read them. Things have generally got worse for the models since then. The peak of the recent El Nino warmth is probably the last time the data will get to the bottom end of the model projections, even allowing for GISS "adjustments".

Here is a more recent Climate Audit article from 2013 showing Michael Mann (of Real Climate infamy) lying at the AGU. He uses GISS land-only data to make it look like the models are coming close to Hansen’s Scenario B, knowing full well that the land-only data is hotter than land plus oceans.

May 28, 2016 at 1:31 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

GC. "Swillwrangling trough buckers"? Been to see a Western and drunk a saspirilla? Yeh hah!

Or perhaps you're preparing for a cattle drive to the railhead at Croydon and want to brush up the lingo, so as not to appear a rube.

May 28, 2016 at 2:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

michael hart, Capell, Harry Passfield et al

EM, Phil Clarke/Greenpeace et al are relying on out of date science, because up to date science does not confirm what they want.

Having given up on modern science, they have to resort to the 97% Consensus - a falsified and inglorious public opinion survey, and the number of objections raised on Local Planning Applications submitted on behalf of National Lobbyists claiming to represent dying cuddlywuddly polar bears. The dying cuddlywuddly polar bears are not 'on message', refuse to die, and much prefer to be left alone to slaughter and eat whatever they can, in between sleeping off their meals, breeding and multiplying quicker than Greenpeace chooses to count.

Even the carefully contrived publicity spins are going wrong. The public who pay for it all are enjoying the financial benefits of Common Sense triumphing over Climate Science, and politicians have to keep the majority of their electorate happy.

May 28, 2016 at 2:30 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Alan Kendall, actually you are on the right lines ish!

I remember aged about 13, being forcibly encouraged to read John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" and "The Grapes of Wrath".

I am sure many others were, and still are. Much Climate Science spin involves invoking some of the horrors so richly described, by Steinbeck that centred on the 1930s US Economic Depression, combined with the Oklahoma Dust Bowl.

The line in one of the books was ".... plough-pushing dirt grubber ..."

I am going to take a flying guess (in the best traditions of Climate Science) and speculate that you must have read at least one of those books!

Climate science scaremongering is all about suggesting what might happen, and tapping into people's minds and memories, whether real or imagined. Genuine science about the climate is ignored, because it lacks scary imagery, hence all of the video footage of bad weather events, that are Unprecedented, only because no one had digital cameras the last time the same thing happened.

May 28, 2016 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Having read his thoughts on global warming and energy production I wish I had a vote in the US Presidential election so that I could vote for Trump.

May 28, 2016 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterANH

GC. Indeed I have read them. I even recommended them to two Tyndall Centre trolls that came to one of my UEA seminars and tried to influence my students that the drought in SW USA was caused by climate change and was unprecedented. My suggestion that the two smartarses read The Grapes of Wrath was met with howls of laughter. Perhaps this, in part, caused me to be so beloved in CRU.

May 28, 2016 at 3:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Off Topic BH gone Open Thread

The cultural impact of a "President Trump" is already being felt.

Three biggest latest Hollywood Stories

Johnny Depps beats his wife and Cory Fieldman 80s Child / Brat Pack Star historic rape allegations and the coverup by the Hollywood Establishment.Trump alli Peter Theal tech billionaire financing WWE wrestler Hulk Hogan to sue Pro Hilary anti Trump Showbiz Website Gawker.

Two week ago before Trump got the Nomination those stories would have been consigned to the back pages .

Why significant because Donald Trump is exposing Bill and Hilary's Depravity and Corruption and with a President Trump the Hollywood Establishment has lost its Democrat Party political support.

Famous Trump quote whilst pointing to his blond wig the difference between this and a white raccoon is that a white Racoon isn't sitting on top of 9 billion fucking dollars.

Even die hard Democrate Hollywood A List Susan Sarandon has not only called out the quintessential Interlectual Metropolitain Woody Allen but also told the Democrat Faithfull to ditch corrupt Hilary and vote doddering socialist Bernie Sanders.Finally tax dodging Zuckerberg has had to reach out to anti Trump Republicans to try and protect his empire against "Daddy"

Why was Jimmy Savile so signicant for the Skeptic Movement because it destroyed the reputation of the BBC and the BBC is the biggest cheerleader for Climate Alarmism and Hollywood is the biggest cheerleader for the Democrat Party.

Trump doesnt need Hollywood or the Washington Establishment "Daddy " only needs the support of the people.
PS having nine Billion does also help.

Trump is hopefully a fresh broom sweeping through the highest eschelons of the U S Political and Cultural establishment.Chances are Trump will not only expose the Corruptions inside the Clinton,s and the Bush,s and Hollywood eventually Daddy will get around to exposing the corruptions inside Science and get Pennsyvianian Coal Miners their jobs back.

May 28, 2016 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamspid

Alan Kendall, a picture may be worth a thousand words, but Steinbecks powerful imagery has sold tens of thousands of wind turbines to gullible politicians.

May 28, 2016 at 4:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

GC. Not sure I follow the logic between Steinbeck, wind turbines and gullible politicians. I'm sure you'll concoct something for a gullible ex-academic to swallow.

May 28, 2016 at 6:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Phil Clarke's deceptions are about a decade out of date. I suspect he doesn't read them

Mchael - I stated that Hansen's Scenario B had a figure for 2015 global surface temperature anomaly of 1.000C and the actual observed number was 0.99. I gave links to data so you could check. Either you haven't checked or you've spotted a mistake, or a deception, to use your prejorative.

Which is it? Are my numbers correct or no?

May 28, 2016 at 6:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke


Which is it? Are my numbers correct or no?
They're not your numbers - and two out of three of [Hansen's] them are wrong.

May 28, 2016 at 6:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

One of Hansen's predictions was indeed very accurate - that labelled C.
However, that prediction was labelled 'CO2 levels reduced to 2000 levels'.

Capell: Hansen's numbers for global surface temperature anomaly, 2015

Scenario A 1.262 C
Scenario B 1.000 C
Scenario C 0.647 C


GISTemp estimate:

Met-Stations - 0.99C
Land-Ocean Index - 0.87C

Not sure 'C' qualifies as 'very accurate'. LOL.

May 28, 2016 at 6:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Fracking has been going on for decades in the oil patch. Back in the 50s my father was drilling on a lease (US I'm speaking of) not far from our town. He wanted us to see it, so my mother took my brother and sister and me to the drilling site and we watched as the "mud" was pumped in. What he really wanted us to see were the coloured lights, mostly blue and yellow, that went up and down the derrick like a carousel. The town and countryside there are still in good order and it was a memorable event. He also used to bring us core samples full of tiny fossils, and once a diamond bit to take to our science class, we had to return it of course. He used to be on rigs that fracked several times a year. The sky still hasn't fallen, and the earth there hasn't collapsed

May 28, 2016 at 7:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterJoyT


Clearly I meant my comparison of the projected and observed temperatures, and yes, if you project three numbers for three scenarios, actual conditions will match one scenario more closely than the other two, which would indeed be 'wrong'.

Bit obvious, really.

May 28, 2016 at 7:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil, please do try to keep up. The target of the scenario most closely matching reality is comprised of conditions that have nothing to do with what the scenario is based on.

May 28, 2016 at 7:52 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Er Phil,
Our current emissions are closer to scenario A.
Our temps are nowehere near scenario A.
Hansen was wrong. Deal with it.

May 28, 2016 at 8:32 PM | Unregistered Commenterdavid smith

Alan Kendall, no need to concoct anything.

Images created by Steinbeck of dust bowl America in the 1930s are/were imprinted in the minds of many, as part of their education, for me, in the mid 70s, long before global warming was invented. There was no environmental significance to it.

I was at University in tbe 80s when the East African drought that led to Live Aid happened. Global warming was not mentioned.

Roll the clock on, until the late 90s, and the global warming hard sell was on. Predictions included hotter drier weather. The BBCs Gardeners World programme was telling Gardeners to think about adapting their gardens and planting schemes, and buy more water butts to store rainwater. Summer droughts were the concern, not more flooding and storms with actual names.

Associating Global Warming, with the words "Dust Bowl", with East African drought so fresh in the minds of many, who had read Steinbeck, was not difficult. It worked on me.

The East African famine was real, 400,000 (?) people died. There was a drought.It came during a long period of civil war, with many displaced war refugees. The Oklahoma Dust Bowl was real. It was a human tragedy with many refugees. Neither event was anything to do with Global Warming.

Roll the clock on to now. We have "Climate Refugees" escaping Syria, according to Global Warmists. It is a human tragedy, as people try to escape misery caused by human conflict. Which two UK outfits have tried to emphasise the impact of Global Warming on Syria? BBC and Guardian.

Hazarding another wild unsubstantiated guess, I would say that the average BBC/Guardian reader is more likely to have read Steinbeck, than the average Sun reader, and presupposed to suggestions linking famine/drought/global warming.

The reactions you received mentioning Steinbeck to ardent warmists at UEA, suggests that you are not the average BBC/Guardian reader! Which for different reasons, confused and annoyed CRU, and some contributors at Bishop Hill!

May 28, 2016 at 9:22 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

david smith & hunter

If you give a single chimpanzee, a single computer generated climate model, and a single calculator with a random number button, and enough bananas to keep it happy for a few weeks, one of the graphs produced will look like something you later want to rely on as evidence, for something, even if you can't remember what/why/how it was created.

Greater economies could be made in climate science if a single chimpanzee just traced the line of a single banana, with the stalk end pointing up, at the right hand side. It could be called a "Banana Skin Graph" and other chimpanzees would worship it, and try to copy it.

May 28, 2016 at 9:40 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The more bent the banana skin graph, the better, as it will help climate scientists slip up on it for years.

May 28, 2016 at 10:33 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

GC. The more bent the banana the less the EU would like it. Thus a big improvement over the hockey stick .

May 29, 2016 at 7:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

GC. Still don't follow your logic. I would surmise most cpimate scientists are well read, therefore it follows most are Steinbeck deniers.

Your link between most Sun readers and Steinbeck familiarity is probably self evident because a wider ranging link occurs between Sun readership and not reading any book without pictures, or with swastikas or naked ladies in considerable distress on the cover.

May 29, 2016 at 7:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall


Be more sceptical

If you compare Hansen's forcing numbers for 2015/2016, CO2 is slightly above Scenario B, methane way below. Net effect is nowhere near A.

May 29, 2016 at 9:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Hansen debunked:

or, even better:
add whichever set of temperature measurements you like. Hansen is wrong every time.

And just for good measure:

<Sigh><LOL><Whatever><Ra Ra Ra>

May 29, 2016 at 10:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterCapell

Phil Clarke

1]Can you supply some evidence that shows that foregoing the use of a large proportion of reserves of the most cost effective sources of energy will be less damaging to humankind than a rise in GAT of more than 2ºC ?

2] Can you supply some ( evidence that leaving these reserves in the ground will to prevent a rise in GAT of 2ºC not withstanding half of the warming since 1850 was demonstrably not caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 ?

Still waiting !!

May 29, 2016 at 12:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterSpectator

Capell - The WUWT post only looks at CO2, ignores other forcings. Same deception as the GWPF.

Moyhu plot - Not if you use the GISS Met Station index - which is the most appropriate - and add data up to present day - difference between observations and Scenario B - 0.01C.

As to McIntyre:

May 29, 2016 at 4:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Ah Phil...
I've seen that excuse from Tamino and others before. Essentially they are saying:
"Hansen didn't get the forcings right. So, if he hadn't got it wrong he would gave been right"

Hmmm... next time I'm late to meet my wife in town I can tell her that I wasn't really late, it's just that I read my watch wrongly, so therefore I was actually on time. Voila!
I could call it "doing a Hansen".

May 29, 2016 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterdavid smith

"Hansen didn't get the forcings right. So, if he hadn't got it wrong he would gave been right"

No, that is not Tamino's argument, nor anyone else's. His central point was that the GWPF had ignored all forcings other than CO2, as does the Watts piece Capell cited.

The biggest problem is that the GWPF has presented the ultimate simpleton’s viewpoint of the situation. They imply that temperature had to come closest to Hansen’s scenario A because CO2 increase has most closely matched Hansen’s scenario A. But global temperature is affected by a lot more than just CO2, it is affected by the entirety of climate forcing. CO2 is only one of many.

The point is a simple one: Observed temperatures for 2015 are within a gnat's whisker of Hansen's scenario B. Doubtless some of this is due to the El Nino conditions, however the model Hansen used had a climate sensitivity of around 4C, as our central estimate now is nearer 3C, we would expect his model and observed temperatures to diverge. The fact that they are coincident, even temporarily, imbues credibility to the higher estimates of ECS.

May 29, 2016 at 4:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Seven of the ten measurement sets come close to C at 2015; in fact, that seven (the first seven in the Moyhu plot) are all close to each other throughout the graphing period. The last three are all far higher.

You prefer (singularly, and rather too conveniently for your argument I think) the GISS Met station plot, which is alone in matching Hansen B. Of course you do. Scenario A is now deemed inappropriate because it was merely exponential, and it can't possibly be C because that was a cut in CO2 emissions, which hasn't happened. So B HAS to be right, and hey! GISS Met agrees so we'll have that then.

In a sense you could say that your argument is: GISS MET agrees with Hansen's model B therefore GISS MET is the only valid temperature set.

I didn't think models were supposed to be used in this way?

The rabett rebuttal comes across as a lot of blather. I don't see any deception (as you put it) with GWPF and WUWT. It comes down to: Hansen made three predictions of temperature in 1988, and when that's checked against temperature in 2015 it appears that only his scenario C comes close to actuality. At that stage we examine the mechanics of each of his scenario and the 'controversy' begins.

You could argue that Hansen's predictions otherwise show a great deal of skill, but really, any Excel 2/3 term polynomial trend line would have perhaps been better. What that trend would not have picked up, as Hansen didn't, was the pause. Therefore, the models are, yet again, found wanting.

May 29, 2016 at 6:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterCapell

Spectator - your questions are ill-posed or nonsensical. They are predicated on the premise that all of the projected 2C rise is due to UK Shale Gas and could be prevented by the simple act of leaving it in the ground. This is clearly nonsense.

Nor do I accept that shale gas is cost-effective. The fact is that we do not yet know what the costs of extraction would be or how they compare to the alternatives. It will be several years before the test drill results are conclusive and who knows where the oil price, CCS, carbon tax rates and public opinion will be then?

May 29, 2016 at 6:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke


The Met Station index is the one that actually measures the same thing - global surface air temperature - that Hansen was modelling, comparing his scenarios with tropospheric or sea surface temperatures makes little sense.

The deception is straightforward and easy to grasp. Hansen included forcings from 6 GHGs of which CO2 was just one, others, notably methane and CFCs have declining emission rates. The GWPF only included CO2 in its comparison, which is just wrong.

But then you seem to find McIntyre's assertion that Hansen favoured Scenario A because um, he drew it in red convincing. I think its hilarious.

May 29, 2016 at 6:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Er when did I make any comment at all about McIntyre's point about scenario A being in red, and for that matter when did McIntyre make a steadfast claim that A was the scenario with precedence? And why do you prattle on this point when it was such a small part of McIntyre's discussion. Is that because you're clutching at straws - in more ways than one?

McIntyre's short discussion on that point is quite rational but it seems to amuse both yourself and rabett - each to their own sense of humour I suppose.

Your 'deceptions' for GWPF and WUWT is smoke and mirrors: the labelling Hansen used for A,B and C all included CO2, hence the subsequent focus on CO2 trends.

May 29, 2016 at 6:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterCapell

At last, at last - reality is showing its face. The tabloids today carried the first mention I have seen of FIVE HUNDRED wells (Sherwood Forest). Two years ago (to much derision from BH regulars) I predicted 400-600 wells to produce about 10% of UK demand based on the performance of Marcellus Shale wells in the US. And that assumes that the permeability of our shale allows viable flow rates (+/- 500 mcfd per well). When this kind of information permeates the grey matter of the blob the mind boggles at the outcry that will follow. But at least, thanks to the Yorkshire council's decision, we can expect a well to be tested and an end brought to the years of wild (and fruitless) speculation. Hurray.

May 29, 2016 at 6:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterVernon E

Your 'deceptions' for GWPF and WUWT is smoke and mirrors: the labelling Hansen used for A,B and C all included CO2, hence the subsequent focus on CO2 trends.

You reallythink it legitimate to discard all greenhouse gases other than CO2 when evaluating a model that also had NO2, CH4 and CFCs as input?


May 29, 2016 at 6:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Capell et al, Phil Clarke does not like McIntyre. So much so that he has girded his loins and built a contrary blog. You mean he hasn't? Well I'm blowed, he seems to know so much more than anyone else. Or does he just have access to a library of cut 'n' paste?

(BTW: PC, I pointed out what many fracked wells would look like on the countryside vs wind follies: you didn't respond. Maybe it's in your blog.)

May 29, 2016 at 7:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

"Capell et al, Phil Clarke does not like McIntyre."
May 29, 2016 at 7:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

As of May 28 at 9:30am we now also know that he doesn't like McDonalds either.
Personally, I'm quite partial to a Big Mac or two without any of the other trimmings.

May 29, 2016 at 9:35 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

"You really think it legitimate to discard all greenhouse gases other than CO2 when evaluating a model that also had NO2, CH4 and CFCs as input?"

No, I didn't say that either.

Hansen modelled a temperature prediction in 1988

In 2015, predictions A and B (he had three tries, just to cover his bets) were useless

C was about right, but that was for zero increase in CO2 since 2000. That's a bit of a problem because I think we all agree here that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased since 2000.

That's our side of the argument. God alone knows what your side is, or might be.

May 29, 2016 at 10:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterCapell

"It is so useful to have a bunch of climate science swillwrangling trough buckers to confirm it all." --golf charlie

A few years ago, some wag (perhaps it was Willis, Jul 15, 2013, on WUWT) referred to warmist functionaries as "the porkoisie." Quite apposite.

May 29, 2016 at 11:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

It is an incredible experience to witness how Phil Clarke is refuting you all with hardly verifiable facts.

Denier alarmism is dead. The planet has been saved. Humanity wins. Bravo, Phil Clarke!!!!

May 30, 2016 at 1:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterAyla

Portugal ran on 100% renewable energy for four days

Not much fuel poverty there.I guess I missed the reports of Portugal's economic crash, hens stopping laying and their milk turning sour.

May 24, 2016 at 8:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Largely hydro (lucky Portugal) and Biomass, which of course is only "renewable" in the minds of fanatics.

May 30, 2016 at 5:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton

Phil Clarke,

Why aren't you protesting against this site? They've only been fracking there for forty years plus, and the locals have no problem. Do you think they are suffering from false consciousness? Or dies your knee jerk, Strangelove style, every time you hear the word fracking?

May 30, 2016 at 5:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton


"But 160 miles (260km) north, in the Nottinghamshire village of Beckingham, 71-year-old John Foster walks his dog next to fields which have been fracked for oil and gas for decades.

"I've been here since 1969 and at one time there were nodding donkeys [machines used to lift oil out of a well] dotted all over the place," he said.

But he and his neighbours agree the oil and gas extraction has not affected them."

May 30, 2016 at 5:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton

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>