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

Unthreaded

http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2100-nigel-lawson-the-most-anti-manufacturing-energy-policy-of-any-government-in-british-history.html

Really excellent speech by Nigel Lawson- but is anyone in Parliament listeing?

Dec 23, 2010 at 12:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Shutting the UEA stable door ...

22 December 2010

A formal undertaking has been signed by the University of East Anglia, which commits the authority to making improvements to staff training and information management.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/promoting_openness/~/media/documents/library/Freedom_of_Information/Notices/uea_foi_undertaking.ashx

Dec 22, 2010 at 6:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterAJC

It seems that we are to blame. We apparently WANT to travel everywhere as much as we currently do. Of course, there could be no other reasons why travel may have gone up since the 70's......could there???

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2010/dec/21/uk-snow-chaos-blame

For me, this is a fail!

Dec 22, 2010 at 2:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss H

It is utterly futile to think that mankind can affect climate to any worthwhile extent. The numbers are very simple and are backed up by acceptance from a renowned UK government advisor, the US Department of Energy and many other reputable scientific minds.
Why cant we get to the nub of the problem ? with NUMBERS NOT ADJECTIVES and there is a good chance that the numbers below are in the right ballpark.

On average world temperature is ~+15 deg C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect ~33 deg C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at ~-18 deg C.
Running the rough and ready numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into degrees centigrade:
• Water Vapour accounts for as much as 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = ~ 31.35 deg C
• Other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) account for 5% = ~1.65 deg C
• CO2 is 75% of the remaining effect when accounting for the enhanced effects of Methane, Nitrous Oxide and other GHGs = ~1.24 deg C
• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than ~93%
• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = ~0.087 deg C for the carbon economies of the whole world
• UK’s contribution to World CO2 emissions is ~1.8% = 1.6 thousandths deg C
Maximum efforts in the UK can only achieve an insignificant and immeasurable part of that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0_SNSM8kg

And whatever is said, outside Europe the rest of the world is not joining in. But the UK is the only Government that has enshrined action on CO2 in legislation.

The probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.
So if the numbers above are even close to the right ballpark, the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
• concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
• it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
• if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility and reducing water needs of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
• a warmer climate, within natural variation, as has occurred over the last century, would provide a future of greater prosperity for human development and much more food for the growing world population. This has been well proven in the Roman and Medieval pasts and would now especially benefit the third world.

This is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. It remains absolutely clear that our planet is vastly damaged by many human activities such as:
• environmental pollution.
• over fishing.
• forest clearance.
• farming for bio-fuels.
• and all other habitat destruction.

And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
• security of supply
• increasing scarcity
• rising costs
• their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.

The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French electricity prices and CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.

However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades as anticipated by Piers Corbyn and many others. And as UK power stations face closure according to Green Euro policies, the lights may well go out in the winter 2015 if not sooner.
This is all because CO2 based Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion. And now after “Splattergate” thanks to the 10:10 organisation everyone worldwide now knows exactly how they think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Mw5_EBk0g

Splattergate was classic NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION. It is probably the most egregious piece of publicity ever produced in the Man-made Global Warming cause. So any misrepresentation is valid in the Cause and any opposition however cogent or well qualified is routinely denigrated, publically ridiculed and as we now see literally terminated.

And so to carry on:
If the capital cost of Nuclear power is ~£1.4 billion / gigawatt (according to Prof David MacKay) and the newly commissioned array off Thanet cost £0.78 billion and is rated at 0.300 gigawatt but even using a generous load factor of 35% is only capable of producing on average 0.105 gigawatt , it appears that in capital cost terms alone offshore wind costs ~£7.5 billion / gigawatt or more than 5 times the cost of the equivalent nuclear production.
This of course ignores all the additional costs of the essential parallel backup generating capacity as well as the costs of continuing feed-in tariffs, estimated at about a further £1.2 billion over the 20 year life of the project. Paying just for starters more than 5 times as much for an unreliable energy source must make utter economic nonsense.

Supporting renewable energy, especially wind farms, is something that this cash strapped government should re-examine very carefully.

And just to add to the nonsense, Carbon Capture and Storage can only increase electricity costs and deprive the planet of a source of increased plant fertility. It is one of many suggestions, which might reduce CO2 emissions. All are expensive and all are pretty well pointless.

In fact major government savings and greatly increased national prosperity could be achieved by terminating all CO2 related Government green activities and repealing the Climate Change Bill. Otherwise the UK is “standing into grave danger”.

Future Energy Security (destroyed by both the last Government and sadly continued by the current Coalition) is the foremost responsibility of a government to its citizens, probably more important than even than its Military Security.

Dec 22, 2010 at 10:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterEdmh

sometimes if you are wrong, even with the very best intentions, the results might be considered ‘evil’

Sir John Houghton (June 2010) – Co Chair 2001 IPCC Ar3 – ‘Hockey Stick’ report

“Haven’t we first to tackle World
Poverty, then Climate Change?

NO,

because unless
we tackle Climate Change now,
the plight of many of the poorest
will be enormously worse”

Sir John , no doubt sincerely believes that…

http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/12/is-the-road-to-green-hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions/

Dec 21, 2010 at 2:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

James

You want to speak to someone in the US probably. Mind you, I['m not sure you can get sued for saying the RS is lying. Can you libel an organisation?

Dec 20, 2010 at 3:49 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Hello,

One of the things that has most got under my skin in the whole global warming scandal is the way that the Royal Society blatantly lied about its involvement in the selection of the papers for the Oxburgh review.

Would it be appropriate to methodically accuse the Royal Society of lying about this, as publicly as possible, until they are forced to either admit it or take someone to court? (I don't mind being the person they take to court BTW. I don't have much on. But I also don't have much of a public platform.)

James Evans

Dec 19, 2010 at 6:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames Evans

Who said we're not prepared for snow in the UK

http://yfrog.com/h7wbtj

Dec 19, 2010 at 3:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterTony Jackson

The times they are a changin' (and maybe the Telegraph too)

The title of today's Sunday Telegraph letters page:-

"Whatever the weather, climate alarmists blame mankind"

"The alarmists use any weather – extreme or moderate – to denounce what they see as the wickedness of capitalism"

Read the letters and comment at:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8212467/Whatever-the-weather-climate-alarmists-blame-mankind.html

Dec 19, 2010 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Latest Not-News, but this time from New Scientist. Is this a first?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19878-carbon-trading-tempts-firms-to-make-greenhouse-gas.html

Dec 18, 2010 at 8:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterJerry

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
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>