Unthreaded
There is a good article in the education section of the Guardian reporting that students and academics are complaining about a monoculture in the teaching of economics. There are huge parallels between economics and climate 'science' (the use of computer models to try to understand complex systems).
Apparently in one area monoculture is bad (and in the other, as we know, monoculture is proof of correctness)
Here's a taste...
In a startling attack on the agencies that provide teaching and research grants, they said an "intellectual monoculture" is reinforced by a system of state funding based on journal rankings "that are heavily biased in favour of orthodoxy and against intellectual diversity".
Gardner
mikeh: As I recall, my understanding is that the Germans are sending excess electricity from wind farms in the north of Germany to consumers in the south of Germany. Because there isn't enough capacity in their own grid, they were sending some via Poland, which was having the effect of destabilising the Polish grid.
Phillip Bratby
There's a report on GWPF about a Polish renewables advocate bleating because "electronic barriers" are being installed to "block excess renewable power output from Germany from entering the Polish grid".
This is attributed solely to commercial protectionism by the Polish utilities.
Yeah, right.....and serious technical concerns over grid stability are not mentioned.
That excess German output is bound to be heavily subsidised or even free (going by what already happens elsewhere) so the Polish utilities are investing to turn it away? That's like turning down free beer!
I expect that someone who knows the technical situation could confirm that this is being done to make sure that if - when - the German grid crashes again, it does not take Poland with it.
mikeh
Cheers Richard thanks for engaging ..appreciate the tightrope you walk ..I will reply shortly
stewgreen
A bit late but still...
The local press in the M4 corridor have been full of bleating and pictures about M4 "ten mile tailbacks" due to an abnormal load - not one dares to mention that it's one of the output transformers from the recently closed Didcot coal power station on it's way to Germany to be fitted to ..... irony of ironies.... a new coal fired power station being built by Siemens.... BBC covered it (shock) - AFAICT none of the dead tree press mention it's final destination and actual purpose - or comment on that....
Just great - I wonder if they'll remember if there's any power cuts?
tomo
Richard
Have you asked the likes of Roger Harrabin and Mat McGrath similar questions?
Lord Beaverbrook
stewgreen
Further to my comment below, I see you also conveniently forgot to mention my defending of Donna Laframboise's right to submit evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry on the conclusions of IPCC AR5.
It's almost as if you're selectively quoting me… but surely you wouldn't do that, would you? ;-)
Richard Betts
stewgreen
This is all a bit bizarre. I was specifically not "defending the Haiyan hypers" - I stated that I agreed that it is not possible to attribute Haiyan to global warming - and indeed yesterday I pointed the Head of Comms at DEC to the relevant statements in IPCC AR5.
And I don't see why asking 2 journalists whether they accept all the findings of a scientific document is a "political statement". David Rose replied to say "not quite all" but Andrew Neil didn't reply. I think it's a reasonable question to ask them both.
As for "sending tweets to 7 other sceptics" - apart from my tweets to Rose and Neil (sent on Sunday in response to their own tweets/articles), they were all replies to people who'd joined the conversation of their own accord. Of course, if you'd rather I didn't reply to sceptics when they talk to me, I'm sure I could oblige! (Climate activists who tell me I shouldn't give sceptics the time of day to sceptics would be pleased to see me stop.)
Lord Beaverbrook, thanks for noticing my remark on not agreeing with everything in AR4. Good to see someone was actually paying proper attention!
Richard Betts
@stewgreen
I imagine he is allowed to express an opinion if it aligns with the MO's line.
Several times he has said that the MO does not do propaganda* (or words to that effect). A matter of opinion again, I suppose.
*propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view:
Martin A
@RB "It's almost as if you're selectively quoting me… but surely you wouldn't do that?"
yes I would , "Today Crown jewels not stolen & R Betts is doing his normal job", is not a good headline
"Climate activists who tell me I shouldn't give sceptics the time of day"
- It's not about painting yourself into a corner and having to take a side like some scientists/authorities etc.
- It's about getting to the truth.
RichardGood : what you're doing here is the RIGHT THING...Like talking sense to all ...& participating in the back & forth of debate to help us all get nearer & nearer the truth.
RichardBad : Yesterday your tack was to openup on Twitter with a couple of "activist lines" to challenge Neil & Rose
- and I pulled you up on it
(it did cross my mind he's probably just flippantly repeating some activists lines he just seen)
(as Beaverbrook points out you don't do that to M & H)
- I had to pull you up on that tack, cos the dynamic of the current situation where the warmists have little science only PR, so are trying to hijack Haiyan for their own cause..
- I sent you 1 tweet, left twitter and came to this semi-private place to bitch about it.
sorry Richard mate, you are better than me so I hold you to a higher standard
- I'm just a citizen sat a home blogging & what comes out of my mouth is opinion not fact
(though it comes with no emotion & I do reserve the right to be mistaken) ..