Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace



Wow. That global warming's a bitch, isn't she..?

Mar 26, 2013 at 11:10 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Forget Arctic ice for a moment. Look at the massive growth in snow cover since 2007:

Mar 26, 2013 at 8:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterOle Reslow

OK - so if it's all nuclear, what backs up the windmills? Dare we hope that they aren't in the equation at all..?

Mar 26, 2013 at 6:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Mar 26, 2013 at 2:06 PM | rhoda

75GW of nuke is not to be sneezed at.

Exactly, now that the numpties are gung-ho for nukes, I thought this might be a good time to strike whilst the iron is hot and build a nuclear power station.

However, I spoke to Athur Daley, who, initially, had agreed to go halves and call it the "Acme Nuclear Money Printing Press" project, but he phoned back and said it all looked a bit Patrick Swazey based on his back of a fag packet analysis using £100/MWh, and we should drop it right away.

This is what he told me:

£12,000,000,000 per 3.2 GW nuclear power station

So, "ANMPP" proposal was 2 x 1.6 GW = £12,000,000,000

Mortgage from the Co-op for 25 years @ 5% = 71,000,000/month = 850,000,000/year,

3,200 MW x 7,000 hours = 22,400,000 MWh/year

£100 (/MWh)x 22,400,000 = £2,240,000,000 revenue/year

Assume 30% as cost of running the reactors & conventional parts = £672,000,000/year

Assume 10% for setting aside in a sock for a rainy day = £224,000,000/year

Assume 20% for business tax = £448,000,000/year

Mortgage = £850,000,000/year

Total outgoings = £2,194,000,000/year

"Free" bit left to share between us after the cost of doing business = £46,000,000.

As Arthur said, it is just not worth getting out of Uncle Ned for that.

Thank goodness I spoke to Arthur first.

Mar 26, 2013 at 5:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrownedoff


'Key Cameron adviser blocks climate change from G8 agenda'


The Climate Terror seems to be abating even among our political classes.

Its a long long way from Copenhagen. We sometimes forget how far we have come from those dark days.

Mar 26, 2013 at 4:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

What's worrying about those transcripts is that they represent the level of mainstream public debate rather than what goes on here, and they are dreadfully brief, simplistic and shallow. This from the supposedly highbrow Radio 4.

Mar 26, 2013 at 2:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterNW

@ SandyS, thanks! I'm quite fascinated by the man's use of language. There's also an interview with Channel 4's Tom Clarke yesterday, which I haven't got to yet (Beddington seems to have spent the entire day in various radio and TV studios) in which he says the following:

Everybody's sort of looking out of the window and saying "God, it's damn cold - it's not global warming". This is nonsense. "Climate change" is a much better descriptor of what is actually happening in the world. And just one of the symptoms of it is an increase in world temperatures.

World temperature increase is just one of the symptoms, then. And not a particularly important one, he seems to be implying!

Mar 26, 2013 at 2:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull

The DECC nuclear paper has not gone down well at Tallbloke's, but it just amazes me that they are thinking this way at all. There may be some gaping holes in the plans, but 75GW of nuke is not to be sneezed at.

Mar 26, 2013 at 2:06 PM | Registered Commenterrhoda

The videos from the Nottingham event "Making Science Public" have now been posted on the web.

People might be interested in video 8, a short talk by Warren Pearce on climate communication and scepticism followed by comments. Warren raised the issue of climategate and also said that recent cold weather could be a significant factor. There's a fairly long comment in video 9 from an audience member (Steve Rayner, Oxford) who mentions two other factors, the economic downturn and 'catastrophe fatigue'.
I was there lurking but kept my mouth shut.

There's also an interesting discusion in video 11 starting at around 9:30 where Mike Hulme talks about climategate and tries to claim, supported by social science literature, that the behaviour of climate scientists was all entirely standard scientific procedure.
Then at 20:20 physicist Phil Moriarty speaks out about climategate
"For many of us what happened in climategate, particularly the idea that you protect data .. was absolute anathema... many of us were shocked about what happened ... journals stipulate that authors should provide to interested parties the raw data .. "
After that there's a stunned silence and the camera sweeps past Hulme looking a bit sheepish.

Mar 26, 2013 at 1:33 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews


Where are the Guardian getting all this 'Arctic ice loss' stuff from? It looks above average to me...

Current ice extent

Mar 26, 2013 at 1:17 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>