Someone is waking up to the fact that windpower is not all its cracked up to be.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/cartoon/bill_jamieson_wind_of_change_hitting_renewables_1_1980974

From Europe come warnings of failed renewables projects, disappointing results and voter disillusion. And from nearer home comes troubling evidence of how the push in renewables is destroying jobs and confronting millions of households with huge rises in energy bills. But cost is the great unmentionable in the renewables rush.

According to a study by KPMG leaked earlier this month, government plans to cut pollution by a third by 2020 will cost £108bn to implement. It put the cost of an offshore wind farm powering 800,000 homes at £2.4bn. An equivalent gas powered station would cost £400m – one sixth of the amount.

I do not doubt the geo-political case for renewables, nor that there should be renewables in our energy mix. But energy produced at a horrendous cost that drains the budgets of households and depresses spending elsewhere is neither a rational energy gain nor a “stimulus boost”. It is edifice economics, founded on sleight of hand taxation and powered by a gale of hope. We are going to need more than this to have a hope of keeping the lights on.

Is Keith suggesting plagiarising Bradley's work?

date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:04:39 -0500
from: drdendro
subject: Re: bit for ipcc
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa

Hello Prof Briffa,

I am in New Zealand now getting pissed on by rain. I return home on Jan 15 and
will be only too pleased to assist you in your quixotic quest to lend some
credibility to IPCC.

Dr Cook

Quoting Keith Briffa

> Ed been trying to find where you are.
> I need you to write 1-2 sides a4 max (with refs)
> re drought reconstructions - could lift some from Bradley book
> but you are the horse as regards mouth -
> I also need the numbers for plotting your various SH temp reconstructions
> Any chance you can ring me at home
> Keith
>
>
>
> --
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>

Great use of university time and resources:

date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:03:07 +0100
from: "Rob Tinch" <R.Tinch
subject: Re: [ngp-list] revamped leaflet
to: <list@norwichgreenparty.org>

<x-charset iso-8859-1>

(1) What's the title for the leaflet? Shouldn't this part go on top?

Good idea, but the front side of the leaflet (which only some of you will
have seen) says:

The Green Party
GLOBAL
WARNING

Do you want:
(please tick all that apply)
* More floods
* More storms
* etc. etc.

The US President does ...

which is why the second side has to start as it does. They have adopted my
suggestions for the front side, by the way, so it will be a bit less floody
and a bit more sea level risey than the draft we've seen.

(2) How about "communities and individual people"? This way it sounds
like you mean "individual people and individual communities", which is a
bit odd.

Good idea, I will make that change. Any other comments? Speak now or....
Final version goes to Greg this evening.

Cheers,

Rob

</x-charset>

940.txt email exchange from Feb 2008.

Here a Wayne P Kraus asks searching questions of Phil about the temp data used in the Hockey Stick, Phil does a good job of not answering anything

date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:22:10 -0700
from: "Wayne P. Kraus" <KrausWP@comcast.net>
subject: RE: IPCC Statements
to: "'Phil Jones'" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

Phil:

Thanks for your reply. I will review your comments carefully. Just based on the geological
analog I would expect that if we had a perfect "yardstick" to measure long-term global
temperature trends we should expect to see that over the past 10,000 or 15,000 years the
"global" temperature should be increasing. So I infer that the crux of the man-made global
warming theory is that the rate of increase in the 20^th century is too steep to be caused
by the natural solar cycle variations. So you and the IPCC are alarmed by a change of slope
in the 20^th century "global" temperature versus time curve. The leap to man-made GHG in
the 20^th century as the cause is still a major leap of faith without verifiable proof that
the trace of CO2 among the GHGs is what is driving climate. The enormous financial cost to
adopt the IPCC plan to remove atmospheric CO2 requires more proof than a temperature
correlation. What if the change of slope is driven by the major GHG, water vapor, would the
IPCC demand that we dehydrate the earth?

How have you confirmed that the 20^th century change in slope of the "global" temperature
versus time plot is not simply an artifact of the urban island effect associated with the
terrestrial temperature stations? The NCAR inventory of the 460 USHCN stations to date
shows that 70% of the instruments inventoried show pronounced urban island elevated bias.
This alone could easily account for a 20^th century change of slope with timing in perfect
harmony with the flight to suburbia following WW II. At this time I cannot really conclude
that until I look at the data from the rest of the world, a collection that has to include
data from the atmosphere over the oceans.

The references I have found from publications so far indicate this is a rather sporadic
collection of voluntary reports from merchant shipping isolated to the well traveled
shipping lanes. At this time I don't know how far back this temperature record goes or what
fraction of the oceanic area of the globe has data coverage. With the oceans covering 70%
of the globe, I suspect this is a major statistical hurdle to deal with when averaging to
obtain a single number "global" average temperature.

Next the one map of southern hemisphere historical reporting stations I have seen to date,
covering a global area far more vast than the US, appears to be very sparse in comparison
to the 1221 USHCN instruments covering just the US. I expect this disparity in the number
of reporting stations will be another major statistical hurdle when averaging to find a
single number "global" temperature.

I am also concerned how the diurnal and seasonal temperature change at any historical
temperature recording station is filtered out of this statistical analysis. As you know the
diurnal/seasonal swings in temperature can exceed 100ºC. That data scatter could easily
swamp the trend line of about 2ºC over a period of time exceeding 10,000 years. If we
plotted the entire collection of raw data on a daily basis versus the last 150 years I
would expect to see something like the hole in a target created by a shotgun blast. Have
you looked at this kind of presentation?

All things considered I expect to find the analysis of this collection of data to be a
major statistical challenge. Perhaps you can comment on these concerns?

Wayne Kraus

Littleton, Colorado

___________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 10:34 AM
To: Wayne P. Kraus
Subject: RE: IPCC Statements

Wayne,
Off home now. It is a case of reading the IPCC Report, and understanding
about radiative forcing. Read Ch 2 of the IPCC Report.
We know why Ice Ages occur - Milankovitch forcing. The timescales are
know. There is no dispute about them at all. Milanovitch forcing doesn't
have any effect on 30-year timescales.
Solar forcing hasn't changed in the last 50 years. We've had more volcanoes
in the last 40 years than since the early-20th century, so we should be cooling.
We are warming - and at a faster rate than ever before.
Also read Chapter 9.
Back Monday
Phil
At 17:00 08/02/2008, you wrote:

Phil:

Thank you for the links to data which you have sent. I will begin to pull in the data and
review it before attempting an analysis.

Over my career I have worked with many geologists and I have worked with and mapped lots of
geological data. That was the reason for my query which you have not answered. Can you give
me a simple explanation why you and the IPCC conclude 20^th century release of greenhouse
gases can be the cause of climate change that began thousands of years ago? While this is a
proxy temperature record, the geological record of multiple cyclical ice ages and
interglacial melting and thawing over the last 1,000,000 years appears to be an exact
analog for the glacial melting we are seeing today. I have great difficulty understanding
that a time series analysis of the recent 150 years of terrestrial temperature data that
you used to construct the plots provided to the IPCC proves that 20^th century greenhouse
gases is the cause of this temperature increase. At best I expect my analysis of this data
will provide a correlation (which I expect will be very weak given the difficulties with
the data that have already been cited by other scientists). A correlation does not prove
causation which I know you realize. Whenever, I have been presented with conclusions of
causation based entirely on correlation I like to relate the following example from my
personal experiences.

When I lived and worked in Houston, Texas I bicycled as often as my work load permitted in
a rural wooded park near my home. After a while I noticed that every time there were heavy
rains in our area I would encounter poisonous snakes on the bicycle path. The correlation
was perfect! So I told my friends that I reached the conclusion that the snakes fell from
the sky with the rain. No one believed me despite the fact that the correlation was
perfect! As you know a scientists has to look beyond a simple correlation to find cause and
effect. That seems to be missing from the IPCC findings.

Please answer the question linking past ice ages that have come and gone to 20^th century
anthropogenic GHGs.

Wayne Kraus
Littleton, Colorado
___________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 3:57 AM
To: Wayne P. Kraus
Cc: susan.solomon@noaa.gov
Subject: Re: IPCC Statements

Wayne,
I've given you starting points about the temperature data in a message recently sent.
As for this one, I suggest again that you read the IPCC volume from the web site given
previously. The quotes you have given here are a couple from the many in the SPM
of the WG1 AR4 2007 Report. In the SPM volume each summary bullet refers to a section in
the main
report and/or the Technical Summary where you can find the background
supporting information. For example, the first of your quotes refers to Chs 3,4 and 5.
As I said in the earlier email, IPCC assesses the scientific literature. This
literature
has all appeared in peer-reviewed journals.
I know the IPCC volume is large (996pp) but there is a lot of literature to assess
from a lot of climatic-related fields.
Best Regards
Phil
At 23:42 07/02/2008, you wrote:
Professor Phil Jones:

I have been researching some of your publications. I just ran across this information which
I assume you have reviewed.
The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent report in 2007 stated:
'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice,
and rising global average sea level.'
'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century
is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations12. This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that "most of the observed
warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate,
including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind
patterns'
Please explain how you reconcile the fact that the present temperature increase began at
the end of the last ice age and that the glaciers have been melting for tens of thousands
of years with the claim that this is being driven by 20^th century production of greenhouse
gases? How can present release of greenhouse gases be the cause of climate change that
happened thousands of years ago? This conclusion seems entirely unjustified if only based
on the actual geologic record of earth history.
Have you had a peer review on this conclusion with the geological community? This
conclusion seems completely illogical.

Please do explain your conclusion!

Regards,

Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD
Littleton, Colorado
___________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Wayne P. Kraus [ [2]mailto:KrausWP@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:52 PM
To: 'p.jones@uea.ac.uk'
Subject: Release of IPCC Temperature Data
Importance: High

Professor Phil Jones:

A colleague and I have been researching the temperature data which IPCC has used to suggest
the theory of man-made global warming. We have been searching for the raw data from all
historical temperature reporting stations used to construct the IPCC temperature plot. I
guess this has become known as the hockey stick.

We would like to do our own analysis of the raw data. We have lots of questions about the
data you have used. Here are a few of the questions we have.

1. We have found the list of the 1221 USHCN stations from information posted by NCAR. We
have noted that urban island effects began to influence the temperature readings during
the flight to suburbia following WW II. Did you correct USHCN data to account for that
bias?
2. Where can we find the raw data from historical temperature instruments covering the
oceans? The oceans cover more than 70% of the surface of the earth and we expect that
data to show significantly less variability (data scatter) than terrestrial temperature
stations?
3. Where can we find the raw data for all historical temperature data outside the USA
which you used when calculating your global averagetemperatures for the IPCC plot?
4. I anticipate the distribution of temperature recording instruments in remote and third
world nations is more sparse than in western industrial nations. How did you adjust
your global averagevolumetrically? What I mean is if there are 20 USHCN instruments
covering the entire state of Kansas and 100 USHCN instruments in the densely populated
area near New York City, the averaging technique has to remove that kind of bias. How
did you do this?

In short, I would be most grateful if you will direct me to an IPCC site where I can
retrieve the entire raw data collection you used to develop your analysis. I would also
like to see a comprehensive report on the techniques you used to compute your global
averagetemperature used in your plot.

Based on the many comments I have seen regarding your analysis of this recent temperature
history, I believe this data and those conclusions require greater peer review than they
have received. I hope you will cooperate in completing the scientific process of peer
review and verification.

Best regards,

Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD
Littleton, Colorado

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone

Jason F

That email from Bob Watson (number 1052, not 1002) is dated Fri, 26 Jan 2001 so it clearly relates to the Third Assessment Report. Bob was IPCC chair at the time so he was in a leadership position. The main role of the Chair in the Assessment Report is to lead the synthesis report, and that's what he's doing in that email!

It's funny when the BBC has to admit CAGW is a crock, they have to get some other journo to write it, so Richard Black's weenie sensibilities aren't hurt:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15858603

Climate sensitivity to CO2 probed
By Jennifer Carpenter

Global temperatures could be less sensitive to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels than previously thought, a study suggests.

Here we appear to have Robert T. Watson, Chief Scientist & Director, ESSD - The World Bank controlling how the core and extended team members of the IPCC Synthesis Report should write the report.
I did not know that the World Bank had such a big control of the content of the IPCC reports, it reads like he is the boss directing his employees, is this right?
1002

from: REDACTED
subject: Synthesis Report (SYR): Summary for Policymakers
to: "Robert Watson" <REDACTED>, "Rajendra Pachauri" <REDACTED>, "Tomihiro Taniguchi" <REDACTED>, "John Houghton" <REDACTED>, "Osvaldo Canziani" <REDACTED>, "Bert Metz" <REDACTED>, "Mohan Munasinghe" <REDACTED>, "Michael Prather" <REDACTED>, "Robert Scholes" <REDACTED>, "John F B Mitchell" <REDACTED>, "Thomas Stocker" <REDACTED>, "Daniel L Albritton" <REDACTED>, "Ulrich Cubasch" <REDACTED>, "Stephen Schneider" <REDACTED>, "Murari Lal" <REDACTED>, "Zbigniew Kundzewicz" <REDACTED>, "Barrie Pittock" <REDACTED>, "Christopher Magadza" <REDACTED>, "Habiba Gitay" <REDACTED>, "T. Barker" <REDACTED>, "J.R. Moreira" <REDACTED>, "J.B. Robinson" <REDACTED>, "I.A. Bashmakov" <REDACTED>, "R.G. Richels" <REDACTED>, "D. Zhou" <REDACTED>, "Ian Noble" <REDACTED>, "Narasimhan Sundararaman" <REDACTED>, "Renate Christ" <REDACTED>, "David Griggs" <REDACTED>, "Neil Leary" <REDACTED>, "Rob Swart" <REDACTED>, "Isabel Alegre" <REDACTED>, "Dan Albritton" <REDACTED>, "Tom Karl" <REDACTED>, "Bob Scholes" <REDACTED>, "Michael Prather" <REDACTED>, "Joyce Penner" <REDACTED>, "Thomas Stocker" <REDACTED>, "Bryant McAvaney" <REDACTED>, "Ulrich Cubasch" <REDACTED>, "Bruce Hewitson" <REDACTED>, "John Church" <REDACTED>, "Jonathan Gregory" <REDACTED>, "Francis Zwiers" <REDACTED>, "Sir John Houghton" <REDACTED>, "John Mitchell" <REDACTED>, "Joanna Haigh" <REDACTED>, "Dr M J Salinger" <REDACTED>, "Fons Baede" <REDACTED>, "Fons Baede" <REDACTED>, "Chris Folland" <REDACTED>, "Colin Prentice" <REDACTED>, "Colin Prentice" <REDACTED>, "V Ramaswamy" <REDACTED>, "Jerry Meehl" <REDACTED>, "Filippo Giorgi" <REDACTED>, "David Karoly" <REDACTED>, "Linda Mearns" <REDACTED>, "Mike Hulme" <REDACTED>, "Berrien Moore" <REDACTED>, "Steve Schneider" <REDACTED>, "QK Ahmad" <REDACTED>, "Tim Carter" <REDACTED>, "Nigel Arnell" <REDACTED>, "Liu Chunzhen" <REDACTED>, "Habiba Gitay" <REDACTED>, "Bill Easterling" <REDACTED>, "Alla Tsyban" <REDACTED>, "Alla Tsyban" <REDACTED>, "Tom Wilbanks" <REDACTED>, "Pier Vellinga" <REDACTED>, "Tony McMichael" <REDACTED>, "Chris Magadza" <REDACTED>, "Paul Desanker" <REDACTED>, "Murari Lal" <REDACTED>, "Murari Lal" <REDACTED>, "Hideo Harasawa" <REDACTED>, "Barrie Pittock" <REDACTED>, "Barrie Pittock" <REDACTED>, "Zbigniew Kundzewicz" <REDACTED>, "Martin Parry" <REDACTED>, "Luis Mata" <REDACTED>, "Luis Mata" <REDACTED>, "Stewart Cohen" <REDACTED>, "Oleg Anisimov" <REDACTED>, "Graham Sem" <REDACTED>, "Graham Sem" <REDACTED>, "Barry Smit" <REDACTED>, "Joel Smith" <REDACTED>, "D.H. Bouille" <REDACTED>, "I.A. Bashmakov" <REDACTED>, "J.A. Sathaye" <REDACTED>, "J.B. Robinson" <REDACTED>, "J.C. Hourcade" <REDACTED>, "K. Halsnaes" <REDACTED>, "K. Halsnaes" <REDACTED>, "L. Srivastava" <REDACTED>, "R.A. Sedjo" <REDACTED>, "T. Banuri" <REDACTED>, "T. Barker" <REDACTED>, "J.R. Moreira" <REDACTED>, "Rich Richels" <REDACTED>, "D.Zhou" <REDACTED>, "A. Markandya" <REDACTED>, "C.J. Jepma" <REDACTED>, "C.J. Jepma" <REDACTED>, "F.L. Toth" <REDACTED>, "J.P. Weyant" <REDACTED>, "M.J. Mwandosya" <REDACTED>, "P.E. Kauppi" <REDACTED>, "W.R. Moomaw" <REDACTED>, "W.R. Moomaw" <REDACTED>, "P.R. Shukla" <REDACTED>, "T. Morita" <REDACTED>, "Lenny Berstein" <REDACTED>

Dear core and extended team members of the IPCC Synthesis Report,

I truly appreciate all the effort that you are expending on preparing the IPCC
Synthesis Report.

I had planned to have a short SPM ready for your review by now but I decided
that I needed to better understand the key messages from each of the Working
groups before the 5-7 page report could be finished. Hence, I would greatly
appreciate it if you could review this material - big messages not fine tuning
the text.

I have taken the 100-page report and attempted to extract what I believe are the
key messages in a 26-page summaryREDACTEDwords). Each paragraph starts with
an italicized bolded sentence which is meant to be the key take home message of
the paragraph (I have attached a document that only has these italicized
headings for easy reading). I did not try to limit myself to 5-7 pages (6,500
words), but rather attempted to extract all the key messages knowing the
resulting document would be too long (in particular questions 5, 6 and 9). I
need to know whether I have managed to identify the key messages for each
question, because they will be the basis of the SPM (I also need to know which
messages are less important and can be deleted for the SPM). When you redraft
the answers to the questions hopefully this will assist you in seeing what I
thought were the take-home messages.

I have also attached a shortened version of question 2, which is about the right
length for the SPM - please review, especially those of you involved in
question 2 -- does the table work (needs to be printed with 6.5 inch width).

The WG I extended writing team had an excellent meeting in China, where they
focussed on identifying the key messages for each question (relevant to WG I)
and appropriate figures and tables (many of these were new "synthesized" figures
and tables.

The key to success for the Synthesis Report and the SPM will be punchy take home
messages, and thoughtful tables and figures.

Would you please send me comments by Friday, February 2. I think that the key
to success will be a few well-crafted tables and figures. As soon as I receive
your comments, I will write a 5-7 page SPM.

I have attached three documents, without any figures (you can almost certainly
guess which figures I am referencing):

(See attached file: SPM-Syn-Question 2-short version.doc)(See attached file: SPM
Headlines - no figures.doc)(See attached file: Version 1-SPM-SYN-no figures.doc)

Thanks in advance

Bob

________________________________________________________________________
Robert T. Watson, Chief Scientist & Director, ESSD - The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW - MSN MC4-408, Washington, DCREDACTEDUSA
Phone:REDACTEDREDACTED Fax:REDACTEDREDACTED E-mail:
REDACTED
Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachSPM-Syn-Question 2-short version.doc"

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachSPM Headlines - no figures.doc"

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachVersion 1-SPM-SYN-no figures.doc"

Nov 24, 2011 at 8:29 PM | Turning Tide

HadCM2 is a very old model - it was developed in about 1994 IIRC

The issue with the treatment of sulphate aerosol was that there was no simulation of aerosols in the atmosphere - the effect had to be approximated by modifying the surface albedo.

HadCM3 and all our models since then have simulated aerosols in the atmosphere. We are now on the 3rd new model after HadCM2 - HadCM2 hasn't been seriously used for over a decade, and wasn't used for AR4.

Matthu:

Poitman adds a bit more at http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/more-emails-phil-jones-paid-13-7-million-in-grants-but-not-a-public-servant/#comment-736516

David Icke thinks CAGW is a scam. Run by reptiles.

After reading the CG2 emails, I am converted.

Pass me that turquoise shell suit ;-)