A much quoted line from Alice in Wonderland but I think appropriate when applied to the following graph;
If what this graph is appearing to indicate is true – then the increase in temperature in the past 60 years has declined while the CO2 concentration has increased. This is counter to everything we have been told by the Green brigade.
The implications are so significant that I need to undertake some independent verification. Watch this space.
It is important to remain vigilant in the world of scepticism – but we can still have a little fun. I love this article written by Mike Bastasch in “The Daily Caller” – “Top 5 ‘Snow Free and ‘Ice Free’ predictions”. This is not climate change – this is just cold weather. In the antipodes they are having record heat, that is ‘hot weather’. It happens. You would think the prophets of doom would get tired of being wrong.
I have just published a book entitled “To Kill an Error”. It is my attempt to popularise the sceptic view of Global warming. I have written it as a novel – a thriller (I like to think). There are any number of books around (I have read quite a few) that state a case for the sceptic point of view. They appeal to people like me with a knowledge of the subject. What I felt was missing was something that might appeal to the agnostic. In the factual books the subject matter can be very dry, I have wrapped the message up in a murder mystery that I hope stands alone but in addition gets across some of the darker side of the rush for Green Energy.
The title of the book is taken from a quote by Charles Darwin – “To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.”
“The average world temperature is about as useful as an average number in a telephone directory.” That statement is particularly apt when applied to the current weather patterns in North America and Western Australia. Record cold v.s. record heat. In both locations the Climate alarmists leap upon the extreme weather conditions as proof of the existence of Global Warming.
You don’t believe me? I quote the Bureau of Meteorology climate expert Neil Bennett in an article from “Perth Now”
“It’s climate change. It’s warming. It’s staring you in the face,”
“This is crazy. This is madness, what’s going on now.”
“The climate doesn’t change like this. This is really remarkable.”
“This is really, really unusual.”
Mr Bennett said the climate models for “30, 40 and 50 years ahead” were also all “pointing upwards”.
Now contrast this with an article from the Guardian Environment Network quote “Scientists said the deep freeze gripping the U.S. does not indicate a halt or reversal in global warming trends, either. In fact, it may be a counterintuitive example of global warming in action.”
So there you have it, heads I win, tails you lose. Any sort of variation in the weather proves the existence of man made global warming. The theory of man made global warming, on the basis of these latest pronouncements is un-falsifiable. Falsifiability is a basic tenet of the scientific method. Sir Karl Popper take[s] falsifiability as his criterion for demarcating science from non-science: if a theory is incompatible with possible empirical observations it is scientific; conversely, a theory which is compatible with all such observations… is unscientific.
I rest my case.
While the West and China and India gorge themselves on fossil fuels to power their industrial growth, the World Bank and the European Investment Bank expect, nay dictate, that Africa’s one billion inhabitance must power their industrial revolution by wind turbines and solar panels.
The UN’s “Sustainable Energy for All” initiative has aspirations of two light bulbs a fan and a radio. Well go Africa! Why not an air-conditioning unit, a chest freezer and a 2Kw kettle? No sod that, I would want a blast furnace an aluminium smelter and a glass bottle plant. Try powering those using wind turbines and solar panels. Heavy industry runs 24/7 the sun and the wind do not. At a time when Germany is building 10 new coal fired power stations these same Germans are telling Africans they will only lend them money to build power grids based on renewable energy.
The Centre for Global Development reports that $10 billion spent in Sub Saharan Africa on renewable energy projects will provide electric power for 30 million people. The same money spent on gas fired plants would provide power to 3 times that number.
Africa is entitled to its own Industrial Revolution. We in the West have had ours and it was powered by cheap coal. China and India are having theirs and it is also powered by cheap coal. Let Africa have its industrial revolution so that it can lift 100s of millions out of poverty and let them do it quickly using their abundant natural resources of coal oil and gas. Let them be spared the piety and holier than thou preachings of the ever so comfortable green movement.
An article in yesterday’s Irish Times quotes Brian Motherway, the Chief Executive of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland making three outrageous claims about wind power in Ireland:
- Wind Power has saved Ireland more than €1 billion in imported energy costs – sort of wrong (these are weasel words)
- Wind Power has cut greenhouse gas emissions – sort of wrong (now I am being weasely)
- Wind Power has not added to customer’s energy bills – just plain wrong
Looking at point one, what is he saying? Has Ireland saved €1 billion? That is what it appears to mean, that is why it is worded that way. That is what spin is all about, appearing to mean one thing but actually saying something different. Looking at the mechanics of wind energy, wind turbines are at the best 25% efficient while gas, coal and oil are about 85% efficient and nuclear 92%. These figures all take into account down time for maintenance/breakdown etc. So we can be absolutely certain that wind power has not saved the tax payers of Ireland €1 billion. It is more likely that it has cost Ireland €1 billion (and some) in extra energy costs. Every Mega Watt of wind energy generated is heavily subsidised by the Irish tax payer. So while €1 billion may have been saved in imported energy it has cost substantially more than €1 billion to make that “saving”.
Point two. Has wind power cut greenhouse gas emissions? Not unless the wind turbine is more than 16 years old. This is because it takes 16 years to pay back the CO2 debt created when the turbine was built. The vast quantities of concrete required to build the enormous base of a wind turbine generates as much CO2 as the turbine will save in its first 16 years of life. The turbine will only become carbon negative in the final 9 years of its, average, 25 year life span. I too can spin.
Point three. Of this final point I can be utterly certain. How so? It is the note at the bottom of my gas bill that reads “Carbon Tax” levied at over 7% (on which I pay another 13.5% – double taxation) which goes to pay the subsidies on green energy, plus the Public Service Obligation (PSO) levy which I pay on my electricity bill. Airtricity kindly put a little explanatory note “The PSO levy is a charge relating to the costs of purchasing peat generated electricity and the output of renewable, sustainable or alternative forms of energy purchased under various government schemes…” For various government schemes read wind energy subsidies.
I shall be asking the Irish Times to print a correction of the article in their next edition – don’t hold your breath!
Last night I attended the Irish launch of the new global warming propaganda film ‘Thin Ice’ . What interested me was the opportunity to question a panel of experts after the screening. All but one appeared well qualified and knowledgeable in specific areas of science, but the party was somewhat spoiled by the presence on the panel of one ‘Paul Price’. Paul came armed with a white board displaying what I can only describe as a rendition of Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph that had been fed on steroids. Judge for yourselves. He committed the cardinal sin of invoking the precautionary principle with regard to global warming. When I challenged him on this point he appeared not to know what I was talking about. Questions were asked behind the scenes by a senior academic as to why he had been included. I concur.
So, what did I think of “Thin Ice”? Well it’s begging for it isn’t it. Yes I thought the producer, Dr. Simon Lamb, was skating on thin ice with his approach to learning “the Truth” about global warming. Alarm bells go off in my head when I hear a scientist looking for the truth. That’s not what science is about – science is the search for error. The search for truth is theology – but let’s not go there.
At the end of the film Dr. Lamb exclaims that he was “impressed by… how carefully the scientists went about collecting their data excluding all possible sources of error”. Now come on, what scientist worth their salt would claim that they have ‘excluded all possible sources of error’ – none that I have ever come across. And so often it is not what data you produce it is how you present it that persuades people. For example, at the beginning of the film a Dr. Katie Dugger states that “the Antarctic Peninsula is a perfect example of where sea ice has disappeared and so have Adalie penguin populations – they really need the sea ice to do well”. What was the viewer to take from that Dr. Dugger ? Global Warming reduces sea ice, numbers of Adalie penguins decline, ipso facto global warming causes a fall in the numbers of Adalie penguins. Well no, not entirely, not according to NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration) and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography who last year completed a 30 year longitudinal study which concludes that “the sea ice hypothesis” promulgated by Dr. Dugger fails.
Not only have Adalie penguin number fallen but so too have Chinstrap penguin numbers and Chinstraps don’t much like sea ice. And just to confuse things even more Gentoo penguin numbers in the same area are doing very nicely thank you. So what’s the real reason? It is the fall in the abundance of Krill (shrimp like crustacean) which just happens to be the favourite food of Adalies and Chinstraps. Gentoos prefer fish and squid. Why is Krill on the decline? The increase in the numbers of Baleen (filter feeder) whales and seals as a result of hunting bans. But NOAA could not leave it at that, they also had to blame global warming for helping to kill off the Krill. Now it is true that the winter temperatures around the West Antarctic Peninsula have increased by 5 degrees C in the last few years. But I’m sure that the active volcano discovered under the West Antarctic ice sheet in 2008 by the British Antarctic Survey had nothing to do with this. And one final thing about the Antarctic – the sea ice is at its greatest extent since the satellite record began in 1979. Today it is 14% about the average (1979 to 2008). Now Dr. Lamb, where is your exclusion of all possible sources of error?