Click to get your own widget

Friday, December 18, 2009


BBC Scotland did a programme on Tuesday night about how if we will only subsidise "alternate" energy by £130 million a year like Denmark did (Scotland already lays out a billion annually on it) we will be able to make as much money as the North Sea oil boom someday. We were assured that "we could make a lot of money from wind" & given the example of Salter's Duck wave machine which, if only we had funded it back in the 1970s (we did & repeatedly since then) it would be a big money earner now (it isn't). Basically it was just a long promise, with mood music, that if we subsidise businesses that can only survive with government subsidy they will become enormously profitable, That may be the BBC statist line but it has been demonstrated false times without number.

The "debate" next day was better mainly because of the presence of Dr Benny Peiser. As I said previously I had emailed saying I would be willing to be in the "invited audience" if they actually wanted a debate & though I later got a reply from Brian Taylor's assistant heard nothing from the programme planners. Anyway the BBC don't do real debates - the best they do instead of debate is a discussion with the sides heavily loaded & to be fair they did better than normal here. The panel were Anne Glover the Scottish Government's chief science advisor; Chris Goodall eco-fascist writer; Dr Benny Peiser, sensible & Prof Jim MacDonald who probably knows what the truth is but that he is not allowed to say it so all his replies were woffle.

Unlike the previous programme this was much more hairshirted. Questions were 1) "Do we need to cut consumption" to which only the science advisor said "yes". Benny said no lots of cheap electricity would be better & the others woffled.
2) More interestingly & showing there were two intelligent people invited into the audience, "Do you honestly believe we can do it without nuclear" - In which Benny said we have to a power supply system that makes economic sense & that is nuclear, the writer & prof woffled & Ms Glover assured ua we could, though the world will need nuclear, because we can rely on England to keep our lights on. Incidentally the "science advisor" also sought to gain audience sympathy by saying she didn't understand modern technology (she didn't quite say "because I'm a girlie" but close). I know government advisers aren't there to give advice to government but to give credence to the insanities of politicians but even so she was bad.
3) The funny question at the end was "what have you personally done to save the planet. Glover has apparently made a nuisance of herself at checkouts by pulling off the wrapping & leaving them there; Goodall grows some veggies in his garden; MacDonald "tries" to buy locally; & Peiser doesn't believe this rubbish.

I wish the BBC or STV were willing to have a real formal debate on "catastrophic warming" or indeed anything but I assume they are worried it might be interesting & informative.

Meanwhile it is snowing in Copenhagen & in an outpouring of Yuletide cheer the police decided to beat up Lord Monckton, an accredited delegate waiting in line to get in.

The Met Office are also saying that global warming, being "worse than previously thought" means we may well have the first white Christmas for some time.

More seriously "There were 36,700 more winter-related deaths than usual between last December and March 2009 – a ten-year high".
I have previously blogged about the 25,000 unnecessary pensioner deaths annually due to fuel poverty. I suspect this increase is not because of it being a particularly cold winter but because of rising electricity prices. The average household now directly pays £1,243 for power (only 1/3rd of electricity is domestic sale) when it used to be £600. It is predicted to rise another 60% to £2,000 but if we had gone for new nuclear like France it could be £300. Stalin may have killed millions & at 25,000 a year for 40 years our leaders only 1 million but at least he was doing it to try & build a modern developed nation not to turn such a nation backwards.

This is another letter the Scotsman didn't print. I am somewhat narked about this because they had previously published my letter asking Tom Ballantine to say where he got the figure of "84% of scientists" believing in catastrophic warming", then published, on Monday as their lead letter, another from him alleging "consensus" but dropping the "84%" & yet have not allowed a reply from me or anybody, disputing this consensus claim. This seems to me to be sharp practice:

Tom Ballantine (lead letter Tues) has decided not to repeat his claim that "84%" of scientists believe in catastrophic global warming following my request for supporting evidence (my letter Sat 12th) but does maintain there is a "global consensus" on the science despite various petitions & letters from literally 10s of thousands of scientists to the contrary.

On a number of alarmist websites, including "Realclimate" & on last weeks Radio Scotland "big debate" with the Scottish Green leader & 2 other MSPs on the panel I have asked for the names of 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to name even one. I extend this same invitation to Mr Ballantine & other Scotsman readers.

Subject to actual evidence being produced I have to conclude that there is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government grants have been understandably reluctant to speak. That the whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer."

Meanwhile I have been on a few other blogs asking IS THERE A SINGLE PERSON READING THIS BLOG, OR KNOWN BY ANYBODY READING THIS, OR ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO CAN NAME 2 PROMINENT SCIENTISTS WHO SAY WE ARE SEEING CATASTROPHIC WARMING & AREN’T FUNDED BY GOVERNMENT OR AN ALARMIST LOBBY? (#53)- to which the answer is, so far, no & seeing as it has been asked so many times in so many places it looks like the ultimate answer is no.

And finally - Am I responsible for Climategate?

Well probably not & even if I am it is a very small butterfly wing role in it but -

It seems unlikely that the emails were an external hacking. Indeed from the dates & contents it seems highly likely that they were collected as information in one of Stephen McIntyre's FoI enquiries but that Prof Jones managed to get the enquiry diverted. That left them, for a day or 2, lying in open access at the CRU & somebody, sickened with what was going on, sent them out.

Strath-Sphere in what he describes as wild speculation suggest Keith Briffa as the front runner
I am of the opinion Climategate is the result of someone deep in the inner circle of the climate movement who decided to take a stand against the lies and deceptions. Someone who looked at the corruption of data and the suborning of the scientific method and decided they could no longer go along with ‘hockey team’ (as the crew at the epicenter of this scandal are known). Someone who had to turn in their colleagues, but couldn’t do it out in the open...

It now seems that [Keith] Briffa’s tree ring work was a stubborn outlier which had to be hidden because it ‘diluted’ the AGW theory. Something IPCC was not happy about. Something the Hockey Team struggled with...

Now I have new questions. Who is it who convinced Briffa to withhold data all those years? Was it his idea, or Mann’s and Jones’? Briffa was once again becoming the fall guy for the Hockey Team, just as he was getting back on his feet. I am sure he had plenty of moments to contemplate where is life was heading and why he was putting up with these people...

Wigley’s attack could have sent Briffa (and others in the British contingent) over the edge. It was a cheap shot, and one that probably stung from the ex-patriot turned yankee. The house of cards was falling down and it was tree rings at the center of it.
At the time I blogged about Stephen McIntyre proving Mann's use of tree ring data, coming from Briffa, was fraudulent. In reply I received a rather snotty email under the name "Avisame" blaming Keith Briffa rather than Michael Mann for Mann's fraudulent use of the tree ring data & I commented in similar vein. However I also sent an email to Keith Briffa repeating what "Avisame" said & that I did not believe it but would be interested in a comment.

My email & Prof Jones' response is included within the leaked emails so I know it was seen & since it was sent to Briffa must have been seen by him. I have no idea who "Avisame" actually is but he may well have. If so this clear evidence that Briffa was being set up as fall guy for Mann's tree ring fraud cannot fail to have been an influence on any decision to release the whole can of worms.

Of course this is wildly speculative as to who made it public, but somebody did & certainly does not indicate any more than a butterfly wing responsibility. The person who really brought this about is Stephen McIntyre who by determination, dogged persistence over years & sheer mathematical ability has, modestly, courteously & without rancour despite the most appalling unjustified personal attacks, slowly & painstakingly proven that every article the catastrophic warming Emperor was wearing was non-existent. As such we can now see, with Copenhagen failing, that, without any grandiose titles he has changed human history & very much for the better.

If I have had a tiny influence here which is traceable what it indicates is that such influences, by ordinary people, are possible. Normally tiny influences causing a tipping point cannot be traced & I have tried, in my loudmouthed way, to pressure in many different causes here & elsewhere. This tends to suggest the tactics work.

Labels: ,

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.