You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August 2010.
The BBC’s ‘Coast‘ programme is currently eulogising over Denmark’s massive investment in wind-farms. Needless to say its all good stuff.
Saving the planet and all that.
But what the BBC chose not to tell you is that in 2005 Denmark’s grid used 50% more coal generated power than in 2004. Even in the North sea the wind is not that reliable. Oh, and Danish electricity is the most expensive in Europe. Indeed at the last count and despite all this effort Denmark still has a massive conventional power generating infrastructure and that pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% percent in 2006 alone). Whilst only 6% of Danish consumption comes from wind, very often Denmark is reduced to exporting much of its available wind power at a loss and continues to be reliant on imported energy (hydro and nuclear from Sweden Norway and Germany).
Nor will you find the BBC quoting a Danish report saying that Danes pay the highest residential electricity rates in the EU and that the cost of saving a ton of carbon dioxide between 2001 and 2008 has averaged US$ 124. The report estimates that 90% of jobs were transferred from other technology industries to the wind industry, and that only 10% of wind industry jobs were newly created jobs, and that as a result, Danish GDP is US$ 270 million lower than it would have been without wind industry subsidies.
Given all the subsidies you can understand why Denmark has a vested interest in promoting its home grown wind farm industry.
Behind the Great Pay Wall of Fleet Street, we find that The Times has further comment on the IPCC’s recent defenestration in an interesting article by Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist. It deserves wider circulation because it reminds us of the events of earlier in the year
Of course one way round the great pay wall is to go down to your newsagents, there you will find Mr Ridley saying, ‘this discredited science body must be purged’. It has to be said that ‘discredited’ is putting it a bit mildly. Its not just that the IPCC published a misprint worthy of the Reverend Spooner whilst scaremongering about the Himalayas or that it regularly quoted rumours propagated by lobby groups as if gospel.
No; its the way the IPCC have treated people who had the temerity to offer a different view which disgusts the most. Mr Ridley quotes instances where academics such as Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, who legitimately (and correctly) questioned the temperature record, had their contributions first ignored and then falsely rebutted.
But perhaps most shockingly of all Mr Ridely reminds us of the University of East Anglia ‘Climategate’ scandal where amongst other now infamous emails Professor Phil Jones referred directly to these papers in the words,
‘I cannot see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!‘
I am not sure which is the more shocking; the fact that Jones can bring himself to corrupt science in this way, the fact that he is still in his job or the fact that Jones is allowed to be a ‘co-coordinating lead author and pass judgement on his own papers as well as those of his critics’.
Mr Ridley reminds us of these things and more (‘unilateral redrafting of reports by lead authors’ and the ‘writing of sexed-up Summaries for Policy Makers’ are stand out items) but his final line sums it all up,
‘we run the risk of putting a tourniquet round our collective necks to stop a nosebleed’
That sounds pretty much like a noose to me.
The halo of the ‘new religion’ is tarnished. For too long the words that have come down from the gargantuan mountaintop of the IPCC have been taken as gospel and the morals of its leadership and their acolytes have been considered higher than those of the Saints.
Well that opinion will need revising as leading national science academies shred the IPCC’s dogma into tiny pieces.
‘Qualitative probabilities should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence.’
‘We found in the summary for policymakers that there were two kinds of errors that came up — one is the kind where they place high confidence in something where there is very little evidence. The other is the kind where you make a statement … with no substantive value, in our judgment.’
We must hope these God like figures are now brought down from their clouds of glory to meet their Judgement Day and their gullible disciples have the scales lifted from their eyes.
Hallelujah brothers and sisters!
That great campaigner against modern day global warming indulgences (and who diligently translates the language of the warmists into something we mere supplicants can understand) – Anthony Watt – has much more HERE. The Reformation of a corrupt science continues; carefully audited facts should be the source of revealed knowledge.
There are rumours – self serving self publicising rumours admittedly – that Gordon Brown fancies a return to the shadow cabinet as International Development Secretary. Well it would allow Brown to do what he does best – sermonise.
It’s being asked if either of the likely winners of Labour’s leadership contest would welcome this …
Only if they are clinically insane.
The corpse seems intent on trying to claw its way out of its coffin. The first thing the new leader should do is ask for a bag of nails.
There was an eponymous Charles Bronson film once where he played a character called St Ives. I don’t think the character was meant to have been born in Cornwall.
With David Cameron’s new baby now receiving a name coming from a Cornish village – and fashion being what it is – can we expect more children sporting a middle name with a Cornish connection?
Can we expect a James Saltash etc …
or Elizabeth Tregatta …?
There seems little to worry about growing up as Isaac Quin … And Rock Padstow could expect a career in films but I hope we don’t get a Hubert Rupert Cubert … or a Johnny Twelveheads … or Mabel Mabyn …
I was brought up in Wigan, so perhaps I should have a middle name like ‘Pemberton’ or ‘ Standish’ – all suitably upstanding. Fortunately my dear mother did not want to complicate my school-days and kept things simple with just plain Trevor – otherwise I might have been lumbered with say ‘Parbold’.
But as our title suggests, I’m sure a Rose by any other name will look just as pretty.
I am a liberal. Well a libertarian.
I am a democrat. But not, note, a Democrat.
Its just that I am not a juxtaposition of the two. I am a Tory.
So why should I worry about the Liberal Democrats? Or offer them advice.
Well they are part of a Tory led Coalition, a Coalition their activists unanimously voted to join. So I do feel a small sense of self imposed responsibility. We also find journalists, typified by the absurd Mary Riddell who hardly deserves her platform in that parody of a once great newspaper – The Telegraph, seemingly intent on speculatively nit-picking the Coalition unto death.
All manner of horrors are being foretold upon the LibDem’s Conference. Apparently getting ones fingers smudged on the oily levers of power will be all too much for the delicate sensibilities of the party faithful.
Without a doubt the LibDem Conference will be interesting and who knows the electorate may (for the first time ever) be watching it like hawks.
What might they be looking for so intently? Well, just perhaps for signs of the Liberal Democrats growing up.
Labour we are assured (by none other than Brown, the ‘Great Former leader) believe the future is ‘global’. They further allegedly believe in ‘Europe’.
Strange then that under our former Labour government the numbers of people studying foreign languages have ‘plummeted’. Ironically, since this is a word of French origin, The Telegraph tells us that French is no longer a popular subject.
So the more Labour tell us the rest of the world is important – the less capable we become to communicate with it. Oh, and of course all the while the left wing of Labour are denigrating America on whose linguistic coat-tails they are happy to cling to.
So as we sully our heads worrying about grade inflation and the diluting of educational standards we ignore the lost directions into which our whole education system has stumbled.
Not much sign of joined up Labour Government there.
As we come up to August 8th and the anniversary of the battle of Amiens, perhaps I should remind my reader that I have blogged more than once before about how similar in many respects the Afghan War is to WW1.
The current ‘Black Prince’ offensive reinforces that for me. The slow progress made after several days, ‘the bite and hold’ tactics, all reinforce the similarity. Sadly so too does the steady attrition of our constant patrolling.
Operation ‘Black Adder’ might have been more appropriate.
Perhaps another clear similarity is to see in the news reports how the equipment of the soldier has changed over our years of involvement. In many ways we have been far slower to adapt to the new challenging circumstances if this new type of war than our predecessors were in WW1. But never the less just looking at the kit our soldiers are wearing and using compared to when they were deployed in 2003 shows how we have adapted over the years. Just like the changes in the Tommy’s kit between 1914 and 1918. In just one example, 1914 began with the Lee-Enfield, regimented lines and horses. 1918 ended with the Lewis gun, hand grenades and infiltration; supported by tanks. 2003 began with the ‘Snatch’ Land Rover, whilst 2010 is ending with ‘Cougars’, ‘Ridgebacks’ and’ Mastiffs’ (mine protected vehicles) .
Hopefully we now seem to have another similarity; a clear war aim. In 14-18 the aim was finally resolved by Wilson’s (admittedly modified) 14 Points. There are some who criticised Cameron for hinting that our fighting ground forces would be out by 2014-15, but I think for the first time we were being given an aim, an objective to work towards. Namely that Afghanistan should be stable and capable enough to defend itself by 2014. For perhaps the first time we have been given a yardstick to judge our effort by.
The BBC are happy to report a strange story where milk from the offspring of a cloned cow (or bull actually) might (that’s might) have been sold in Britain.
Well a bit of milk. Perhaps.
The BBC rent a quote from the Food Standards Agency about how terrible and illegal this all is.
This would be the same Food Standards Agency that is threatened with abolition and its duties merged into what nostalgically I still call the ‘Min of Ag and Fish’.
How strange that this odd little story should be dusted off just now …
Clones? I think its clowns we need to worry about.