Seen Elsewhere…





  1. I see one of your mates has a book out
    I don’t know why a true thinker like Spiegelhalter is keeping company with a propagandist like Linden.

    Is your comment box working ?
    I had to post from inside WordPress


  2. Great artice by Ben at Spiked! But it says at the end “Ben Pile blogs at Climate Resistance.” He doesn’t, not since 2016. He blogs here, though not as often as we’d like…


  3. Re the masking bias problem (Judith Curry’s blog):
    The actual IPCC reports have always had many references to ‘uncertainty’ and ‘low confidence’ etc. But these all get ‘masked’ in the summaries, which gets a false stamp as the essence of the truth.

    This is then converted into the half-baked crap we all get fed via the media, politicians etc. And so the circus goes on.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Oldbrew. This sounds like a version of climate whispers whereby the truth becomes ever more altered the more it is spread. A qualification omitted here, an exaggeration added there, and you get hogwash.


  5. Horrorbin lies at the BBC:

    “For the first time since the Industrial Revolution, Britain is obtaining more power from zero-carbon sources than fossil fuels.

    “National Grid says clean energy has nudged ahead with 48% of generation, against 47% for coal and gas.”

    Pictures of wind turbines and solar panels. What he doesn’t mention is that ‘clean energy’ includes nuclear power and imports! Renewables only account for 24% of electricity generation over the period Jan-May 2019. Then Matt Ridley tells us the truth about what’s really ‘powering’ Britain:

    “In Britain last year, generously using the Final Energy Consumption metric, 4 per cent of energy came from wind and solar, 3 per cent from nuclear and less than 1 per cent from hydro, the three zero-carbon sources. The common misconception that wind and solar are bigger contributors comes from forgetting that electricity is just 20 per cent of energy: the rest is heat, transport and industry.”

    We are a long, long way from achieving zero net carbon by 2050.


  6. Claiming that solar or wind power are zero carbon, is a lie; nothing more, nothing less.

    How much CO2 is emitted in the manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels? How much in transporting it from the place of manufacture to the place of use? How much concrete in the foundations? How much CO2 emitted when roads are cut across peat bogs to wind farms?

    The other criticisms of Harrabin’s inaccurate claims are, of course, equally valid.


  7. At least there’s the ‘zero carbon’ recycling of all those end-of-life wind towers, turbines, solar panels, batteries etc. to look forward to….er, isn’t there?


  8. Harrabin also fails to mention diesel generators role on offshore wind turbines in his “Britain is obtaining more power from zero-carbon sources than fossil fuels” Green ECO love in.

    quick google gave me this sales pitch/honest evaluation –

    a snippet –
    “Most offshore wind turbines are installed with an on-board diesel generator to provide auxiliary power

    One of the basic needs of a wind turbine is the provision of auxiliary power, especially before it is connected to the onshore electricity grid. Power is required for cranes mounted on foundations. Once the wind turbine is installed, further power is needed to provide lighting, heating, clean air systems and to turn over sensitive equipment. Typically, this power is provided by small diesel generators; the London Array, the world’s largest offshore wind farm, had a diesel generator located on each of its 175 turbines. If the connection to the onshore electricity grid is delayed then the diesels may need to provide continuous power for many months. The Riffgat wind farm off the German coast is fully installed apart from the grid connection, delayed for at least 2 years due to the discovery of munitions on the sea bed. This had led to unhelpful headlines such as “Windpark to nowhere … 22,000 litres of diesel burned each month to keep windpark from rusting away”.

    Auxiliary power key to risk management and warranty protection for operational wind farms

    A robust source of auxiliary power is also required to manage risk in operational wind farms. Wind turbine warranties can be voided if the turbine is without power for more than a few days, radically altering the risk profile and hence insurance requirements of the wind farm. This is reinforced by increasing regulatory pressure – the German regulator requires auxiliary power to be supplied within 12 hours of disconnection from the grid.

    Reducing diesel usage reduces the high costs of offshore refuelling and reduces HSE risk

    Diesel generators are reliable, proven technology and a trusted solution to the provision of offshore auxiliary power. However, the logistic costs of refuelling and maintaining the diesels are high. This opex cost can account for over 90% of the cost of providing auxiliary power. Limited space on the wind turbine means that fuel tanks are small and refuelling frequent. The equivalent cost of diesel for an offshore wind turbine can be more than five times what it is onshore. Offshore refuelling also carries the risk of an accident when personnel transfer from boat to turbine, or a fuel spill during refuelling. It is clear that new solutions that reduce diesel usage can significantly cut costs and minimise HSE risks associated with refuelling.”

    the man is Blinded by the Light as a song goes.


  9. I just found an interview with Peter Ridd that is also excellent. It discusses in detail the problems in science with replication and narratives that can capture a field.


  10. Great list of skeptical writing.
    The title of that book seems very sad.
    What good can come from a society that sees truth as something in a rear view mirror?
    It seems to me that the list of what can go wrong without a dedication to the the truth is rather long.


  11. Matt Ridley’s is a useful contribution, but he clearly believes that CO2 is the demon gas it is labelled:
    “A way must be found to use oil and gas, but capture their carbon dioxide emissions”

    Why, when they are doing no perceivable harm. CCS is another scam on top of a scam:

    When “environmentalists” support it, beware.
    This is a significant step towards the government defining a new CCS Strategy, since the CCS Competition was cancelled in November 2015. The government must now act and set out its plan to deliver CCS in the United Kingdom, so that the country can deliver its share of the Paris Agreement and its own 2050 carbon emission reduction target.
    Baroness Bryony Worthington is Sandbag’s founder, and is now Director at the Environmental Defense Fund Europe.

    Matt Ridley also says that injected CO2 will be absorbed by the rocks into which they are injected. This is more fairy dust. CO2 absorption by rock is a process which takes place over thousands of years, as a result of weathering from CO2 in the air producing the mildly acidic carbonic acid. Any process to speed it up is very small scale, highly expensive and on top of the cost of CCS, would make energy prohibitively expensive.

    And then there is the danger from leaving future generations vast repositories of CO2, which if ever released in volume would have catastrophic effects leading to a real emergency. Whatever happened to the Precautionary Principle?


  12. A mind capable of being tricked into believing CCS is a viable option is not capable of rationally thinking about climate or energy issues.


  13. Another example of how climate change consensus is not able to function in a civil society. Oregon climate extremists are arresting Republicans for not supporting anti-scientific climate extremist legislation.


  14. Yet another example of how the climate consensus is not fit for democratic civil society and increasingly relies on authoritarian tactics.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Hunter,

    hmmm… to be fair they are not arresting them. They are insisting that the Reps perform the duties they were elected so to so, and swore that they would do. The Reps fled in order that a quorum couldn’t be raised, as not having a majority, they knew they would lose the vote. This breaks both democratic rules and their conditions of office; nevertheless it has been tried a number of times before in several states by both Reps and Dems, afaik with always with failure. Which means the Reps are just trying to dramatically raise the issue before they have to give in. Whether that’s worth the damage to democracy is another question, but in any case both parties have done this before.


  16. The main comment I have on Matt Ridley’s article is that somehow he has managed to discuss the UK’s renewable energy mix without mentioning what currently provides most of the UK’s renewable energy – ‘bioenergy’ (or ‘burning wood’, which is what bioenergy largely amounts to being). The big increase in UK bioenergy is one of the legacies of having the Lib Dems in charge of climate and energy policy in the Coalition government.

    To get the latest figures for bioenergy, and at the same time check the figures MR gives in his blog post, I used DUKES 2018 Chapter 6 which covers the year 2017:

    Click to access Ch6.pdf

    Mainly using Table 6.7, and estimating solar with the help of Table 6.4, I get:

    Wind: 3.07% of total UK energy, Solar 0.71% of total UK energy, Hydro 0.34%.

    So MR’s 4% figure for wind plus solar is correct, his less than 1% figure for hydro is correct (though many would say it is well below 1%).

    From Table 6.7 I reckon total UK renewables makes up 9.91% of total UK energy (the table quotes a value of 10.2% at the bottom, but that is based on applying some EU rule which allows air transport emissions above a ‘capped’ level to be ignored).

    So if wind plus solar plus hydro is providing about 4% and the total from renewables is about 10%, then another 6% is coming from somewhere, and that is predominantly bioenergy (it isn’t coming from wave power).

    Under the Kyoto Protocol, Co2 emissions from bioenergy, or any form of renewable energy, are not required to be counted. It is possible that Matt Ridley is not aware that bioenergy is classified as zero carbon, but it’s one of the many absurdities of climate and energy politics. There are some efforts to stop bioenergy being classified as zero carbon, as described in this article:

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Andy West,
    Declining to enable a destructive anti-scientific bit of public theft *is* doing one’s job.
    There is nothing that legally required the Senators to attend.
    This has been done in Texas more than once and has forced important compromises.
    I knew a state legislator (from the 1930s) who took a colleague out for a drinking lunch and helped the colleague, the deciding vote, sleep through the time to vote and thereby blocked what would have been a long term damage to the finances of Texas.
    It is a version of the Hippocratic Oath for politicians:
    First vote no harm.
    Not boarding the train that rides off to destruction is a worthy goal.
    I hope the freedom fighting Senators succeed.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Hunter,

    “There is nothing that legally required the Senators to attend.”

    Indeed, which is why they’re not being arrested. It still harms democracy, and both sides doing this will likely regret it one day. The problem is, no matter how worthy the goal as seen by one side, democracy is still the main hope to encourage the right goals. And if that starts to crack apart due to stunts like this on both sides, then descent into violence is a big step nearer. Neither can they stay stay out of state forever, and even if they did that could potentially trigger legitimate dismissal procedures. How would that help them, or anyone. Along the way they’re likely to pick up more backlash than support, but at the very least increase polarisation across the board.


  19. Hunterson7’s video begins “Oregon has officially become a fascist state…” This is nonsense, but the story is an important one, and I “liked” Hunterson7 for highlighting it and not Andy West for his valid criticisms of the actions of the Oregon Republican senators who fled the state to deprive the Democratic majority of a quorum necessary to pass some daft climate legislation.

    It’s illegal of course, like throwing tea that doesn’t belong to you into Boston harbour. It’s morally questionable, like taking a woman by the scruff of the neck and frogmarching her out of the room. In a week in which we’ve seen limpet mines leap six feet out of the water to attach themselves to a tanker, and the future prime minister of the UK having his election put in doubt because of a row about some wine spilt on his girlfriend’s sofa, the idea of elected US senators hiding out in neighbouring states, protected from the forces of order by armed militias, doesn’t seem so farfetched. And it’s climate related, unlike all the other fascinating news distracting us from the upcoming end of the world.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.