Scottish Sceptic

In science there is only one thing that matters: does a theory predict what actually happens.
In an hour of utter drivel broadcast by the BBC tonight the simple fact the climate models do not work was never mentioned once.
The pause or in other words, the clear unequivocal discrepancy between prediction and actual temperature is the single most important issue. Because if the models cannot predict the climate they have no scientific credibility.
What more can one say about an organisation that despite all the evidence against their alarmism appears to have set to knowingly and intentionally lie to the public.
They are devoid on any credibility.

If we go onto any sceptic blog from WattsUpWithThat to JoNova, we will find pretty much the same type of people with a superb understanding of science and engineering and very good grasp of how science should be done. That is based on the scientific method. Largely to define ourselves as “sceptical” of the alarmist doomsday warming, we call ourselves “sceptics”. Because it would be just as wrong to say we know they are wrong as it is for the alarmists to assert they are right.
So, a sceptic is someone who draws their conclusion conservatively from the data. It is the basis of proper science (although the word “science” now seems to be meaningless as “science” has come to mean almost any group of academics even if all they do is dress up their political views with long words).
Scepticism is at the heart of good engineering. It’s the rule of thumb that says “the theory says the bridge should hold with only so much steel – but let’s just be safe and add a bit more”. It’s the knowledge that theory does not always work in practice and that only experience or “testing” really determines the validity of ideas.
Is there any symbol that represents that view? Justice has the scales.  I’ve used the butterfly to symbolise the butterfly effect in climate whereby just because we cannot measure something directly it does not mean it will not affect the climate.
 

When the Scottish parliament was set up, the powers of the old Scottish Office were simply transferred to the Scottish parliament which one exception: renewable energy. This should have been a massive benefit to Scotland. Because with 8% of all Scottish electricity already coming from Hydro, not only would there be no need to charge Scottish consumers anything to match our target until 2008**, but it would mean we could effectively sell our excess Hydro back to the English, Welsh, NI, and so Scottish consumers should in theory have CHEAPER FUEL as a result devolving this policy. Continue reading →

I was reading an excellent article by Paul Homewood on Biomass (Biomass Emits Double The CO2 Of Gas), when I noticed something very odd in a reply he had from DECC:

We do not routinely estimate the emissions of biogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from combustion of wood pellets when calculating the national emissions total. In reporting emissions the UK follows the requirements of IPCC guidelines on International Greenhouse Gas reporting. In order to avoid double counting of emissions and removals, the reporting convention is that the CO2 contained within biological materials, such as wood pellets, which are to be burnt for energy purposes, such as electricity generation, is accounted for by the harvesting country. This emission is reported by countries included under the forest management sector.

Did you spot it? They don’t emissions from Biofuels – instead they only count the amount of CO2 “saved” in the harvesting country.
So, let’s use a simple example to illustrate. We have two forests. One story CO2 last century the other story CO2 millions of years before. In each 1tonne of CO2 equivalent is stored in the wood. In one it is known as “coal”, in the other “wood”. They both contain the same amount of CO2.
But when Carbon in the form of “wood” is burnt, it’s emissions are not counted, whereas when is “coal” they are. However apparently the CO2 locked up temporarily in the wood is counted.
So here are the equations:

Net CO2 from Coal = CO2 released – CO2 stored
Net CO2 from Coal = 0

Net CO2 from wood = CO2 released – CO2 stored
Net CO2 from wood = 0

So (ignoring processing costs), neither coal nor wood actually cause more CO2 than they consume. But what about how much CO2 is released today? Now we are told we cannot include the CO2 stored in the past in the equation so:-

Net present CO2 from Coal = CO2 released – CO2 stored
Net present CO2 from Coal = CO2 released

Net present CO2 from wood = CO2 released – CO2 stored
Net present CO2 from wood  = 0

So, the difference between coal and wood is that all the 1tonne of CO2 from coal is counted and none of that from wood. But this is not how the IPCC and DECC appear to count it. Instead this is what they do:

Net present CO2 from Coal = CO2 released

Net present CO2 from wood = CO2 released – CO2 stored
Net present CO2 from wood = – CO2 stored

Now the difference between coal and wood is twice the total CO2 in the fuel. If e.g. we take a typical example of wood being shipped from America. In the UK (ignoring all the additional CO2 as described in Paul Homeward’s expose) we release the same amount of CO2 from coal and wood. BUT WE ONLY SEEM TO COUNT  CO2 IF IT COMES FROM COAL.
That is the height of corruption. Even if CO2 had been important (and it is not) then ignoring CO2 from one fuel is bound to lead to stupid policies which artificially favour one type of fuel purely because it is “politically correct” and not because burning it is of any use to humanity.
The IPCC and DECC really are a bunch of ignorant gullible clowns.

International Panel of Climate Clowns present their latest report.

“We can say with confidence that we are heading toward another ice-age.”

I listened to a similar documentary when at school.
When recently green groups pushing doomsday warming started denying that this global cooling scare ever happened, I tried to find the original UK documentary without success.
But thanks to Steve Goddard I’ve finally found this broadcast in 1977. It never occurred to me there would be an American version narrated by Spock.

RIP

It is very easy to criticise the obvious failures of many broadcasters and newspapers to accurately and therefore honestly report the climate debate. But what would we sceptics say if someone genuinely came to us and wanted to know how the debate should be accurately reported in an impartial way?
Let’s create an entirely fictional organisation I shall call the SBC (Scottish Broadcasting Company). This is a public broadcasting company which is attempting to be impartial. It is therefore filled with public-sector journalists, of whom very few are scientists and none have any specialism on climate or energy.
Traditionally “science” was seen by the SBC as those ideas and facts originating from the group of people it called “scientists”. And with almost no other communication channels to challenge this view except other non-scientist journalists and a few scientific journals, the authority of “scientists” to be the spokespeople for “science” was never realistically challenged.
And as such “science” was largely synonymous with the views of the self-governing association of public-sector university academics (albeit with a much smaller & less vocal number of private-sector scientists). Continue reading →