The future

Some like it hot.

I’m sure the canadians would like it to be so. Another vid tearing into the cult of climate change.

All true.

Thanks Bill.

Well done Piers.

Piers Corbyn runs the Weather Action, weather prediction site. See how he dismembers  the UN IPCC Vth Assessment Report - Discussion at Royal Society 2-3 Oct 2013 the Royal societies position on man made global warming.

I admit he’s not the most dynamic of speakers, but he is a true scientist. And of course his predictions regularly shame the UK Met Office.

Tosser

This is the illiberal twat that is really responsible for pushing up your energy bills with green subsidies. This is the day British Gas announces an increase in a duel fuel bill by 9.2 percent.

At about 1min 45 in on the vid he bareface lies, stating that before 2011 there were no other company that was offering cheaper energy than British Gas. Well this blogger left BG some 10 years ago and always managed to obtain cheaper energy by shopping around.



 It's no good blaming the energy companies for this. They've been forced to compete against inefficient, subsidised, green technology. They have to compete with onshore bird mincer subsidies to the tune of £100/Mw hr, and offshore at £150/Mw hr.

EG: See how much a wind farm is producing to see the inneficiency of wind.



It's producing just 18.3244% of it's rated capacity.

They've also been forced to pay for loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, etc, for their customers. No wonder the price of energy is rocketing.

DISCLAIMER: The FE household has not applied for loft insulation or cavity wall insulation. The reason being that he has no loft or cavity walls. (In fact I would be loathe to have cavity wall insulation as it can in the long run do serious damage to your home. (If you doubt this. See me after school).

As title of this post reminds you.

Fucking Tosser.

Global warming. Pah!

Mark Steyn subbed for Rush on Monday and unloaded an epic rant ahead of the UN’s 10-day “Climate Week” in light of the IPCC’s admission that there has been no global warming since 1998.

Quadrillion

Mitigate the effects of Climate change or bankrupt the world defending against it? The vid below gives the case for mitigation. If at all it’s needed?

What do you think?

A reply at last.

Just under a month ago I read a letter in the comments to an article in the financial times. The letter was addressed to our prime minister.

It’s produced  on my site HERE. It's about climate change and energy supplies.

Anyway I thought the author wouldn’t mind if I used it. After a bit of adjustment I sent it to my MP. The reply received today is reproduced (Badly) below. My apologies for the poor quality, but I had to scan it and then snip the content.

 

It seems he is somewhere on the same planet as me.

Good news about climate change teaching.

They’re not going to brainwash the kiddies until they’re fourteen now.

Debate about climate change has been cut out of the national curriculum for children under 14, prompting claims of political interference in the syllabus by the government that has failed "our duty to future generations".

The latest draft guidelines for children in key stages 1 to 3 have no mention of climate change under geography teaching and a single reference to how carbon dioxide produced by humans impacts on the climate in the chemistry section. There is also no reference to sustainable development, only to the "efficacy of recycling", again as a chemistry subject.

Wow. Especially as I read this in the Guardian. (Spits).

The alarmists are appalled:

"What you seem to have is a major political interference with the geography syllabus," said the government's former science adviser Prof Sir David King.

"It's just hollowed out argument," said John Ashton, the government's climate change envoy until last summer, and a founder of the independent not-for-profit group E3G. "Climate change should have as much prominence as anything in teaching geography in schools."

Maybe the schools can be left to teach real science. Why should children below fourteen need to know about the science of climate change anyway? Then again of course the alarmists need a new generation of children to badger their parents into adopting the global warming narrative.

There are two sides to the story on Climate Change.

On one side we have Slate with an infographic with the caption :

 

”How to Win Any Climate Change Argument
A flow chart for debating with denialists”

 

On the other we have a really delicious fisking of the graphic from Wendy McElroy:

“How to Lose a Climate Change Argument”

Her starting comment before she shreds the graphic:

“All I can say is, I pity the fool that tries to use that flowchart on me. Below the break, if this subject doesn't bore you to tears by now, is my fisking of their arguments.

The arguments seem to progress from right to left, so I'll address them in that order.”

Truly delightful.

The British Energy Challenge

It seems that The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) are a bit miffed that their message about AGW is not getting across to us plebs. Or if it is, and we’re just ignoring it for the fuckwittery that it is.

So they’ve decided that they need a bit of outside help to cajole the general public to accept their idiocy.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (“the Department”) is inviting tenders for the development of a public engagement plan to generate greater popular acceptance of the need to move to a low-carbon energy system, preparing the public for the scale of the investment and change required in the UK’s energy system – The British Energy Challenge.

Alright it’s only a three month contrick contract paying £20,000, but it’s money that shouldn’t be frittered away.

When the whole global warming debacle is finally exposed in the public eye to be the hoax that it is. I would hope that they will be forced to keep the name DECC just to remind us what Tossers they are.

Ring Ring.

And no it’s not my niece.

Me: (Gingerly picks up the phone as it is a number I don’t recognise) Hello?

Caller: Is that Mr FE?

Me: Speaking.

Caller: I hope you are well today (Why that should be any concern of there’s I don’t know).

Me: Well I’m suffering from the winter lurgy and hope this doesn’t get passed down the phone line to you (Smiles).

Caller: (Pause) Sorry to hear that but I’m interested if you'd be interested in our home energy improvements.

Next follows a pre-prepared script about the energy savings that could be obtained.

Me: Ok. Tell me more.

Caller: We can get a grant to help you install our loft installation.

Me: Great. Can you supply me with a loft to go with it? (I have a three story house which has no loft) 

Caller: (Long pause). You have no loft?

Me: Nope.

Caller: Ok. Can we interest you in cavity wall insulation?

Me: So you want to destroy the integrity of the structure of my house?

Caller: Not at all Sir.

Me: Explain why I should inject a substance that will negate the whole idea that a cavity wall is there to prevent damp passing from the exterior to the inside.?

Caller: (Longer pause).

Me: Don’t worry, I haven’t any cavity walls anyway..

Caller: (Now realising is he’s lost, tries one last gambit), Can we interest you in solar panels?.

Me: (By now I’ve lost the will to live) No. Unless you can guarantee me free power for twenty years with no expense to me.

Caller: Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, (Rings off)

The humble Blogger

Donna Laframboise pens an interesting article about how the sceptical Blogger will eventually defeat the the vastly wealthy big guns of AGW proponents.

Of course the AGW’s spread disinformation about us sceptical bloggers because they think that we are the same as them.

Another day, another smarmy accusation that [click each word for a separate example] people who are skeptical of climate change are being funded by a shadowy conspiracy connected in one manner or another to big oil, big coal, big tobacco or – horror of horrors – right-wing think tanks.

However she rightly points out that your humble bloggers against the premise of AGW, are mostly self funded. operating without any outside support.

Compare and contrast to how independent individuals of utterly modest means from all over the world currently behave. They sign up to a service like Blogger.com (which is owned by Google) and, within a few hours at most, for no cost whatsoever, have launched themselves as a blogger. Alternatively, for well under $10 in hosting fees a month, they can publish their own website.

For no money, therefore, climate skeptics in the early 21st century are in a position to theoretically communicate online with as many people as is Greenpeace. From their basements and their attics, in often non-trendy geographical locations, it isn’t their funding that matters – it’s their skill sets.

In that last sentence she sums up with who these dastardly bloggers are.

In my case I was a marine engineer for 43 years. Over that time as an engineer I learnt to deal in hard facts. If I repaired machinery, I had to make sure I did it correctly. If someone had observed my work practise and computer modelled it, with the result that I had carried out the work with a 90% chance of the machinery working I would probably have hit him.

If you’re on a ship, you have to get it right, not 90% right. People die with that sort of reasoning.

Us sceptical bloggers are I think like a swarm of bees with no queen. You can swat one but the others will sting you.

Go on read her http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/02/22/independent-bloggers-vs-corporate-environmentalists/whole article.

Funny that?

A few weeks ago during the ministerial reshuffle, the slant at DECC moved from a warmist position to a more sceptical one.

Could it be that the government had been warned of this report from the MET office quietly published this week? Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

• The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
• This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

Read the whole article. It’s quite damning.

Ps. I nipped over to the warmist Blog Desmogblog to try to warn them of this heresy. Surprise Surprise. Their Email registers a fault when I try to send them the link to the article in question.

Headless and chickens comes to mind.

Toe to Toe with a sandal wearer

I couldn’t resist replying to asmugblog AGWer who decided to berate me for querying his belief. His rebuttal.

My house is powered by wind.  No rolling blackouts.. even in the cold winters of the northerly tar sands.
As an engineer, you will of course be able to provide an exact source for your statements.  Citation please?   (Didn't think so.  You guys never have anything.)
Also, as you know, the numbers will lead the way.  Right?  You're an engineer, so you don't go by hunches or use advertising to make decisions, right?
The numbers have always and consistently pointed to the injection of CO2 in our atmosphere as the leading cause of global warming.  There are no other numbers adding up to that.
On the plus side, at least we're at peak oil.  And 'yes', I will blame you.
Here's Hansen's ground breaking paper;
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basic.htm

I replied:

So your house is powered purely by wind. In the UK we are now being inundated with onshore and offshore wind farms supposedly supplying 7% of our electricity needs. It was interesting to see in January when we had a very cold spell caused by a high pressure system how effective that wind power was. Bearing in mind that wind turbines rarely achieve more than than 30% of their rated output at best (Load factor), (Look it up yourself) The total amount of wind generated from figures published by DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) was a staggering 0.9%.
Since we have been forced to have green energy, my energy bill has increased by 18% in the last year. yes you did read that right 18%.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/stats/publications/dukes/2309-dukes-2011-chapter-7-renewable-sources.pdf
Not only such a pathetic figure of supply, but the British Taxpayer was also obligated to pay the wind turbine owners for the non supply of energy. We also had to feed back electricity to the non turning turbines in order to lubricate the gearboxes.
You might also like to see the stats for turbine failures. Our offshore wind turbines which were predicted to have a life of twenty years, are failing after eight. mainly due to poorly thought out monopile grout and scouring of the sea bed.
https://eeweb01.ee.kth.se/upload/publications/reports/2006/XR-EE-EEK_2006_009.pdf
So you might think again about wind power.
And peak oil. Sorry, cheap oil yes, peak oil no.
http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/article.aspx?articleid=86242&categoryid=13

I really should stop this trolling shouldn't I?

UPDATE:

A reply:

It's funny how deniers so often add 1 + 1 and get 3. Let's not look at facts eh TFE? Like......errr, I dont know.....say the fact that our houses are now filled with more energy sucking appliances than ever?! That we leave on standy, or leave the heating/cooling on all day or night? Noooo, it couldn't be that, it's the big green monster....that, with your engineering degree and trained logic is the only explanation.

My reply:

Exscuse me for daring to argue. I have added no new equipment into my house. It's the green tariff that has put up my bills. I did state that it was a rise of One year. The green imposed charge is stated on my bill.
As for:
"Here are experts in the industry explaining that it is the costs of upgrading the transmission and distribution networks that are costing us more in power prices."
Of course it is. When you have intermittent energy supplies from green sources such as wind turbines then the control of such sources need very expensive forms of energy regulation. if you have one turbine with a generation frequency of 40 hz and another generating at 60 hz (wind speed dependant), then you will have to spend money to adjust the frequency of supply.
Please look up the practicalities.

And as for:

The only place that believes the "drill baby drill" philosphophy will lower petrol/gas prices is on denier and conservative blogs. Elsewhere in fact world and reality, the story is different

You obviously didn't bother to read the link. Do keep up.

I've been accused of not linking. I have now, An element of curtesy would be to at least read them before replying with a knee jerk reaction.

I’m not alone

In my belief, religion, reasoning that CO2 doesn’t cause any significant warming of the planet,this man is probably going to be hounded by the high priests of climate change for his heresy.

Professor Ian Clark just does not see any evidence of oil sands contributing to global warming. That’s quite a stand to take in the face of a global environmental community that considers the development of the Canadian heavy oil industry tantamount to hastening the end of the world.

But Prof. Clark can claim to know a bit more about the science behind climate change than the average person. As a professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa, he focuses on paleoclimatology — the study of changes in climate taken on the scale of the entire history of earth — and isotope hydrology, which determines the age of ice or snow, which can help indicate climate conditions in the past.

But what  sin has he has committed? His research indicates that the Earth warms before levels of CO2 rise.

However, the rise in CO2 lags the rise in temperature by about 800 years. This shows that CO2 does not play a role in the warming, and even a reinforcing role must be minor considering the lag. When the climate starts to cool, CO2 remains high, again for hundreds of years, and so plays no role in sustaining the warm climate, as the climate cools despite the high CO2.

He’ll burn in hell if the AGWers’ get their way.

Killing two birds with one log

In case you think I’ve got the quote wrong. Tough.

Hopefully I’m upsetting both of the groups below:

The first bird is the Green lobby that rant on about reducing our carbon footprint. (Should I eradicate myself, seeing that I’m a carbon based lifeform?)

Second is my energy supplier which has upped my energy charges by over 20%. (I’m waiting for their pleading letter asking me not to switch energy suppliers, which I’m in the process of doing).

What have I done to upset both groups?

I lit the open fire. (And not using that smokeless crap coal either).

All that carbon and CO2 disappearing up the chimney is visually attractive and a great comfort, in that I upset the greens in the first instance. The second is I diminish the profits of my energy supplier.

There’s nothing more satisfying than throwing another log on the pile and seeing that comforting swirl of sparks and the puff of smoke caused by it.

The end is Nigh.

And no I’m not a follower of this man

More scientists are realising that the climate change bandwagon is a scam, and  jumping off before the last wheel parts company.

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

And why have they not jumped off the wagon before?

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

The whole article is HERE

Climate change

Just seen this again so thought I’d repost it.

Why do we still fund the BBC?

Climate Realist fights back

A couple of days ago I posted how a UK blogger going by the name of “Tallbloke” was served a court order by six of the plod and had two computers and a router removed from his house.

The warrant was executed on behalf of a request from the American Ministry of Justice, to Norfolk police.

Since then it transpires that an American Blogger over at this site, wrote a libellous diatribe accusing Tallbloke of being a thief.

of course if you visit that site now, you will only find a hastily sanitised version of the post. I was shocked when I read the original post and so would you be if you’d seen it. (Others have screen shots of the original post)

Anyway Roger (Tallbloke) is not taking this lightly as his livelyhood is at stake, so he may take the author of the post through the Libel courts for defamation.

There is a fighting fund being organised over at Watts up with that. Believe you me the donations are flooding in. If you believe that the truth about the whole global warming scam is being manipulated by a now frightened core of fanatics who will do anything to stop their religion from being scuppered, then donate what you can. I know times are hard, but every little bit counts.

The BBC must go.

Now I’ve long believed that the BBC has been a left leaning organisation, that is incapable of looking outside of it’s own self serving “bubble”.

I have written about scare stories before, and most have them have been hyped up by the BBC using unreliable science. Take one example. The BSE scare. We were led to believe night after night on our compulsory levied channel, that thousands were going to die as it mutated into CJD in the population. In fact about a hundred died.

This brings me on to one of the longest BBC scandals. Anthropogenic global warming or climate change as it is now called. (Most probably name changed as the climate has cooled over the last decade).

in Today’s Daily Mail Christopher Booker briefly summarises how the BBC has patently colluded in perpetuating the dodgy science. His article can be found here. Just read the article and then maybe you’ll like to read his paper written for the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

His article for the GWPF is really eye opening (You need some time and a few beers). It shows up the BBC for a left leaning biased inward looking organisation that in my opinion is not worth the money we pay for.

The whole article can be found HERE in PDF format. It really is an eye opener.

On a lighter note, (As in flames) it would seem that Scottish wind turbines don’t like wind.