Tuesday, 20 November 2012
Flawed Science Costs Us Dearly
The average annual household energy bill is £1,330 - twice what it was five years ago.
The 'big six' energy companies are claiming that aside from the wholesale gas price, the biggest factor in rising tariffs is the raft of subsidies for wind farms and other low-carbon technologies.
British Gas, the country's biggest utility, said green charges account for £150 of the overall bill - a 50% increase from 2007, when they accounted for £94.
Energy UK, the industry body, will publish a report within the next few days, which is expected to say that a new scheme designed to slash household energy use will add as much as another £50.
Politicians blame the huge increases on the greed of the 'big six' but never mention the increasing 'green' tax on bills. They substantiate imposing these green taxes on every household and business because they want us to believe that without them these islands will shortly lose all power and we will be back to living as they did in the 1800s.
But I suspect few noticed the Met Office report (graphic above) which was released recently. According to the Mail on Sunday it states the world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago and that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperature. I never heard that on the main BBC or Sky news - mainly because it the report was issued quietly on the internet.
This means that the 'plateau' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
Naturally there's disagreement with the pro and anti groups, with Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia saying 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions. Others disagree. Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America's George Tech university, said it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were 'deeply flawed'.
The Guardian rubbishes the Mail article and insists the journalist has misinterpreted the report. (Unfortunately I can't find it on their site now). The Guardian's summary is dependent on 'global surface temperatures have most likely increased since 1997'. Don't they know? How can they insist others are wrong when they themselves have no proof they are right? The last point in their summary shows the prime concern of the Guardian's view - money. 'Carbon pricing will result in a net benefit [to] the economy as compared to doing nothing and trying to adapt to the consequences'.
Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist and chief forecaster to Weatherbell Analytics (a respected company) has questioned Barack Obama's climate change plans.
Anthony Watts has an interesting article entitled Carbon dioxide - our salvation from a future ice age? which suggest peatlands could contribute towards global cooling.
For the first time in 18 years the IPCC will not be attending the upcoming United Nations Climate Change conference. Why? Because they haven't been invited.
Are other countries waking up to the cost of green taxes which have evolved from flawed science?