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?

12 comments:

dognamedblue said...

the climate's been changing for 4 billion years & will continue to change long after we're all dead

the whole point behind "global climate change" has been since the 60's & 70's to blame the "little man" & screw us for every penny we have, to control us & to control our population because "they" don't like the fact we are on "their" planet using their "stuff"
I believe it's called eugenics
hitler wanted a "new world order" & all these politicos that we elect to serve us are the same
all of them are calling for their "new world order" & are more than happy to tell you about it

if you don't already know all these energy suppliers in the uk actually buy their wholesale supplies from... themselves

getting involved in their arguements about it all is really self defeating when you think about it
it is all a con

interestingly, whether you choose to believe it or not, this past 16 years non climate change ties in with geoengineering

weather is "chaos theory" & is never predictable
the sun heats the atmosphere which heats the land which heats the seas which heats the atmosphere in a cycle that repeat over years decades hundreds & thousands of years, unless we mess with it, just like we are doing now with undeclared geoengineering
[if you don't believe in it by all means go online to read all the information that is freely available]

Elby the Beserk said...

There is little more to climate science than "most likely" blether when you get down to the nitty-gritty. Temps are falling world wide, although the centres for recording these temps are adjusting the data like made to make it look that this is not happening.

Edward Spalton said...

As a corn merchant, I learned the importance of proper sampling early. To get a representative sample, you had to draw samples at regular intervals from sides, middle, top and bottom of the bulk. There are even statutory methods for this. When all the samples from various places are blended in a prescribed way, then you have a complete sample which has a good chance of being representative of the whole. Similar principles must apply to calculating an average temperature for the earth but they have not been followed.

Something like 80 per cent of the points at which temperature is measured disappeared from the early Nineties. Temperatures for the missing stations are still shown but they are calculated/estimated by obscure methods which the scientists are not keen to divulge.

Moreover, most of the "missing" stations are in high latitudes (where warming is SAID to be most noticeable) and at higher altitudes - both of which tend to be the cooler places. Yet the graphs are shown as continuous despite the change in "sampling". I am sure that my school science teachers would not have tolerated such shoddy work.

Joe Public said...

I've no objection to those wanting to use "green" energy, and it's their prerogative to be able to buy it.

I do however, object vehemently to subsidising their choice.

dognamedblue said...

a rather long read & maybe just a bit "out there" for some people to accept just yet, but worth taking the time to read [& between the lines to get the fuller picture]:
"Documents from 1966 reveal how the military & federal agencies are modifying the global climate"

http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2012/11/16/government-documents-link-global-warming-to-advanced-military-climate-modification-technology-2/

bear in mind that they've been modifying the weather since WW2 - those nice "folks" didn't want a repeat of WW1 when their bombers hit bad weather & dumped their bombs, usually on their own soldiers, nice


[my granddad did work for lockheed during WW2, which is why his war record is still an official secret, & used to tell his children "it's because of all the chemicals they're spraying in the sky" he knew what he was talking about]

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

I think we need to separate the arguments between climate change and renewable energy.

While the first may or may not develop into a cause for concern, it is highly unlikely the second will have anything other than a positive impact on whatever climate and quality of air we experience in the near or distant future.

The creation of energy from renewable sources is a strategy of legitimate purpose it's the political and commercial aspects open to exploitation which need to be addressed, monitored and regulated.

The fly in the present ointment is the short term fix and accompanying perpetual blackmail created by privatisation. My concept of any business worthy of the title, must make provision for the maintenance and renewal of the plant and facilities which create its product. Now it may borrow the capital or lease the equipment but either way it must bear the cost between its production costs and what the market will allow for its product unless of course it has a near or complete monopoly or a captive market. Which is the situation we have now in the utility market where six providers provision and charge circa seventy million consumers. And on top of which they want the consumers to pay for the new plants required in order to keep their business, its profits, and dividends to investors rolling in.

Well in my view that really is an unacceptable and inequitable interpretation of the term 'free market'which by definition turns the supposed concepts of capitalism and markets completely on their head and where instead of 'command' markets you have 'command' consumerism.

(Rosa -I've been trying to contact you - could you send me an e/mail?)

subrosa said...

It's a very expensive con for which we're paying dognamedblue.

subrosa said...

Expensive blethers Elby. Why we don't knock 15% off each bill beats me. If every utility user did that the companies could do little.

subrosa said...

That's why this whole issue is called a scam Edward.

subrosa said...

You and many others Joe but there's little we can do about it - yet.

subrosa said...

Thank you for the link dognamedblue. It was exceptionally interesting and I do hope others read it.

subrosa said...

They're inter-related Crinkly, if only from the aspect of both are responsible for green taxes.

I'll email you right away.

Related Posts with Thumbnails