The latest exaggeration - by Richard... Wednesday, February 03, 2010

The latest exaggeration - by Richard... Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Steve McIntyre over at Climate Auditpicks up the latest exaggeration in the IPCC report, via the Dutch newspaperVrij Nederland.

This is to be found in Chapter 12 of the WGII report, where it tells us:

The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced.

In fact, as the newspaper tells us, these figures are far too high. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) states that only one fifth of the Netherlands is below sea level and that only 19 percent rather than 65 percent of the GDP generated is generated in that area.

Steve observes that even 20 percent is not something that can be ignored, but the percentage below sea level is the sort of thing that primary school geography classes should be able to get right.

There is more to it than that, though. As the evidence builds, it is possible to say that this is more than sloppy work or a few "mistakes". As with the temperatures claimed to prove global warming, every "error" points in one direction, exaggerating the impacts of climate change.

Thus, while glaciers may or may not be melting, if you accept that they are, then the 2035 figure is a gross exaggeration. A portion of the Amazon rain forest may be at risk from climate change – specifically reduced rainfall – but both the figure of 40 percent and the suggestion that the forests are susceptible to slight reductions in precipitation are gross exaggerations.

That seems to be the underlying modus operandi of the IPCC – serial, structured exaggeration in order to build its case. How many more examples do we need before they stop talking about "mistakes" and admit to deliberate fraud?

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Print ready

Another day, another (10,000) dollar(s) - by Richard...

The "embattled" Dr Pachuri (as the media are now describing him) has his UN colleagues rallying around him in a desperate attempt to restore something of his tarnished prestige, offering him yet another award.

This one is the 2010 UN-HABITAT Cities Lecture Award. As well as the $10,000 cash prize, a key component is the delivery, by the award winner, of a lecture before a live audience. Dr. Pachauri will present his lecture at 1400 on Tuesday 23rd March at the World Urban Forum, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

The award, we are told, is in recognition of Pachauri's "outstanding contribution and leadership in the area of climate change and, in particular, his contribution to knowledge and global action on climate change and cities." 

Ostensibly, Pachauri might welcome the $10,000 as a supplement to the meagre £2,600 a month salary which he claims is paid to him by his "research institute", but with this man, what you see is not what you yet.

Curiously, amongst the great accomplishments attributed to Dr Pachauri in the UN-HABITAT press release – in addition to him receiving the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC – is his service as President of the India Habitat Centre in New Delhi 2004-06.

The irony of citing the Habit Centre is almost certainly lost on the award committee as it was Pachari's tenure on the governing council of the centre, during its development, which first exposed him publicly as a consummate and unprincipled liar.

As set out in our earlier post, it was then that judge K Ramamoorthy in the Delhi High Courtcondemned Pachauri for suppressing material facts and swearing a false affidavit.

There is something of the psychopath in the ease and fluidity with which Pachauri so often lies – which makes him seem to plausible – but it is in that context that his current salary claim must be seen.

Here, one has to note that he refers only to his "research institute", but that is only one of the many enterprises under the TERI brand-name that he heads. Amongst others, there is the commercial company TERI Biotech, which has a 47 percent share in the joint venture company called ONGC TERI Biotech Ltd (OTBL).

There is also the TERI University which, despite its title, is a commercial enterprise, of which Pachauri is chancellor, and there are many other organisations and divisions which could be separate companies, which have not been identified. And there is also his Houston Glori Oil company, about which the man is strangely reticent.

The one thing Pachauri does not tell us, therefore, is his total earnings, which may include shares, share options and other cash equivalents which all go towards what is often called the "compensation package". Rather, he leaves us with the impression that the salary is his income, which is unlikely to be the case.

Another problem we have is that a man who sees no problem with swearing false affidavits is hardly going to have a problem lying about his income, so even if he did come up with a total figure, how would we believe him?

As for the $10,000 prize, it would not surprise me if, in a grand public gesture, Pachauri "donates" the money to some worthy cause. After all, for a man living in a house worth £4.5 million who only pays his tailor £30 "to stitch his suits" (although he does not say how much he pays for the cloth), and who has a fleet of chauffeur-driven cars at his disposal while living the life-style of a multi-millionaire, a mere $10,000 is loose change.

Frankly though, how much he does earn is not the central issue. It is only relevant inasmuch as we have in Pachauri a man who is quite obviously well off telling other people who are less well off than him that they must cut back on their consumption. Hypocrisy is the issue, not greed.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Print ready

Gone native - by Richard...

Based on a press release issued by the energy regulator Ofgem, multiple news reports today warn of impending power shortages. In the vanguard is the BBC, which also tells us that the regulator has also warned that a significant number of consumers may not be able to afford the higher energy prices they would have to face.

Details also emerge in agency copy and outlets such as Bloomberg but nowhere does it seem to me that the full context of the press release is properly explained – the nature of which is devastating.

To put it in context, Ofgem - the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets - tells us that "protecting consumers is our first priority," then listing "other priorities and influences", which include "contributing to the drive to curb climate change and other work aimed at sustainable development."

What this press release actually tells us though is that Ofgem has gone native, ditching it first priority – the very reason for which it was set up - replacing it with climate change. The effect of that will not only ensure that we do run out of electricity but we will also have to pay through the nose for the limited supply that remains available.

This, of course, it not stated overtly, but what we are dealing with is a long-term initiative calledProject Discovery. This takes as its starting point UK "carbon targets" - reductions of 80 per cent by 2050 and then notes that there is "an urgent need to plug the generation gap as coal and oil plant comes off the system to meet 2015 European emissions limits."

As an aside here, it misstates the reason for the coal and oil plant coming off the system – this has nothing to do with emission limits, but is entirely due to the EU's Large Combustion Plant Directive, which imposes limits on sulphur dioxide which pre-date the current obsession with global warming.

Anyhow, the essential element of the Ofgem plan is that it takes as a given the government objective of replacing the lost capacity with renewables – mostly with offshore wind power - picking up the 33GW figure that is needed to maintain energy supplies. It then observes that the current financial environment is not conducive to incentivising investors to cough up with the £200 billion needed.

What is entirely missing from the analysis is the simple but inescapable fact that, even with the best will in the world, it is not technically feasible to deliver 33GW of wind power within any foreseeable time frame, irrespective of whether the finance is available.

This we explored way back in June 2008, with two posts, one pointing some of the technical problems and the other citing Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK, who was calling for an "honest debate" on energy provision.

Nothing much has changed since then, other than to bring to light additional technical difficulties – not least undersea cabling problems and growing concerns about the durability and reliability of turbines in highly aggressive offshore environments. In short, what was true then is true now – the offshore plan proposed by the government is not technically feasible.

Having ignored this completely, Ofgem thus focuses on financial incentives which it deems necessary to "unlock" the necessary investment, coming up with a package of measures which it sets out in the diagram illustrated above. First amongst these is imposing a minimum carbon price (level unspecified) to "encourage investment in low carbon technologies."

Bearing in mind that Ofgem is warning about unsustainable price rises, with consumers no longer being able to afford electricity, this is a stunning proposal. Translated, what it is suggesting is a mechanism to increase the costs of conventional power generation to the point where the vastly more expensive renewable energy becomes "competitive" and thereby promotes investment in it.

Totally missing is any indication of who will pay for the increased carbon price, and/or the vastly increased cost of power generation. Somehow, Ofgem seems to believe that this is a no-cost option.

Its next brainchild it calls "Enhanced Obligations and Renewables Tenders", a plan to increase the subsidies (although it does not call them that) to renewable energy providers, and giving them a guaranteed return, "over say a 20 year period," again to "encourage investment in renewable energy". Precisely who pays those subsidies, Ofgem does not say.

Should that be insufficient, Ofgem then argues for "co-ordinating all future investment through a single entity," – essentially re-nationalising power provision, with a state authority (called a "central energy buyer") determining the amount and type of new generation needed and entering into long-term energy contracts for power. Thus, electricity generators will be told what to build, and then the price structure is rigged to cover their (inflated) costs.

To legitimise this, Ofgem chief executive Alistair Buchanan is saying that without what he euphemistically calls "reform" there could be a "degree of crisis" in 2013 or 2014 and warns the situation could then become "quite uncomfortable". Failure to act would risk shortages after 2015 and mean customers would end up footing the bill for costly short-term solutions.

What he is actually saying is that, to stave off short-term problems and price increases, (brought about primarily, although not exclusively, by the EU's Large Combustion Plant Directive – which he does not address), we must adopt a price and control system which will ensure vastly increased prices and fail to deliver the necessary capacity.

In fact, what is already happening is that the generators are investing in increased gas-fuelled capacity, notionally needed as back-up to the wind system but which will actually become our base-load provider. That will precipitate precisely the problems which Ofgem claims to be seeking to avoid, with local gas shortages during peak demand, requiring emergency purchases of gas on the spot market, at highly inflated prices.

The really worrying thing here, then, is that Ofgem is living in a fantasy world, which has not even the slightest acquaintance with reality, bolstered by the idiot Ed Miliband, who says the Government is "confident" of meeting energy supply needs, with a low-carbon transition plan delivering secure supplies until 2020.

And waiting in the wings is David Cameron, whose plans for a "low-carbon transition plan" are indistinguishable from Miliband's fantasy, thereby ensuring that a change of administration – if we get one at the next election – will ensure that our electricity system continues to deteriorate. These fools, between them, will do for us all.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Print ready

BBC – a hotbed of denial? - by Richard...

Sunny Hundal in The Guardian thinks that Newsnight is evidence that the BBC "has become this country's most pernicious climate-change-denying media outlet in the UK."

The hook for last night's Newsnight report, he writes, was today's Guardian reporting that the IPCC head Dr Rajendra Pachauri rightly refusing to apologise for a mistake that wasn't made under his watch.

Eh? This is the man who accepted the Nobel prize on behalf of the IPCC, on the basis of AR4 ... which contains the "mistake", that wasn't made under his watch?

Much more of this and David Cameron will be signing him on as a climate change advisor. With that degree of intellectual coherence, he and Osborne should be soul mates.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Print ready

Sooooo yesterday - by Richard...

"In normal times, a resurgent Conservative Party, the party of sceptical common sense, of fiscal prudence, would be assuring itself of a 300-seat majority in May by kicking to death Labour's discredited climate nonsense. Instead, Dave is doggedly pursuing his kamikaze course on Green policies. He and his cronies may be the last people in Britain to believe in AGW.

But that is consistent with the whole Cameron phenomenon, which is a slavish recreation of the Blairism of 13 years ago. Cameron's 'modernisation' amounts to a cunning plan to win the 1997 general election. Unhappily, this is 2010 and Dave is on course to make Conservatism history – alongside the superstition of man-made global warming."

Gerald Warner on his blog. What more can you say ... the Conservative party has been taken over by idiots. Heffer gets close, mind you: "I cannot bear to rehearse once more the inadequacies of the shadow chancellor, Mr Osborne ...". Quite!

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Print ready

Phil Jones on Channel 4 - by Richard...

The only thing they don't do is use soft focus when they film him ... he will be vindicated ... yeah!

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD