Quality, not volume - by Richard... Thursday, February 25, 2010

Quality, not volume - by Richard... Thursday, February 25, 2010

The global warming began falling in Staten Island NY at 8 am their time (five hours behind the UK). By the time it has finished, perhaps by tomorrow morning, 12-14 inches may have accumulated, whipped up by strong winds, possibly gusting to hurricane force.

Not under any conceivable circumstances however, are the warmists prepared to concede that this – or the exceptionally hard winter throughout the northern hemisphere – in any way affects their beliefs.

Instead, we hear tell that climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public. 

And there lies a brilliant illustration of exactly where the so-called science has gone completely off the rails. The mindset is focused on trying to make "inconvenient truths" fit the hypothesis, rather than evaluating the new conditions to see if they refute it.

This mindset is further betrayed by the egregious Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research. As to why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998, or in 2005, his view is that there could be a failure to account for rapid warming in parts of the Arctic, where sea ice had melted, and where there were fewer monitoring stations.

In other words, Trenberth is unable to accept evidence of cooling. It must be an artefact – the result of an incomplete monitoring network.

There is no place to go with this kind of distorted logic. It comes from the same wellspring as Dr Judith Curry, who believes that the rise in scepticism stems from a failure of the "climate community" to communicate effectively.

This line, it seems, is very much the preferred alibi of failed doctrines. We heard exactly that from former Tory leader Michael Howard, after the Tory trouncing at the 2004 Euro elections. We are hearing very much the same from Cameron's Conservatives, to explain their lacklustre performance in the polls. And we hear it constantly from the European Union, as the "people of Europe" fail to love it.

Trenberth says, viz à viz the "non cooling" that we (the warmists) need better analysis of what's going on, so that "everyone, politicians and the general public, are informed about our current understanding of what is happening." Furthermore, he wants more statements in a much quicker fashion instead of waiting for another six years for the next IPCC report.

He, like so many others, in so many disparate fields, fails to understand that it is the quality of the message, not the volume and speed with which it is delivered, which eventually prevails. 

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Print ready

Charity begins with climate change - by Richard...

The plight of the Mongolian population, which is struggling through one of the worst winters in living memory, has at last been officially recognised. According to The Guardian - the only newspaper so far to record the event – the UN has launched a $4m appeal to clear up livestock killed by the big freeze in the country.

Rather than give money directly, creating a dependency culture, nomads are to be paid to collect and bury the carcases of animals killed by the cold, with a view to preventing disease and soil contamination.

The appeal comes after officials in Mongolia have declared more than half of the impoverished country a disaster area. So far, at least 2.5 million livestock have perished after weeks of persistent snow and temperatures below minus 50°C.

On current government estimates, three million more animals will die before the cold weather ends in June and the total economic losses so far are put at $62 million. Nearly two-thirds of the country has been buried under eight to 16 inches of hard-frozen snow, making grazing impossible for the country's herds of cows, yaks, goats, sheep, horses and camels.

As we have already noted, the slow response to this disaster – which has been completely ignored by UK charities - contrasts unfavourably with the concern shown by Oxfam for supposed climate change-related problems in the region.

One might have thought, therefore, that some alarm might be expressed about how charities dedicated to humanitarian relief are allowing their obsession with global warming to detract from their core mission.

That, however, does not seem to have occurred to Greg Clark, Conservative shadow secretary for energy and climate change. Recently addressing the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) annual conference, he told delegates that all organisations must make climate change central to their operations.

Charities have an important role to play in "humanising" climate change and showing the public how it is affecting populations, he said, acknowledging that campaigning and advocacy as a crucial role for charities dealing with climate change. He wants charities to take a lead role in raising awareness of climate issues.

More than content to see efforts thus diverted, Clark was evidently unconcerned at the modest amounts being directed to major disasters such as that affecting Mongolia, heedless of the billionsbeing expended on climate change, much of it totally wasted.

Even a fraction of the amount spent by the UK government on carbon credits to keep civil servants warm would resolve the immediate problems in Mongolia, and perhaps help keep some children alive.

However, such is the mood of the age that we must learn to live with a new aphorism, that "charity begins with climate change". The likes of Greg Clark would obviously agree.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Print ready

Even worse than Brown - by Richard...

So, the chief political correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, Benedict Brogan, has woken up to the idea that, "Labour has pushed us to the brink of a blackout".

It might have been better, though, if he had been writing this sort of thing a few years ago, as were we, on numerous occasions, when there was still some prospect of doing something to stave off the electricity crisis that faces us.

More damning, Brogan tells us that, "The Tories must rescue Britain's energy policy after years of dangerous neglect," seemingly blissfully unaware of the poverty of the Tories' energy strategy. Dominated by wishful greenie mantras, Dave's idea of a policy is set to turn a crisis into disaster.

That said, we cannot fault Brogan's peroration, where he declares that, "Unless the next government takes rapid, decisive and far-sighted action, the result will be catastrophic." The problem lies in his failure to recognise that, if the Tories get anywhere near "government", the last thing we can expect is "rapid, decisive and far-sighted action."

Evidence of that (not that much is needed) comes from Channel 4 News which claims to have seen a copy of the as yet unpublished Tory energy policy.

From that, it learns that a central plank of their "thinking" is to ramp up micro-generation, from the current administration's 1.6 percent to a massive 15 percent by 2020. Thus, to fill the energy gap, the Tories intend to rely on electricity produced by individuals and communities from rooftop windmills and water turbines, solar panels and boilers fuelled by wood chips.

The idea is so ludicrous that one struggles to believe that any adult, much less a political party, could even contemplate it. But then we need to learn that, when it comes to crass stupidity, nothing is beyond Dave's Conservatives.

With more patience than I could muster, professor Dieter Helm takes them on, pointing out – rather charitably – that "individual householders becoming little generation plants and selling power back into the system is a wonderfully attractive and seductive idea."

But, says Helm, it is extremely expensive because it is unreliable and would need to be backed up by more conventional power sources. "There is no free lunch when it comes to the energy sector," he adds, noting that: "When you generate your own electricity, someone else has to buy it. In the end, other customers pay. Decentralisation is not cost-effective."

This raises a devastatingly obvious issue. To incentivise local production, the current feed-in tariff is roughly twice that of the retail cost of electricity. Those able to afford the expensive generation equipment can sell their electricity and then, effectively, buy it back at half price.

On the other hand, those who can't afford this option, like the six million or so on prepaid meterswho are already paying over the top for their electricity, will have to pay even more. And this is what passes for Conservative policy?

With this, the Tories seem intent on demolishing the last, vestigial reason for voting for them at the election. No matter how bad Cameron is, some of the more candid say, he cannot be worse than Gordon Brown. If this is what the Boy has to offer, then we are looking at the very real possibility that he will be even worse than Brown.

COMMENT THREAD