The awakening - by Richard... Saturday, March 06, 2010

The awakening - by Richard... Saturday, March 06, 2010

"To the greens who accuse me of treachery I say this: we do not have a moral obligation to support all forms of renewable energy, however inefficient and expensive they may be. We do have a moral obligation not to be blinded by sentiment. We owe it to the public, and to our credibility, to support the schemes which work, fairly and cheaply, and reject the schemes which cost a fortune and make no difference."

So writes Moonbat, defending his earlier position against the feed-in tariff for solar energy. 

He is fighting his corner against Jeremy Leggett, chairman of the installation company Solar Century, a man who has a vested interest in promoting what one of the most expensive forms of electricity generation ever invented. And, although Moonbat doesn't say it, it is as plain as a pikestaff that this is money talking. Yet, if the sceptics are branded as terminally biased because they take money from "big oil", how is it that people who take money from "big solar" are given a hearing?

Interestingly, Moonbat also takes a tilt at the EU's carbon trading scheme – and his is not the only one. Sandbag, a British "non-profit" is also having a go, complaining about all the "carbon fat-cats" who are making a fortune out of the scheme. Like virtually everything else run by the EU, it simply doesn't work, so it is good to see a chorus of criticism building up.

Like Snow White being kissed by the prince, they are slowly waking up out of their entranced sleep. Only, unlike Snow White, it isn't a prince looking lovingly at them but the ghastly spectre of EU bureaucrats who never seem to tire of inventing ways of messing up peoples' lives and costing them a fortune.

But, when even people like Moonbat are beginning to recognise this, there is hope for us yet.

CLIMATE CHANGE – END GAME

Print ready

Farting cows online - by Richard... Friday, March 05, 2010

To relieve the tedium of churning though the endless lists of climate change research projects, it is rather fun to imagine these projects being up for sale on online, with some dry little civil servant picking them off the list and adding them to his (our) virtual shopping basket.

So, our little man from DEFRA is logged onto his computer and, with our credit card in front of him, he can start lining up the purchases from the website. First on the list is: "An appraisal of unaccounted sources and sinks of greenhouse gas, ammonia, and other emissions to air from UK land management, starting in April 2007 and finishing in September 2008" (AC0108). That costs a mere £49,906. 

In the slightly higher price range, he now picks a project entitled: "Air quality measurements on cracking clay soils" (AC0111). Yes, strangely, that is climate change related. Starting in April 2008 and not finishing until March 2013, that costs us £2,046,516.

Something a little less pricey, but still rather in the high end, is: "Inventories of ammonia and greenhouse gasses from UK agriculture" (AC0112). Again for the period April 2008 to March 2013, we get it for £1,450,603. Our account now stands at £3,547,025. "Do you wish to continue, or go to the checkout?" the computer asks. Unfortunately for us, the civil servant wants to continue.

OK. Bargain of the week is: "Agriculture and climate change: turning results into practical action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - A review" (AC0206). A nice quickie, from June to July, it comes at a mere £30,000. That barely changes the running total, which now stands at £3,577,025. 

From the bargain basin, our man now adds a "study of the scope for the application of research in animal genomics and breeding to reduce nitrogen and methane emissions from livestock based food chains" (AC204). For a mere £49,939, that was for June 2007 to January 2008. The shopping basket is now at £3,626,964.

In the mid-range price bracket now comes: "The translation of existing research outputs into actions that reduce pollution gas emissions from agriculture" (AC0207). That costs £150,000 for a period December 2007 to March 2009. If you purchase, "The limits to a sustainable livestock sector in the UK" (AC0208), that adds £226,943 to the account, covering the period April 2007 to March 2010. The shopping basket is now at £4,003,907. Sorry, there is no discount for quantity.

Next on the list is: "Ruminant nutrition regimes to reduce methane and nitrogen emissions" (AC0209). To stop cows farting and burping, a mere £746,495, with the study from April 2007 to March 2010. This comes as part of a matched set with, "Modelling nutritional effects on reproduction in dairy cows" (AC0218) - needed to make sure changes in nutrition do not have any untoward effect. For execution between October 2009 and July 2010, this comes at the knockdown price of £76,764.

Also part of the farting cow set is: "Methane emissions by individual dairy cows under commercial conditions" (AC0219), which started in October 2009 and finishes in June 2010. This comes at £174,451. And to complete the set is: "Extended lactations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cows" (AC0223), which started in November 2009 and ends this month. This comes at £68,481.

As a multi-part set, these items cannot be purchased separately. Thus the complete farting cow set comes in at £1,066,191 bringing the shopping basket to £5,070,098.

To complement this on the bookshelf, on offer is another first-class set. Thus, our man takes: "Economic and environmental impacts of livestock production in the UK" (AC0210), at £149,830, "Review of the Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Agriculture produced for the Committee on Climate Change" (AC0216), at £19,404, "Scoping the potential to reduce GHG emissions associated with N fertiliser applied to arable crops" (AC0221) at £80,000 and "Feasibility of Green House Gas (GHG) mitigation methods" (AC0222), for £99,239.

To build the set, he also needs, "Vulnerability of UK agriculture to extreme events" (AC0301), at £214,618, "A Research and Innovation Network Supporting Adaptation in Agriculture to Climate Change" (AC0302) for £327,360, "Climate change and biodiversity in agri-environment schemes" (AC0304) at £75,000, and "Climate change impacts on the livestock sector" (AC0307), for £199,661.

Then, to complete it, he buys: "Ecosystem services for climate change adaptation in land management" (AC0308), for £103,766, a "Scoping study on the potential impact of environmental factors associated with climate change on major UK crops" (AC0309), at a mere £29,615, a study on "Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation - a Risk Based Approach" (AC0310) for £128,333, and "Direct energy use in agriculture: opportunities for reducing fossil fuel inputs" (AC0401), at £76,789.

The price of the boxed set is £1,503,615, which brings the shopping basket up to £6,573,713. To add bit of variety, our man then buys a survey on "The role of the Arctic in global climate change" (AE1222) for £553,825 – which was actually carried out between April 1999 and March 2003, bringing the basket to £7,127,538.

Having toiled hard and diligently, our man now takes a little time out for some modelling, buying up a 1999-2004 package on "UK Pollution climate modelling" (AQ01510) for £1,224,641, a 1998-2001 package on "Pollution climate modelling" (AQ02501) for £127,549, a 2004-2009 "UK Pollution Climate Modelling" (AQ0622) package for £2,550,258 and one covering 2007-11 entitled "Modelling tropospheric ozone - phase II" (AQ0704), for a mere £1,009,291. That adds £4,911,739 to the shopping basket, bringing it to £12,039,277.

With a good day's work done, our civil servant proceeds to the checkout, enters the taxpayers' credit card details and presses the "buy" button. Gift wrapping is free and there is no charge for delivery. He is a contented man. A million quid for farting cows and much else besides should earn him a nice bonus.

Meanwhile, the taxpayer is looking at a cumulative bill of £510.6 million for climate change research so far ... and our civil servant is back at work tomorrow.

CLIMATE CHANGE – END GAME

Print ready

The ice floes of reality - by Richard...

The news of the shipping trapped by icein the Baltic could not have come at a worse time for the warmists.

They are desperately trying to mount acounter-attack, with Peter Stott of the Met Office Hadley Centre asserting that there is an "increasingly remote possibility" that human activity is not the main cause of climate change.

Needless to say, Stott brings nothing new to the table by way of research, relying merely on a review of 100 or so previous studies that purport to track changes in the earth's climatic system. The recycled material, however, is dressed up in new clothes, labelled "optimal detection", which we are told shows "clear fingerprints of human-induced global warming." 

Unfortunately for Stott, he relies on the usual poster children, highlighting not least Arctic sea ice cover, his bleatings having to compete with reports of ice-bound ferries and cargo ships.

Sceptics can, of course, make hay with these reports - as indeed the warmists have exploited any number of transient weather phenomena – but it is germane to note that the Baltic incident is partly the result of gale-force winds which are compacting the ice and making it difficult to navigate.

Something very similar happened during September 1983 in the Northeast passage, when an unusually early freeze-up and persistent northwesterly winds drove heavy multi-year ice into Proliv Longa and against the Siberian coast of Chukotka. Dozens of ships were trapped, creating a major emergency which lasted several months, a fascinating account of which was published in the journal Arctic in 1985.

This brings home the salient point that mass shifts in Arctic ice have more to do with wind patterns than they do temperature, something Anthony Watts helpfully confirms in a recent post. As a result, Arctic ice extent is recovering from its 2007 low and is currently within a million square kilometres of normal and increasing as peak coverage approaches.

Here, then, we have a complex, multi-factoral phenomenon, but it is one which the warmists have chosen to interpret almost entirely as evidence of global warming, claiming that temperature rises are the main if not sole cause.

In dissecting the warmists' claims, one does not need to go much further than that. Their style is to assert their a priori hypothesis as fact and then to "cherry pick" disparate information to support their thesis, ignoring confounding and conflicting data – to say nothing of flawed observation.

This, interestingly, they do in the name of science, but there is nothing scientific in their method. These people are not scientists but advocates of a political cause. Thus we see them reacting inprecisely that way, seeking funding to advertise their beliefs in the New York Times.

Little perhaps do they realise that, as they shed the scientific mantles behind which they have been cowering, and enter more fully the political arena, they will find that they have a deal in common with the Baltic shipping. The wind has changed and the ice floes of reality are bearing down upon them. 

CLIMATE CHANGE – END GAME

Print ready

They just don't get it - by Richard...

If opinion polls are right, fewer people "believe" in climate change now than a few months ago, prior to the leak of emails from the University of East Anglia and the emergence of embarrassing errors in one of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The science of global warming, it seems, has taken a severe hit in terms of the public's credulity.

So says The Independent leader. It then goes on:

Yet as the latest scientific research makes clear, the evidence is, if anything, stronger than it ever was about the role of humans in the observable increase in global temperatures seen over the past half-century. For scientists it is not a question of "belief", it is a question of observable fact and reasonable inference based on a wealth of scientific data. The latest study by an international team led by the Met Office's Hadley Centre reaffirms this position. The world is warming, it is observed on every continent, and there is no natural explanation that can account for it.

After all these years, they have been completely submerged in their own propaganda, to the extent that they cannot drag themselves free of it. Global "warming" is not and cannot be an "observable" fact. The very concept of a global temperature is an artefact, and the recorded figures are statistical constructs – of extremely dubious provenance.

The more they struggle to deny that their religion is a belief system, the more evident it becomes that that is precisely what it is.

CLIMATE CHANGE – END GAME

Print ready

Five times the cost of the Manhattan Project - by Richard...

Joanne Nova gets an airing in the Australian media, taking on board the canard about the "deniers" getting big money funding.

Relying on her previous work, Joanne notes that the US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989. Some of that funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it's 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics, she says. 

It is self-evident that this "buys a bandwagon of support, a repetitive rain of press releases," and for the money you get the PR departments of institutions like NOAA, NASA, the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program. 

However, Joanna also notes that the $79 billion figure does not include money from other western governments, private industry, and is not adjusted for inflation. In other words, she says, "it could be…a lot bigger."

That, to say the very least, is something of an understatement – and it is something of a weakness that the sceptic "movement", such that it is, has not come up with a more comprehensive figure, covering all the major spending countries.

Readers will know that I am attempting to work out the level of UK spending over term. But the very attempt illustrates why that figure has not so far been forthcoming. Spending is hugely fragmented, between several departments of state, including DEFRA and DECC, with contributions from government agencies and quangos, including the Carbon Trust. 

Then there are the devolved governments, the regional development agencies and local authorities, plus a very considerable input from the European Union, through the Framework research programme and also via direct contacts issued by the various Commission DGs.

Among the big spenders, though, are the seven UK research councils which collectively dispense billions into the research community each year. You might think that each of these would be able to pinpoint the amount dispensed on climate research, but that it very far from the case.

There is no standard definition of "climate change" and different search parameters yield different results. Furthermore, each of the Councils operate their own, differently structured databases, so the same search parameters yield different results on the various sites.

Furthermore, much of the spending on climate change comes within apparently unrelated categories, such as "energy" and "transport", as well as the ambiguous portmanteau term, "sustainability".

The situation is further complicated by the fact that much of the funding is directed at "research centres and groups" and groups, where the spending is not necessarily specifically categorised. The Councils also fund fellowships, "studentships" and a very substantial number of PhD studies, some in collaboration with other agencies (e.g. other research councils, government departments, the business, local authority and voluntary communities).

All of that probably means that the actual spending on climate change is not only unknown, but unknowable – without a huge effort and a considerable amount of time and labour. Any figure obtained is bound to be a very substantial under-estimate.

That said, I have been trawling through some of the more obvious funding agencies. We already have a figure of £243 million for the Met Office Hadley Centre and recently I looked at the Engineering and Physical Science Council (EPSRC). Its database records 114 university projects, dispensing a grand sum of £63,245,372. And then there are the 912 grants from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) on climate change, at £166,500,521.

Another big spender is the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), but to describe its database as shambolic is to pay it a huge compliment. There is no mechanism for extracting themes, global costs or even refining searches. Entries are duplicated, with different headings, and many "climate change" entries are falsely labelled, completely unrelated to the subject. Furthermore, details can only be obtained by opening each project file, individually.

Thus, I have been reduced, laboriously, to reviewing those individual files and so far have been through about 200 of over 5,000 files, finding details of 50 projects and research centre funding. Those 50 files yield £16,662,221.52 in grants, including £4.6 million for the Grantham Institute at the LSE. That centre also takes £3 million from Munich Re and £500,000 from Yorkshire Forward. 

The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research is also funded to the tune of £1 million from the ERSC, but we have established that it is actually funded from multipe sources. Between 2000-2008 it was in receipt of £15.8 million. That brings newly identified spending to £40.9 million.

So far, that brings the grand total of the identified spending on UK research establishments and institutions to £498.6 million. To that, we can add a "bonus" of £25 million for a sustainable consumption institute at Manchester University pledged by Tesco. This centre is made up of one professor, five academics, some 20 PhD researchers and up to 30 PhD students. That raises the total to well over the half-billion mark.

But that is only scratching the surface. Given the time this is taking to tease out the details, I am not sure that I will ever get close to the real figure, although there is still a lot of low-hanging fruit to harvest.

However, at least I can add a reliable half-billion pounds to Joanne Nova's $79 billion – plus we know already that the EU Framework 7 programme includes €1.9 billion on direct climate change research. Framework 6 runs to €769 million. If we take all the Annex 1 countries, the sum expended must be well over $100 billion.

That, in terms of equivalent spending, is about five times the cost of the wartime Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb – then the most expensive ever project. It rather puts the current effort in perspective, especially as we seem to have very little to show for it, other than a very large number of academics bought and paid-for by the climate change lobby.

CLIMATE CHANGE – END GAME