Posts Tagged 'Counter Consensus'

Germany’s rebellion against wind power picks up pace

Reading the propaganda that Greens and wind power fanatics churn out the state of affairs in Germany, one could be forgiven for thinking our Teutonic cousins are experiencing a universal condition of rapture and living in a wind energy utopia.

The reality is, as one finds all too often, very different.  As Dellers explained in his piece in the Mail on Sunday, sudden fluctuations in Germany’s power grid caused by the ebb and flow of wind have led to serious industrial damageand the number of short interruptions in the grid has increased by 29 per cent in the past three years – resulting in some firms on the grid reporting damage running into hundreds of thousands of euros as a result of unexpected stoppages.

In 2006, when wind farms were few and far between, engineers in eastern Germany running coal, gas and nuclear power plants took action to stabilize the grid roughly 80 times a year.  Today, as the amount of electricity generated by the region’s 8,000  wind turbines rises and falls by the hour, engineers have to intervene every second day in order to maintain network stability. The knock on effect cannot be underestimated either as neighbouring Czechs and Poles are so fed up with the instability that they are on the verge of blocking the disruptive wind-produced electricity from their power lines.

These are just some of the technical problems that are conveniently being ignored by Ed Davey and the rest of the coagulation government.  But from Germany, via stories in publications like Spiegel that are ignored in our own patsy press, we also discover that the dash for wind is seeing increasing setting the establishment and big business against ordinary citizens who are declaring enough is enough.

The excessive costs borne by taxpayers and energy customers is becoming a major issue.  The effects on residents who are being physically affected by the consequences of living close to the noise and vibration of the turbines is being increasingly reported and stirring opposition.  And of course the blight of the landscape and the horrific death toll inflicted on insects, birds and bats is also making many former supporters of wind switch to opposing the proliferation of ever bigger and more harmful masts, some in new developments and others replacing existing smaller masts as part of a process of ‘repowering’.

Despite all this, the UK government presses ahead with plans to erect more wind turbines around this country, citing its carefully constructed fictions about the efficiency, cost effectiveness and future benefits of wind farms.  But the tactic of wind advocates of citing Germany as a wind power success story is increasingly failing to stand up to scrutiny as the counter consensus becomes stronger.

Factor in the extortionate costs to energy customers and taxpayers of providing generous incentives to corporates to install CO2 emitting diesel generators as back up for wind via the short term operating reserve (STOR), as we start to see the makings of a dramatic shift away from the renewables fantasy.  What we are seeing in Germany we can soon expect to see here in the UK.  Then things could get interesting.

Prof Freeman Dyson rousts Indy churnalist

Let’s see the Met Office fall over themselves to link to this piece by Steve Connor in the Independent. Or do they only do that when he writes puff pieces for them when they’re under pressure?  They should be pleased because Connor is firmly on message and gives them another mention in this article.

Titled ‘Letters to a heretic: An email conversation with climate change sceptic Professor Freeman Dyson‘, Connor’s piece could just as easily be a piece by Prof Dyson called ‘Responses to a scientific illiterate: An object lesson in biased media and ignorance‘.  For despite being a science editor Connor seems remarkably one dimensional and out of his depth.

The best Connor can summon up is the appeal to authority, and he does so right off the bat in his by-line as he refers to Dyson as one of the few true intellectuals to be so dismissive of the global-warming consensus. From the outset Dyson set out his very high level rationale for AGW scepticism when explained (paragraph bulleted for ease of reading):

  • First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly.
  • Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer.
  • Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past.
  • Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs.
  • Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects.
  • Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it.

But despite this explanation, Connor persists with what Dyson labels as the ‘party line’ focusing on what he sees as narrow technical issues, the premise of which he doesn’t accept.  So Connor, lost for an angle of attack to discredit Dyson, returns to his appeal to authority when he churns out:

So I guess my question would be, what if you are wrong? What if all the other scientists connected with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UK Met Office, NASA, NOAA, the World Meteorological Organisation, and just about every reputable university and institute doing research on climate science, happen to be right? Isn’t it a bit risky for me and the rest of the general public to dismiss this vast canon of climate science as just “fuss” about global warming when all I’ve got to go on is a minority opinion?

This was written despite earlier references in the email exchange to Alfred Wegener (theory of continental drift) with Dyson having already pointed out that there was even a consensus against Wegener among a small group of experts.  Connor clearly cannot square with the notion of a small number of outstanding scientists disagreeing with the pack. When will Connor ever ask himself and readers, what if the consensus he is so desperate to endorse happen to be wrong?  History is littered with examples of consensus opinion and ‘evidence’ being undermined by actualite.

In Dyson’s response to Connor, he reasonably writes the following:

Of course I am not expecting you to agree with me. The most I expect is that you might listen to what I am saying. I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain. On the other hand, the remedies proposed by the experts are enormously costly and damaging, especially to China and other developing countries. On a smaller scale, we have seen great harm done to poor people around the world by the conversion of maize from a food crop to an energy crop. This harm resulted directly from the political alliance between American farmers and global-warming politicians. Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science. If it happens that I am wrong and the climate experts are right, it is still true that the remedies are far worse than the disease that they claim to cure.

Then follows the equivalent of the punch that Ali never gave Foreman…

I wish that The Independent would live up to its name and present a less one-sided view of the issues.

Connor indulges himself with another lengthy dose of pseudo-intellectual nonsense attacking what he believes to have been the varying arguments of the sceptics, before a clearly bored and unimpressed Dyson extracts himself from the exchange with this telling and penetrating summation that should give those who accept at face value all they read in the media pause for thought:

Your last message just repeats the same old party line that we have many good reasons to distrust. You complain that people who are sceptical about the party line do not agree about other things. Why should we agree? The whole point of science is to encourage disagreement and keep an open mind. That is why I blame The Independent for seriously misleading your readers. You give them the party line and discourage them from disagreeing.

With all due respect, I say good-bye and express the hope that you will one day join the sceptics. Scepticism is as important for a good journalist as it is for a good scientist.

Freeman Dyson has shown that Steve Connor is a case study in the modern media phenomenon that investigative journalist Nick Davies has apparently labelled ‘churnalism’ – which is when journalists are ‘reduced to passive processors of whatever material comes their way’ (referenced earlier by Ockham’s Razor).  In other words we don’t have journalists rather we have churnalists, mere cut and paste merchants who spew out press releases as news without any attempt at critical examination and questioning of the content.

It is another example of why we cannot trust the modern news media and how the public is ill served by these over rated churnos.

Is the Met Office becoming irrelevant?

A strange question perhaps, considering the considerable political influence the Met Office has within political circles when it comes to energy and climate policy.  But certainly one worth asking following a comment by Northern Ireland’s Regional Development Minister last month.

On the topic of burst water pipes and the seve supply problems affecting thousands of people in Northern Ireland over the Christmas period, the Belfast Telegraph reported on 19th January:

Forecasts of another seven years of the extreme winter that triggered the burst pipes crisis in Northern Ireland may force changes to how water is plumbed into homes, the regional development minister has warned.

Conor Murphy, facing questions from his Stormont scrutiny committee on the Christmas emergency, said some meteorologists believed the region had entered a weather cycle that would see successive deep freezes.

In the face of that, Mr Murphy said the Executive may have to look at changing building regulations to ensure that water pipes are buried deeper and insulated better.

What makes the comment interesting is this response to a Freedom of Information request submitted by Autonomous Mind (using an alias), enquiring which Meterologists provided this advice and requesting a copy of the advice that was provided to the Minister enabling him to make his assertion.

The response from the NI Department for Regional Development (click to enlarge) is telling:

This shows that for all his multitude of failings, Conor Murphy is listening to what meteorologists other than the Met Office are saying about changes to our weather that contradict the Met Office line of ever increasing warming. Not only that, they are using what they have listened to in official evidence to government committees.

A very small example maybe, but marginalising the Met Office in this way – intentionally or otherwise – represents a visible crack in the climate consensus that has consistently told us mankind is changing the climate, making the world warmer and the result will be warmer and wetter winters.  The structures are weakening.

It’s not just the BBC

Another national broadcaster also willfully ignores the evidence, as we learn from Jennifer Marohasy.  This time it is ABC in Australia which is exhibiting unadulterated bias to further an agenda in its reporting on the devastating floods in Queensland.

But let’s remind ourselves anyway of the information and viewpoints about climate change the BBC refuses to give air time to…

It seems wherever you go in this world the mainstream media is determined to set aside impartial reporting of the facts and promotion of debate between two opposing views, and instead they appoint themselves judges of the truth and decide what we, the public, should be allowed to see and hear.

This state of affairs increases the value and importance of blogs in the developing information war.  Without dedicated bloggers around the world providing counter arguments with the oxygen of awareness; and revealing the vested interests of those whose opinions are broadcast and published as fact by a supportive media machine, how else will the public have any idea of the other side of any story?

Climate change and media dishonesty

A fully paid up member of the climate alarmist society, Germany’s Spiegel has published a piece that tells readers ‘The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere keeps going up and up, but public interest in climate change is sinking. Environmentalists are trying to come up with new ways to make the issue sexy.’

The problem for the ‘environmentalists’ is that the more people have learned about climate change and its supposed causes and effects, the more they have smelled a rat and seen that the claims have not matched the reality. Many people are smart enough to spot a scam when they see one. Those who allow themselves to be taken in tend to be those who desperately want to believe and ignore any evidence that runs contrary to their faith.

It is not just the deceit and dishonesty revealed by the leak of information that became known as Climategate that has seen global warming / climate change / global climatic disruption* (delete as appropriate) drop off the radar. It is the fact that blogs and social media are giving scientists who disagree with the AGW mantra a platform to explain why the alarmist claims do not add up. Perhaps that is why in their desperation the alarmists/warmists are becoming more open about their efforts to shut down the debate they previously claimed was over, and brainwash people with spin through the media. As the Spiegel piece makes clear:

A new kind of journalism: Climate activists have begun directing millions in funding into training programs for environmental journalists, with the goal of encouraging what’s known as “advocacy journalism.” This type of reporting is “pretty much dead in Europe,” says Markus Lehmkuhl, a media expert at Berlin’s Free University. British science journalist Alexander Kirby warns that journalists who remain neutral on the issue could endanger the cause of climate protection, but many of his colleagues refuse to take sides. The Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung, for example, fears that the line between science journalism and advertising could become blurred. Owen Gaffney, director of communications at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, advises that, rather than leaving reporting about climate change to the media, scientists should establish their own media outlets, preferably online. “We have more credibility than journalists and we need to take advantage of that,” Gaffney says.

This is clear confirmation of the huge financial resources that have been devoted to the alarmist cause and acceptance that shameful bias has been the order of things unofficially for some time. Just look at the vexatious BBC-Guardian axis, the New York Times, Spiegel itself and almost all African media and you will see naked bias through the omission of opposing views and the absence of any kind of challenge of the hypothesis. Big money and vested interests are trying to perpetuate a fraud using public money and resources.

While this is not news to anyone who has watched the climate change debate over the years, this unheralded transparency is valuable in that it proves to people the media is not in any way impartial or even handed. It is a propaganda tool that is trying to push an agenda on people while desperately trying to keep them in ignorance of the significant counter arguments. The truth is the media cannot and should not be trusted.

The Guardian asks the big question…

Are humans definitely causing global warming? No, really, The Guardian’s environment section asks this as part of the Guardian’s ‘ultimate climate change FAQ’.

It’s a bit like watching volleyball. The Guardian knows what answer it wants to give, so it cherry picks the bits of information that fit its narrative (the ‘set’) and then delivers a supposedly unequivocal answer (the ‘spike’). As it’s not a particularly long piece it seems an appropriate time for a fisk…

Just as the world’s most respected scientific bodies have confirmed that world is getting hotter, they have also stated that there is strong evidence that humans are driving the warming.

Wow! Impressive! That would be respected bodies like the utterly discredited International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), NASA’s GISS, University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and the UK’s Met Office. Strange, there is no mention of Climategate, Amazongate, Glaciergate, the number of times GISS has been forced to ‘adjust’ its data, the fact CRU cannot find its vital raw data and that the Met Office’s forecasts are a standing joke.

The 2005 joint statement from the national academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US said:

“It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.”

Likely, they say. So that means there is uncertainty and therefore a lack of proof. And then it says ‘most’ of the warming. So nature is actually up to something that mankind has no control over? Incredible.

Countless more recent statements and reports from the world’s leading scientific bodies have said the same thing. For example, a 2010 summary of climate science by the Royal Society stated that:

“There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.”

Ah yes, that would be the Royal Society that had to rewrite its position on climate change because it was accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause. Strange, there is no mention of that. Could it be the fundamentally dishonest Guardian is trying to hide something? So if there is such ‘strong evidence’, where it is? Is it perhaps that the ‘evidence’ is nothing more than correlation and there is nothing to prove causation? Leave it to The Guardian and we will never know.

The idea that humans could change the planet’s climate may be counter-intuitive, but the basic science is well understood. Each year, human activity causes billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere. As scientists have known for decades, these gases capture heat that would otherwise escape to space – the equivalent of wrapping the planet in an invisible blanket.

The basic science is indeed well understood. You erase from history any mention of periods when the earth was warmer than now, you collect temperature data from monitoring stations at locations where they get blasted with warm air from vents or aircraft engines and ignore unreliable temperature records they produce, you produce a disturbing graph that looks like a hockey stick but don’t tell anyone that any data produces the same curve, you sample the cores of a number of trees and discount the overwhelming majority that show there has been barely any change in temperature, then you apply adjustments to the data so instead of a broadly flat line you end up with a steeply rising one that becomes your ‘strong evidence’. And while we’re at it, let’s take a closer look at that ‘invisible blanket’ shall we?

Of course, the planet’s climate has always been in flux thanks to “natural” factors such as changes in solar or volcanic activity, or cycles relating the Earth’s orbit around the sun. According to the scientific literature, however, the warming recorded to date matches the pattern of warming we would expect from a build up of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere – not the warming we would expect from other possible causes.

Of course, this only works if one ignores all the other literature produced by scientists who state the greenhouse gas effect is dramatically overstated. Strange, there’s no mention of that counter consensus of scientists (as opposed to railway engineers and economists) whose research finds that greenhouse gas (they mean CO2 when they use the terms because water vapour never gets a mention, despite being by far the most volumous greenhouse gas – perhaps measuring and taxing water vapour emissions is too difficult) has nothing like the claimed impact on temperature and therefore casts huge doubt over man’s supposed influence on the climate.

Even if scientists did discover another plausible explanation for the warming observed to date, that would beg a difficult question. As Robert Henson puts it in The Rough Guide to Climate Change:

“If some newly discovered factor can account for the climate change then why aren’t carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases producing the warming that basic physics tells us they should be?”

And carbon dioxide, the currency of the new world order, finally gets its first mention. Why did that take so long? Well, it was only a matter of time before a strawman was built in order to be knocked over and it had to be about the disputed influence of CO2. The climate is far more complex than some grant-chasing scientists are willing to admit and if greenhouse gases played anything more than a bit part in nature’s regulation of the planet’s atmosphere and ecology we would have all long since fried. Basic physics according a number of scientists The Guardian says, but exaggerated cant according to plenty of other scientists. And so we come to the end…

The only way to prove with 100% certainty that humans are responsible for global warming would be to run an experiment with two identical Earths – one with human influence and one without. That obviously isn’t possible, and so most scientists are careful not to state human influence as an absolute certainty. Nonetheless, the evidence is now extremely strong.

This is cute. Despite telling us for years that the ‘debate is over’ and that the ‘science is settled’ the flaws and failings in the global warming/climate change narrative – combined with nature’s stubborn refusal to perform as computer models say she should – have forced the warmists to adjust their arguments, much like they adjust the temperature records.

The basic lie here – and let’s face it, The Guardian is a world leader when it comes to lies – is the claim that most scientists are careful not to state human influence as an absolute certainty. This is not true if you look at those scientists who sing the warmist creed. Hansen, Jones, Trenberth, Mann, Briffa, all describe human influence on climate as ‘incontrovertible’. These are the high priests of the warmist cult whose flawed / missing / adjusted / corrected / selective ‘research findings’ are treated as a baseline from which other research begins – therefore meaning the outcome will always point to human induced warming.

Again, in a piece that links off to various other material, there is nothing pointing us to this ‘strong evidence’. We are just expected to accept it as a truth. We are expected to ‘believe’ because that is what the ‘believers’ need us to do, regardless of the reality and the facts.

Oh the delicious irony

Another entry in the occasional series entitled ‘Oh piss off’ for you to savour, which unsurprisingly comes from the Barclay Brother Beano. ‘Dutch daredevil Wim Hof has immersed himself in ice water during a performance to raise awareness of climate change and to promote his plans to break a world record.’

Raise awareness of climate change? Hahahaha. The timing of this stupidity could not be more ironic given the recent freezing temperatures across large parts of the world. As the Beano tells us alongside its ‘Telegraph TV’ coverage of the ‘stunt’:

The 51-year-old Dutchman, known as the Iceman for his ability to withstand extreme coldness, submerged himself in a tank of ice water in Hong Kong for about five minutes wearing only a swimsuit.

Seems like he is best prepared for the next 30 or so years in the emerging cooling cycle then. Instead of flying to Hong Kong with all those attendant evil CO2 emissions, Hof could have just submerged himself in the Lagan in Belfast, or any number of Scottish or Welsh rivers. But perhaps those temperatures were a little too cold for him. Hof explained:

When I am performing ice immersion, actually I do not think very much.

No, and he clearly doesn’t think very much if he accepts the discredited narrative of man made global warming / climate change / global climatic disruption, or whatever the warmists come up with next as a catch-all name for nature’s behaviour. Perhaps though, the unwitting Hof’s words are somewhat prophetic, as he went on to say that:

It’s like preparing yourself inside for what is to come.

Longer colder winters, more snow and ice, destroyed food crops, elderly and sick people dying from the cold as they are unable to afford the spiralling cost of heating their homes. Yes, it sounds like Hof’s icebath preparation is something we should all be considering and is the kind of awareness people need right now. Useful idiots such as this undermine the warmist creed and long may they continue to do so.

The sleeping Fox catches no poultry

So it’s just as well that when it comes to the media coverage of climate change matters one Fox is wide awake. The problem is the warmists don’t like their sacred goose being cooked quite so openly.

The furore concerns Fox News, which has emailed its editorial staff insisting that they show balance when reporting on global warming matters. This has resulted in, as Alex Singleton puts it, ‘fury from The Guardian, the Huffington Post and other intellectually lazy media outlets’.  The email is reproduced in part below:

From: Sammon, Bill
Sent: Tue Dec 08 12:49:51 2009
Subject: Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data…

…we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

Spot on. Excellent journalism. How ironic that Fox News, which is routinely mocked for claiming to be fair and balanced, is being pilloried for being just that when reporting about climate change and actually doing what public service broadcasters like the BBC should do as a matter of course.

I hold no brief for Fox News, but Fox are factually correct in what they are saying. And while it might infuriate Al Gore, George Monbiot and other propagandists, it is only proper that viewers understand there is a significant counter argument and that the assertions from the warmists are only theories. One can’t imagine why other media outlets are trying to hide this fact…

Climate Change ‘Counter Consensus’ strengthens further

There is an absolutely must read posting on ClimateDepot:

More than 1000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 320page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from 2007’s groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit being held in Cancun.

The debate was supposed to be over. But increasingly there are scientists, having always seen flaws in the science and felt unease about the hyperbole and sensationalism stirred up by a small hard core cadre of man made global warming believers, who are willing to raise their head above the parapet and counter the climate change consensus on the basis of the science. You can read the whole post, see a selection of powerful quotes from scientists and access the link to the report on ClimateDepot.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: