Posts Tagged 'Statistics'

If there is no decline to hide…

Then why are scientists truncating data that stretches back much further than their graphs show?  Surely it isn’t because of some inconvenient truth. Is it?

Is there some climate scientist finishing school where the students are taught that if they encounter data that does not support their pre-determined theory they should just erase it from the record?

Lucky UK has a massive 40% of Big Wind!

A Guest post by Martin Brumby

“Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!”
(King Lear Act III)

I’m sure readers here will be aware that Big Wind’s advocates and defenders are weapons grade Porkie-Pie Men. Not even “Climate Scientists” can quite match them for sheer mendacity. A few days ago AM was kind enough to offer me a Guest Posting on Buff Huhne’s claim that we now produce 7% of our electricity from renewables.

Despite having to correct part of this (see comments), there’s nothing wrong with the conclusion that nothing like 7% of our electricity is renewable. More like 2 – 3%, and most of that is on warm, windy nights when we really don’t need it.

Today I thought I’d like to look at another common claim – the suggestion that the UK has 40% of Europe’s wind. I’m not sure that I can finger Buff Huhne or his egregious predecessor little Eddie Milipede with using this, although they may well have done. I’ve certainly heard it from one of the BBC’s Three Stooges. And a bit of searching on the internet throws up multiple instances of the claim:

40% of all the wind energy in Europe blows over the UK, making it an ideal country for small domestic turbines.”

“Did you know 40% of all the wind energy in Europe blows over the UK.?”

“Due to a combination of its latitude (at the boundary of the Ferrel and Polar Cells) and the lack of landmass in the prevailing south-westerly wind direction, the UK is fortunate to have much higher wind speeds than those in continental Europe. Indeed the BWEA has estimated that the UK has some 40% of the Europe’s total wind resource.” [Wot about Ireland? Isn’t that a landmass? M.B.]

“Wind energy has historically been converted into mechanical energy to pump water or grind grain but the principle application today is electricity generation. The UK receives 40% of Europe’s total wind energy but we currently generate only 0.5% of our electricity using wind.”

There’s load of these, all parroted but never with any citation or justification. But what’s this?

Downloading their dismal “Report” [Introduction:- Sir John Houghton, “Former Co-Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” et al, partners and funders including the UEA and Mystic MET – your tax pounds at work] we read:-

“Wind is a vast energy source with an enormous job creation potential. The UK holds 40% of the EU’s total wind resource, but only 4.2% of its total installed capacity (Lambert, 2008).”

Hmmm. “Lambert, 2008” Surely that must be a proper, ‘peer-reviewed’ paper?  Well, not really. It turns out to be a bit of black propaganda by Jean Lambert, Green Party MEP for London.  She says:

“Clearly the UK has huge potential for investment in wind energy, and is the windiest country in Europe, with 40% of the EU’s entire wind resources. The British Wind Energy Association estimates that the UK could be meeting 35% of its electricity needs from wind by 2020.34 With the UK accounting for only 4.2% of the EU’s total installed wind power capacity, it’s hard not to see this as a hugely wasted opportunity and as a damning failure of Government.”

So where does Ms. Lambert get this gem from, the BWEA? Hmmm. That’s like taking advice on patient care from Dr. Harold Shipman. The BWEA is now the Renewable Energy World. And Lambert’s quoted “paper” seems to be this which contains:-

“The UK has 40 percent of Europe’s entire wind resource and with these abundant resources we should be a world leader in renewable energy generation,” said the statement from BWEA. “Although the UK currently trails behind our European partners’ levels of renewable generation, the UK has doubled its wind energy capacity over the past 20 months. The equivalent of 6 percent of the UK’s electricity supply remains held up in the planning system from onshore wind energy projects alone, which means the UK can meet its 2010 targets and set the stage to meet for more ambitious targets to 2020.”

No reference, no citation, no explanation, nothing. Obviously it is just a bold assertion. I give up. Who knows where this “40%” claim comes from? The leprechaun at the bottom of the garden?  And what does it actually mean?   I then turned to this.  This being Technical report No 6/2009 from the European Environment Agency. Your tax-pounds sent to Brussels at work.

Personally, I wouldn’t trust this outfit if they told me that Christmas day will fall on 25th December. And their “technical report” is replete with quotes from Greenpiss, clear evidence of data tortured until it confessed, computer models, the whole works.

First of all, what is meant by “Europe”? (click to enlarge)

That’s interesting. Turkey is in Europe. Iceland isn’t. Neither is Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kosovo, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine & Vatican City. How about Aland, Faroes, Gibraltar, Abkhazia, Transnistria and the rest? Who knows? Are the Azores & Canary Islands in with Portugal and Spain? Can’t be sure but probably not. Anyway, I haven’t found the raw data (or even the tortured data), but there are some charts… (click to enlarge)

Whilst there are some notes about some of the assumptions and ‘adjustments’ made, it all seems pretty unclear.  It isn’t ideal but it isn’t too difficult to scale off the charts, put the measurements into a spreadsheet, convert to TWh and see how much “Unrestricted technical potential” the EEA reckons there is.

They seem to think that this will amount to over 73,000 TWh in 2030, based on their idiosyncratic definitions of “Europe” and “technical potential”. And that the UK’s share of this “bonanza” will amount to around under 13% of this. Deleting Turkey, Switzerland and Norway (to make “Europe” equal to the “EU” reduces the total to 66,000 TWh and boosts our “share” to a stonking 14%. Even if we look only at “offshore” and restrict “Europe” to “the EU”, our share is only 21%.

So, forty percent? Absolutely no chance based on these charts.

Naturally, depending on your definition of “Europe”, the “UK”, and “Wind Energy” I guess you can prove anything you want to, especially if practical considerations (let alone commercial considerations) don’t matter. The fact that I haven’t found a sensible source for the 40% claim doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist somewhere. But this widely quoted Greenie claim looks like the usual dishonest hyperbole. And, in any case 40% of something that is eyewateringly expensive and almost completely useless is still not worth a fart.

Explaining the previous post

Excellent responses to the previous post guys.

I put up that post for a reason, and  just because I was bored.  It was to demonstrate how anyone can pick out some data and present it in a way that makes the point they wish.  But you already know this, so apart from being mischievous what am I really going on about?  Some of you smelled a rat as the emails that landed testify.

The point of the post was to be a lead in to a criticism of  Dr Kevin Trenberth, who is the most visible example of a scientist who guilty of making data look like something it probably isn’t.  Consider this assessment by Luboš Motl of the way Trenberth is using data in a document circulated to the American Meteorological Society (AMS):

So Hansen’s prediction for the 12-year interval is wrong by 0.60 °C. Now, Trenberth tries to downplay this error as a consequence of “short-term natural variability” that should be ignored and that has earned the label “travesty” just because of a typo. The error is obviously too tiny, he says in between the lines – and sometimes explicitly.

But note that this 0.60 °C discrepancy per the 12-year period is as high as the whole 20th century “global warming” that remains the main empirical argument in favor of the “climate disruption”. How is it possible that the change by 0.60 °C per century is a “sign of a looming catastrophe” while the same unexpected change by 0.60 °C – but now per 12 years (a much faster change) – is a tiny error or an effect that may be ignored?

It is on the strength of such selective use of data by Trenberth to to arrive at predictions – that are often used as a baseline by other scientists for their research – that hundreds of billions of pounds are being spent to ‘tackle’ something that is unlikely to be caused by humans, but equally might not be the problem it is framed to be.

If the temperature stalls or declines by a certain figure, it’s short term natural variability.  If it rises by the same amount, it is climate disruption.  Trenberth can’t have it both ways.  It is logical fallacy such as Trenberth’s that call into question the whole AGW narrative.

A boycott of the 2011 Census?

One of the emails received here after the blog post ‘The Rules of the Game Have Changed’ included this suggestion…

One peaceful way in which we could show our resistance to the way we are treated by the politicos is to refuse to co-operate with the 2011 Census.

Of course if only a handful of people fail to supply the required info, they will end up fined or imprisoned. But imagine the amount of egg on the faces of our self-appointed lords-and-masters if a million people refused to co-operate?

I discovered there’s already a small Facebook group dedicated to resistance to the 2011 Census. I’ve “Liked” it, and sent invitations to do the same to all my FB Friends.

There have been a number of excellent comments from readers in recent weeks and it would be good to hear what you think.  So, any thoughts on this idea would be very welcome.

Phil Woolas skewered over immigration statistic denial

Labour Borders and Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas, claimed on yesterday’s Daily Politics show that immigration statistics, showing the increase of foreign born workers was only slightly smaller than the increase in the number of jobs that have been created while Labour has been in office, was an example of double counting and a statistical trick.  He gave an analogy that if 50,000 fans attend an Arsenal match in each of ten games, the number of people watching Arsenal would not be 500,000 because most of those going would have attended each game.

However on the programme today, Stephen Timms – Labour’s Financial Secretary to the Treasury – was forced into accepting that a labour force snapshot of working age individuals as issued by the Office for National Statistics in respose to a request from The Spectator magazine, could not have been double counting at all because it was the equivalent of a snapshot of the attendance at just one game.  Therefore by definition it shows that of 1.7 million jobs created, 1.67 million have indeed been filled by migrant workers.

Labour’s mendacious dishonesty and fraudulent abuse of statistics is finally starting to be recognised for what it is, a concerted attempt to deceive the electorate, hide incompetence and cover up Labour’s deliberate effort to transform the social fabric of this country for political reasons.  One day, two Labour flip flops.  Lord Mandelson will be so pleased…

Immigration is a topic of major importance to voters.  This is the kind of topic the main parties should be forced to talk about, but have tried desperately to avoid referring to in any detail regarding their approach to migration and what they will do to address the wishes of voters to significantly reduce the net influx of migrants.  But despite this story the main parties are only fighting over the numbers.  There is nothing about restoring the UK’s control over its own borders, sacrified as part of the price of being members of the EU.  Thus are we so ill served by the whole political class.  Despite this, they still come begging for our votes.  That takes a special kind of arrogance.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine


Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive