Earth Hour

[pjclarke]

Well, thanks for the non-ranting reply, I note that in non-rant mode 'forced to sell their surplus electricity from the wind farms to other countries for free ... ' morphed into 'sold below spot price', and the supporting link has

'We do not know the price paid for the exported energy' and 'even if we accept that this share of the wind energy was sold abroad, the
commercial value was just slightly lower than the spot price..'

But enough quote-mining, the points still emit an odour of straw; wind forms only part of the renewable portfolio, which itself has a target of just 20% of total production in the foreseeable. The costs of intermittant generation were examined in a comprehensive 2006 study by UK Energy Research Council and found to be low (about 1% addition to bills). In the longer term the Desertec project and Europoean HVDC super-grid will link Concentrated Solar in the North African desert, with hydro from Scandanavia, wind from Northern europe and so on, reducing intermittency costs further - it's always windy somewhere. Of course this is a huge technological challenge, but no doubt there were people saying exactly the same thing when it was proposed to suck oil and gas out of undersea deposits by way of massive fixed and floating drilling platforms ...

Despite being published by the Times, the piece on subsidies is by Jonathon Leake, who is unreliable. He already has one PCC complaint by a leading scientists against him for misrepresentation, and the renewables industry is considering another.

The concensus page is indeed just a web page written by a bloke, however it contains links to position statements from every relevant scientific body. I could have listed them, but no doubt that would have been 'boring as f'. The largest body that represents climate scientists is the American Geophysical Union, here is the start of theirs ...

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century

Something to ponder while one is going around switching on all the electrical devices one can find, for laughs....

[shaunbhoy]

The concensus page is indeed just a web page written by a bloke, however it contains links to position statements from every Pro AGW vested interest and Lobby Group

FTFY

Flawed inconclusive "science" produced by "experts" whose whole existence is reliant upon continued taxpayer sponsorship. When they stop burying statistics that don't fit their agenda I might start looking seriously at some of their claims. Until then I shall award them the same levels of respect that I grant faith healers and God Botherers.

[pjclarke]

... every Pro AGW vested interest and Lobby Group ... whose whole existence is reliant upon continued taxpayer sponsorship.

Like these guys, you mean?

Climate change poses global social, environmental and economic risks and demands a transformational change in how we manage our economy. Incremental change will not do. We have addressed this letter to the leaders of all political parties with representation in the Houses of Parliament with a view to encouraging a new cross-party political consensus on the scale andspeed of change required, and a constructive political debate on how this can be delivered. We recognise that international action is needed to tackle this global problem. In recent years the UK has offered credible and effective global leadership in the international debate. For this to continue, however, Government and business must now work together to demonstrate real change on the ground by delivering the new projects and practices that are needed to create a low climate risk economy. It is by setting such an example that other countries can be expected to take this path ....

1. Bart Becht, Chief Executive Officer, Reckitt Benckiser
2. Neil Carson, Chief Executive, Johnson Matthey
3. Ian Cheshire, Chief Executive, B&Q
4. Mike Clasper, Chief Executive, BAA
5. Jonson Cox, Chief Executive, Anglian Water Group
6. Mervyn Davies, Group Chief Executive, Standard Chartered Bank
7. Alain Grisay, Chief Executive, F&C Asset Management
8. Sir Stuart Hampson, Executive Chairman, John Lewis Partnership
9. Sir Julian Horn-Smith, Deputy Chief Executive, Vodafone Group
10. Gavin Neath, National Manager, Unilever U.K.
11. Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Company Secretary and Group Corporate and Legal Affairs Director, Tesco
12. Trudy Norris-Grey, Managing Director UK & Ireland, Sun Microsystems
13. Hugh Scott-Barrett, Chief Financial Officer, ABN Amro
14. James Smith, Chairman, Shell U.K. Limited

Not a lot of taxpayer sponsorship going on there....

or you could read this recent leader from that hotbed of State Socialism, the Economist ...

When they stop burying statistics that don't fit their agenda I might start looking seriously at some of their claims.

Fair enough, I'll take yours seriously when you provide one single valid example of such a practice...

[Flashman]

Lots and lots of corporate interest in Climate change now.

Could it have anything to do with massive government contracts in the pipeline?

[shaunbhoy]

Lots and lots of corporate interest in Climate change now.

Could it have anything to do with massive government contracts in the pipeline?

WHS+++

It has EVERYTHING to do with Government Contracts and State sponsorship, tacit or otherwise. If these companies really believed in manmade Climate Change they would just get on and make changes to how they operate independently to mitigate the consequences. They don't.
As has been said before, when some of these pro-AGW groups own up to burying data and trying to keep unfavourable results hidden via streams of cynical emails, then the public at large have a duty to take them seriously. Until that point they can still be considered to be self-serving charlatans.

[pjclarke]

If these companies really believed in manmade Climate Change they would just get on and make changes to how they operate independently to mitigate the consequences. They don't.

Some do. Here are three 'household name' examples that falsify that hypothesis

HSBC - Went carbon neutral in 2005, pledged $100 million in education and mitigation

Marks and Spencer - carbon neutral by 2012

Tesco - Reduced energy use by 50%

Still waiting for that single example of a climate scientist manipulating, fudging or concealing inconvenient data .....

[shaunbhoy]

Still waiting for that single example of a climate scientist manipulating, fudging or concealing inconvenient data .....

Try googling "Phil Jones" + "emails" + "University of East Anglia" then read 'em and weep.

HTH

[pjclarke]

Well, I Googled and I found this, in Nature

Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.
...A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories.

Which is one reason why I wanted a specific example not a Google instruction. There were over a thousand emails hacked out of CRU. Do you expect me just to guess which one you had in mind? I surely haven't read them all.

I fail to see why this seems so hard - an opinion has been formed, I am just interested in seeing the basis for it. I surely haven't read all the hacked material so maybe there is the proverbial 'smoking gun' in there somewhere....

[shaunbhoy]

If nothing in the emails undermines the case then why go to such lengths to hide them?
I smell a huge rat............maybe I am just more cynical than others. Actually, there is no "maybe" about it. I am. Doesn't make me wrong though. I don't have to convince THEM, they have to convince me........and thus far there are way too many anomalys for my liking.
I have no doubt that man's actions are probably not helping matters, and that we ought to be looking at cleaner alternatives simply from the point of view that the fossil fuels we are currently reliant upon are a finite and dwindling resource. However, I have yet to be convinced that we deserve the Lion's share of the blame when so much of the data being presented is routinely shown to be vague if not downright flawed.
Politically it is all a bit too convenient to claim a concensus, and when the solutions suggested by Governments do not actually look to force changes in habit, but simply to increase taxation levels, my suspicions are further aroused.

[pjclarke]

If nothing in the emails undermines the case then why go to such lengths to hide them?

These were personal and professional communications, no more or less 'hidden' than similar private communications in any similar organisation and never intended for publication. Remember that this material was most likely stolen, and what was released was a selection. In other words you are reading what a criminal wants you to read. Some of it does not read well, I concede, but see here for a description of the pressure being applied by an orchestrated campaign of vexatious FOI requests, arriving at the rate of 14 a day at one point. Small wonder scientists occasionally used some intemperate and hyperbolic language, in what they had every right to assume were private mails.

BTW Here are some of those requests. Every one has to be responded to within 20 working days. Click

Can we see your inbox please ?