Energygate: James Delingpole and The Tory plot against renewable energy in the UK?

This will be worth watching, Greenpeace reports:

Our undercover investigation has revealed a militant group of Conservative MPs trying to strangle investment in clean, renewable energy. 

Right now plans are being drawn up that could see dozens of new dirty gas power stations built in the UK. If their plans go ahead, it risks decades of carbon emissions and losing thousands of new green jobs. 

Our investigation shows how leading Tories have launched an attack on the Climate Change Act, saying they have the blessing of George Osborne. We also reveal that David Cameron’s campaign manager for the Corby by-election was secretly behind the campaign of a rival candidate who ran against the Conservatives on an anti-clean energy platform.

Watch the video:

Climate change denier James Delingpole seems to be in the thick of it, working with the Tories behind the scenes to stop the development of wind farms and subvert democracy.

This is big.

Really big.

Watch this space.

About these ads

214 thoughts on “Energygate: James Delingpole and The Tory plot against renewable energy in the UK?

  1. Rich says:

    James Dellingpole came to Australia with his extremist talk. The Australian was willing to publish him but got a rap over the knuckles for it. See here:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/press-council-adjudication/story-e6frg6nf-1226540387906

    • Eric Worrall says:

      You might think this grim Sovietisation of the press is a good thing now, but what will you do when Abbott wins the next election, and has to choose between abolishing it, or stuffing it with his mates?

    • john byatt says:

      Rap over the knuckles but cleared, must be a conspiracy by the socialists?

  2. john byatt says:

    If you wish to know the consensus position of the science read AR5, if you wish to know the consensus position of AR6 read Hansen.

    .

  3. john byatt says:

    Please Read the comments eric it is 2% dimmer over past 450Ma, not 70Million
    Watts has a post that is in full agreement with the brightening,

    your maths is irrelevant, you are just producing a stawman that the science only relates to changes in CO2 levels to explain Faint Sun Paradox, Mike has put up two links for you to read, but you will not, childish stamping of your feet to maintain your ignorance .

    Here is one of Mikes links abstract

    Environmental niches in which life first emerged and later evolved on the Earth have undergone dramatic changes in response to evolving tectonic/geochemical cycles and to biologic interventions1, 2, 3, as well as increases in the Sun’s luminosity of about 25 to 30 per cent over the Earth’s history4. It has been inferred that the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 and/or CH4 compensated for the lower solar luminosity and dictated an Archaean climate in which liquid water was stable in the hydrosphere5, 6, 7, 8. Here we demonstrate, however, that the mineralogy of Archaean sediments, particularly the ubiquitous presence of mixed-valence Fe(II–III) oxides (magnetite) in banded iron formations9 is inconsistent with such high concentrations of greenhouse gases and the metabolic constraints of extant methanogens. Prompted by this, and the absence of geologic evidence for very high greenhouse-gas concentrations10, 11, 12, 13, we hypothesize that a lower albedo on the Earth, owing to considerably less continental area and to the lack of biologically induced cloud condensation nuclei14, made an important contribution to moderating surface temperature in the Archaean eon. Our model calculations suggest that the lower albedo of the early Earth provided environmental conditions above the freezing point of water, thus alleviating the need for extreme greenhouse-gas concentrations to satisfy the faint early Sun paradox.

    • john byatt says:

      brighter of course not dimmer

      • Eric Worrall says:

        2% over 400 million years is wrong, but using that figure makes my calculation even more interesting.

        CO2 levels today: ~400ppm.

        If 2% equates to a single doubling of CO2:

        CO2 level required to achieve parity with today’s climate: 400ppm x 2 = 800ppm.

        Actual CO2 level 400m years ago: ~4000ppm.

        CO2 levels which would be required to achieve a similar climate today (using your assumption):
        4000ppm / 2 = 2000ppm

        Therefore, since the world’s climate was stable at 4000ppm for millions of years (equivalent to 2000ppm today), Hansenkan runaway global warming cannot be a risk until we increase current CO2 levels at least 5x above today’s levels.

      • john byatt says:

        That you fail logic101, is obvious but I reckon my dining room table would understand this better than you

  4. john byatt says:

    The sun is brighter now than it was during past periods with very high greenhouse gas concentrations. The 2% additional brightness corresponds to a forcing of about 4 watts per square metre and is akin to a doubling of CO2 concentrations.
    For various reasons, the greenhouse gas concentrations in past hot periods may not have been as high as we thought.
    We are introducing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere far more quickly than natural processes ever did. This might cause fast (positive) feedback effects to manifest themselves forcefully, before slower (negative) feedback effects can get going.
    He also explains that the sharp warming that took place during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) were not caused by fossil fuels (which remained underground), but rather by the release of methane from permafrost and clathrates. If human emissions warm the planet enough to release that methane again, it could add a PETM-level warming on top of the warming caused by human beings.

    Hansen’s conclusions are, frankly, terrifying:

    • Eric Worrall says:

      You’re running smack into the faint sun paradox with that one.

      If the sun increases in intensity 20% per billion years, and CO2 levels were at most 4000ppm or so over the last billion years, and 2% solar output change corresponds to a doubling of CO2, then most of the last billion years should have been very cold – only the last 100 million years should have been warm.

      I wonder what could be wrong with your calculation?

      As for Hansen’s conclusions being terrifying, absolutely – they are terrifying. But luckily Hansen is a nutcase – a jailbird who has gotten himself arrested several times for his fanatical views. No more worth listening to than they wild eyed guy with the sandwich board demanding you repent your sins.

      • john byatt says:

        john byatt says:
        December 2, 2012 at 11:03 pm
        Eric you have only come up against your own ignorance

        Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn’t occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

        In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions

        this is 450 million years ago .

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Wrong. Do the math.

          If a 2% change in solar output equates to a doubling of CO2 (your proposition), and solar output increases by 2% every hundred million years, then to maintain parity with today’s climate:-

          current = 400ppm
          100Ma = 800ppm
          200Ma = 1600ppm
          300Ma = 3200ppm
          400Ma = 6400ppm
          500Ma = 12800ppm
          600Ma = 25600ppm
          etc.

          The prediction of your theory would be everything prior to 400Ma or so would have been locked in a brutal permanent ice age. CO2 levels were high, but not that high.

          That is what I mean by your proposition running into the faint sun paradox.

      • john byatt says:

        eric you are talking nonsense the change in brightness over the past 450 million years is 2% which equates to a doubling of CO2 (warming) Hansen did not make this up. it is fact

        where is the nonsense distortion (watts) of course link?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Make up your mind John.

          You’re suggesting that during the Cretaceous, which ended around 70 million years ago, when CO2 levels were around 1200ppm+, the sun was “a few percent” dimmer.

          Personally I think 2 percent per 100 million years is a bit high – more like 1% – but I used your figures to show that your proposition was nonsense.

          So what can we conclude?

          Even with your number (a few percent / less than 100 million years = 1 doubling of CO2), the equivalent CO2 to produce today’s climate would have been double today’s CO2 level, around 800ppm.

          But CO2 levels in the Cretaceous were around 1200ppm+

          So we can safely conclude from this calculation that we can add at least another 50% to current atmospheric CO2 levels without triggering runaway warming – unless you want to tweak the numbers again?

      • john byatt says:

        Read the strawman WUWT faint young sun paradox in which he claims that the science only relates it changes in CO2, but as for your nonsense

        this is part of the paper that WUWT refernces,

        “Researchers have long wondered why water on Earth was not frozen during the early days of the planet, when the sun emanated only 70 to 75 percent as much energy as it does today. Some theorize that high levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the same mechanism cited in global warming today, were key. But new research involving Stanford scientists has a different explanation: The oceans, much larger than today, absorbed enough heat from the sun to avoid turning into ice.”

        So even WUWT acknowledges increased brightness today, this is confirmation of Hansen but you are to dumb to even see it.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nonsense. Hansen is a nutcase who has been arrested at least twice for his cause.

          And I have shown that, even by your own figures, your proposition is nonsense – unless you care to find the mistake in my math?

  5. zoot says:

    He just refuses to address the issues which he hasn’t read about at the Church of Watts, Coddling Central or other reality challenged sites. The truth is neither he nor his copy and paste sources have any scientific basis to their prattlings. Off with fairies, all of them.

    He demands falsifiable hypotheses from the science based commenters yet offers no falsifiable hypothesis explaining why global warming started in 1920, stopped in 1940, restarted again in 1980 and then stopped completely in 1997 (you there – stop laughing, he’s serious). Such is life in the faith based denialosphere.

    He’s serious. You there – stop laughing.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      You’re repeating yourself – didn’t get more interesting the second time.

      • zoot says:

        Q.E.D.
        After more than six hours Eric couldn’t find an answer on the true believer sites he frequents, so he refuses to tackle the issue at hand.
        His delusional belief that global warming stops and starts, somewhat like a cranky T-model Ford, has no basis in the real world so he just waves his hands and prepares to repeat his bush*t again in the hope that no-one will notice.
        He is this blog’s equivalent of the wild eyed religious nutter carrying the sign warning of the end of the world as we know it. Avoid making eye contact with him!

      • john byatt says:

        Untill you work out that it is 2008, now read 2011 released july 2012

      • zoot says:

        Notice how Eric keeps avoiding the question.

      • zoot says:

        Stuck as he is in the superstitious nonsense of global warming denialism, he is completely unable to offer a falsifiable hypothesis explaining why global warming started in 1920, stopped in 1940, restarted again in 1980 and then stopped completely in 1997.
        Such is life in the faith based denialosphere.

      • john byatt says:

        svensmark has been rebutted numerous times.

        Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997) [Abs, Full]
        Laut (2003) [Abs, Full]
        [BLOG] AGW Observer
        Svensmark (1998) [Abs, Full]
        Laut (2003) [Abs, Full]
        Svensmark et al. (2009) [Abs, Full]
        Kulmala et al. (2009) [Abs, Full]
        Laken et al. (2009) [Abs]
        Calogovic et al. (2010)
        [BLOG] The Way Things Break

      • zoot says:

        Notice how Eric ignores the fact that there is no scientific basis to his child like faith that global warming stops and starts without any reason. He just keeps asserting that it does, offering no falsifiable hypothesis at all.
        He probably believes in the tooth fairy as well.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          15 years and counting zoot. According to NOAA 2008, which I have posted several times on this site, this means a 95% probability that observations have deviated from alarmist models. I know it must be difficult for you to deal with your denial, but you will feel better for it in the long run.

      • zoot says:

        I would also draw to your attention Eric’s insistence that modelling somehow defines climate science. All the indicators of a heating planet must be ignored, because Eric has a belief which is unshakeable. A belief he will not allow anyone to challenge with mere science. Of course he is quite happy to demand falsifiable hypotheses from others, even though he wouldn’t know one if it stood up and bit him on his faith based arse.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          My falsifiable hypothesis is that alarmist theory is wrong.

          So far, 15 years without warming. Given a rise in CO2 of around 10%, global temperatures should have risen by at least 0.3c since 1997. They didn’t – the rise (if any) is less than 0.1c.

          According to the NOAA alarmists (writing in 2008), we are already in a situation which they declared represents a 95% probability of deviation between models and observations.

          In 15 years from now, if CO2 continues to rise at 10% every 15 years, global temperatures should be at least 0.6c above 1997 levels. I say here and now, this will not happen – because the solar cycle, which I believe to be the real driver of short to medium term climate change, is on the way down.

          How long do we have to wait, for you guys to throw in the towel? 15 years? 20 years? You tell me.

      • zoot says:

        Here we have another example of Eric’s science by assertion. No evidence, no explanation of why warming stopped, just the repeated (ad nauseum) statement that it has.
        A classic case of belief defining reality. But we already knew that, didn’t we?
        Class dismissed.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          There has been no significant warming since 1997. Fact. Even the MET office admits it.

          http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

          The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

          In that sense, global warming has stalled since 1997.

          You can argue all you like about global warming “continuing”, but I have also presented evidence that in 2008, NOAA scientists thought 15 years with no warming would represent a 95% probability of a divergence between model predictions and observations.

          So I am on pretty firm ground when I suggest global warming “stopped” in 1997.

      • john byatt says:

        Go away,

        Stefan Rahmstorf1, Grant Foster2 and Anny Cazenave3

        Abstract

        We analyse global temperature and sea-level data for the past few decades and compare them to projections published in the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The results show that global temperature continues to increase in good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC, especially if we account for the effects of short-term variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, volcanic activity and solar variability. The rate of sea-level rise of the past few decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea-level projections for the future may also be biased low.

  6. zoot says:

    See what I mean? Eric ignored entirely

    He demands falsifiable hypotheses from the science based commenters yet offers no falsifiable hypothesis explaining why global warming started in 1920, stopped in 1940, restarted again in 1980 and then stopped completely in 1997 (you there – stop laughing, he’s serious). Such is life in the faith based denialosphere.

    You there, stop laughing – he’s serious.

    • eworrall1 says:

      Stop mocking your climate heroes at NOAA zoot. In their own words, there is a 95% probability of discrepancy between models and observations, thanks to our 15 year temperature flatline.

  7. zoot says:

    Folks, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by feeding Eric Worrall’s bizarre need to display his ignorance, arrogance and hubris. You can’t convince him, his faith is unshakeable.
    For instance, he knows (“fact!”) that global warming stopped in 1997. He has not one scintilla of evidence to support this belief, it is entirely faith based.
    He demands falsifiable hypotheses from the science based commenters yet offers no falsifiable hypothesis explaining why global warming started in 1920, stopped in 1940, restarted again in 1980 and then stopped completely in 1997 (you there – stop laughing, he’s serious). Such is life in the faith based denialosphere.

    I feel sorry for his daughter; she’ll have to live with the results of his superstition.

  8. john byatt says:

    “. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! Cheers Phil”

    yer right no, one can redefine the peer review literater. what he is basically showing is his anger that crap was going to be included in IPCC,

    guess what ? they were included in the IPCC,

    when you see the scientists doing their knogs over each others work then we know that there is no so called cabal, they argue the toss and in the end the science that survives peer review and then later citation becomes the one to falsify, only the best survive and build on our understanding,

    • Eric Worrall says:

      All that proves is Phil Jones is not omnipotent.

      But we’re just getting started. Here’s a good one – Mike & Phil’s approach to open sharing of method and data, the keystone of scientific peer review.

      http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1107454306.txt

      Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK,I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

      Clearly they were worried about outsiders finding how how many dodgy shortcuts they had taken to produce their results, and were discussing strategies for preventing “deniers” from exposing them.

      It also makes a mockery of the CRU claim that they were attacked by nuisance FOIA requests – clearly they went to great lengths to prevent people they didn’t like from research material which had been paid for by the public. M&M clearly went to every reasonable length to obtain this data, and were met with an active campaign of denial of access, before they finally resorted to FOIA requests.

      • I have gigabytes of data from my research Eric. Would you like to access it? Too bad if you do. I own the IP on it. My research, my data. I also own code that I developed to analyse some of my data. Want that? It’s yours. I’ll sell it to you for $50000 per byte. You can FOIit until the cows come home. If someone told me I had to hand over my intellectual property I’d delete it too.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Yes but noone cares about your research Uki.

          The CRU researchers were expecting the world to make far reaching changes based just on their word for it – they actively fought attempts by outsiders to review their findings.

        • What is my research Eric?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I don’t actually care – something biological from memory. But if I helped to pay for it, your attitude to providing outsiders who are interested with access is disappointing to say the least.

          You shouldn’t own what I paid for.

        • You said noone cares about my research but you don’t even know what it is. You don’t care about my research but don’t really have any information to base that on other than some personal opinion which can only be informed by ignorance, prejudice or both. You might be surprised to learn Eric that some of my research has contributed to reduced losses due to plant disease in a particular farming industry in Queensland of close to 30%. I’m extremely confident that the industry that funded my research cares a great deal about my research. That was a few years ago now. As for my current research, I’m extremely confident that the improved accuracy in estimating populations of invasive species is of great interest to landholders, national parks managers and other researchers. It is envisioned that management decisions that will be based on my research is likely to save the taxpayer and private landholders a great deal of money.

          But I must be wrong because you are clearly the self appointed spokesperson for everybody. Perhaps you believe that because you feel a certain way, that everyone must feel the same way. There’s a word for that.

          Regardless of who is paying me, intellectual property is what it is and my contract protects my intellectual property. I haven’t spent many years getting educated, living poorly and sacrificing family time to develop my intellectual property to have lazy uneducated people like you access it and butcher it without being compensated for all the time and effort and intellect I have spent developing it. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is. This argument that “My taxes paid for it, therefore it’s mine” is bullshit. try building a house on a highway. Your taxes didn’t pay for my brain. If you’re worried about your money, you can rest assured that the pittance I am paid is returned through increased efficiency, better returns and higher tax revenue ten-fold. It will help subsidise your zimmer frame in a couple of years. You can thank me later.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You’re right Uki, I’m sorry I was rude about your research – it sounds like quite a contribution to the people you help.

          But if I was a farmer, and you expected me to contribute a substantial amount of money to say a pest eradication programme, I would be well within my rights to demand to see the details of your research, and to have it checked by experts of my choosing, before parting with the money – regardless of who kept the any profit from IP deliverables of the research.

          Everyone in the world is being told to make sacrifices to reduce global warming – we are all well within our rights to demand to see the details of research which we paid for, upon which the demand is based.

        • All you do Eric is display just how little you understand. In your world, climate scientists would have to have their work verified by unqualified partisan deniers. You’d have people like Steve McIntyre scrutinise stuff he doesn’t understand. I suppose that would be one way to maintain ignorance because no climate scientist would willingly submit themself to that kind of professional insult and nor should they It woud be like having every brain surgeon reviewed by a podiatrist. It’s ridiculous.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Remember the old motto of The Royal Society?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba

          Nullius in verba – roughly translated, take nobodies word for it.

          The enlightenment was created by people who abhorred authority based on faith, the unquestionable power of the church, and demanded evidence to back every assertion.

          Its a shame modern scientists seem to have forgotten why this is important.

        • Oh please! The enlightenment? What next? Galileo?

          This is bullshit. This business of trying to equate climate science with religion is possibly the most insulting thing yet and for too many reasons to mention here, and then you have the hide to talk of evidence? It’s all there Eric and in bucketloads.

          You also have the hide to quote the Royal Society’s motto and hold it up like some sort of beacon of behaviour, presumably that you no doubt practice? Take nobody’s word for it? Yet you are prepared to take the words of charlatans and non experts unquestionably. You may well speak the translation as “take nobody’s word for it” but you actually practice it as “do not take the word of experts in climate science because their evidence is inconvenient for my ideology. Do take the word of non experts and charlatans, no matter how stupid that makes me look because it will allow me to maintain my wilful ignorance.”

          But presumably, since you are pontificating about the way scientists should act, you apply the “take nobody’s word for it” in all aspects of your life? When you pick up your car from the mechanic do you demand evidence that he has changed your oil? When you go to the doctor, do you go and get a second or third opinion from a newspaper columnist? When you buy an item of food at the supermarket, do you send the contents off to a laboratory to make sure it adheres to the nutrition label? Obviously you don’t because applying this kind of attitude would be paralysing, yet you wish to pontificate and single out climate scientists only who are all not to be trusted? That kind of juxtaposition you hold is absurd. The only option for you Eric, in your absurd juxtaposition where you force yourself to draw lines where your hypocrisy starts and finishes, is to actually go and become an expert yourself…but who is going to teach you? Maybe a few Cristopher Monckton Youtube videos will do the trick? Maybe reading the posts at WTFIWWAW and Climate Audit will do it? Maybe buying all the expensive books produced by non-experts whose only interest is to sell books is the key?

          Whatever, this is tiresome. Thank goodness I’m in the field for the next two weeks away from the internet doing something useful that contributes to the betterment of the world. What are your plans?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The “evidence” for dangerous anthropomorphic climate change is all in dodgy computer models, which consistently fail to deliver reliable predictions.

          There is nothing unusually catastrophic or dangerous about current climatic conditions.

        • tell that to the tens of thousands of species undergoing range shifts and coming under environmental stress as a direct result of climate change.

          Nice dodge on the rest of my comment. I’ll assume I hit the nail right on the head with that since non-reaction equals truth in your world. The polite thing to do would be to just acknowledge that I was right of course.

          Anyway, I have an early start. Goodnight EJW

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Here’s some evidence for you Uki.

          NOAA State of the Climate Report 2008

          http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

          Near-zero and even negative trends are com- mon for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

          Check it for yourself, the report I cite contains that statement.

          Given that this year marks 15 years with near zero warming, the alarmist models are busted, according to NOAA’s own report from 2008.

        • Your starting point was an anomolous year and quite exceptional. Start your 15 year trend from the year before or the year after and see what you get. You must love cherries.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Done. Guess what, its still a flatline – less than 0.1c change in the last 15 years, as opposed to 0.3c+ predicted by the models.

          http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend

          I wonder how NOAA will wriggle out of this one?

      • john byatt says:

        and yet here you are putting up HADCRUT day after day to maintain your denial

        Why not just accept GISS if you believe CRU is dodgy ?

        it was rhetorical .

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Actually its a serious concern – the world’s major temperature datasets are in the care of activists who behave like spoiled children when anyone challenges their work. So I don’t really trust the CRU either. At least Phil Jones isn’t a jailbird, and he isn’t making crazy pronouncements about boiling oceans, or getting locked up for his fanatical beliefs.

          IMO he seems less insane than Hansen – but I admit I could be wrong about that.

      • john byatt says:

        Now there is an idea, eric could take his claimed dodgy data sets and use them to convince the worlds insects, plants, animals,fish, corals that nothing is happening so they should stop changing theirr ranges etc because the warming and acidification that is driving them is all a myth.

      • john byatt says:

        So you have read storms of my grandchildren then?
        what do you base your claim that the world could never heat to the point of runaway greenhouse on, i thought he would be wrong too, then I read the ugly truth, No it does not frighten me, it would take eons, but once in progress we would never know the final outcome as we would all have succumbed to the heat eons before,

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nothing we can do to the atmosphere will cause runaway greenhouse heating. Up until 70 million years ago, CO2 levels were around 1200ppm. In previous ages, CO2 levels have been as high as 4000ppm.

          There was no runaway greenhouse, and life thrived.

          What has changed? Why would this time be any different?

      • john byatt says:

        All carbon remained buried
        the sun is now hotter…… do not worry about it eric , you would not be around to see it

        anyway you can have very high CO2 during ice ages, it takes huge levels to overcome the low abeldo effect during such times
        eric or hansen, i will go with hansen ,

        ever heard the phrase “don’t frighten the horses?”

      • john byatt says:

        Eric you have only come up against your own ignornce

        Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn’t occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

        In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions

        this is 450 million years ago .

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Wrong. Do the math.

          If a 2% change in solar output equates to a doubling of CO2 (your proposition), and solar output increases by 2% every hundred million years, then to maintain parity with today’s climate:-

          current = 400ppm
          100Ma = 800ppm
          200Ma = 1600ppm
          300Ma = 3200ppm
          400Ma = 6400ppm
          500Ma = 12800ppm
          600Ma = 25600ppm
          etc.

          The prediction of your theory would be everything prior to 400Ma or so would have been locked in a brutal permanent ice age. CO2 levels were high, but not that high.

          That is what I mean by your proposition running into the faint sun paradox.

  9. john byatt says:

    A good TIC reply to the SCD letter chambers (w5) yesterday from a mate JR

    not exactly but

    Clive to the rescue

    It took me a while to work out the implications of John chamber’s letter and how John might apply it to solving global warming

    When Australia gets too hot, we get Clive Palmer to tow us south with his TitanicII

    .,

  10. john byatt says:

    How does this guy rate on the Worrall scale

    Sunshine Coast daily

    letter

    A recent program on the ABC showed the weatherman checking sea levels in locations around Australia (supposed changes due to climate change) and comparing those levels with a line chiselled on a rock at port Arthur in the last century
    They were puzzled by the differences of the readings. Had they forgotten all land is floating on a sea of magna, Australia is moving towards india,etc?
    if you study the geology of rocks you can see the evidence of the earth’s movements from the fault lines, layers have been moved tremendous distances above their corresponding line.
    So how can you measure the supposed rise in sea levels from a mark on an unstable floating rock?
    JOHN CHAMBERS
    Golden Beach.

    FFS

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Perhaps if there was a significant SLR trend it wouldn’t be so difficult to detect reliably.

    • I can’t answer that yet John as I’m still developing the Worrall Scale. I originally considered a 1-10 scale but thought it might be more appropriate to run with a 1-7 scale which is in line with the scoring systems in many universities. There may well be an inverse relationship between a score on the Worrall Scale and the intellectual capability of completing a science degree with honours. Given that Eric is a 7 on the yet to be finalised scale, I would put John Chambers, based on that comment alone, somewhere around a 5. He seems to have some very basic understanding of plate tectonics but has an obvious flaw in his appreciation of geologic time…..amongst other things. A 5 means he is potentially curable though, with education.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      If your “dangerous” sea level rise is masked by geological movement of the Earth’s crust, that’s all you need to know about the hype behind this nonsense.

      • john byatt says:

        If all you have is claiming that it is hype, conspiracy, hoax and nonsense then you should go over to geoff brown’s blog TCS where you will find the acknowledgement of your denial that you crave.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Lets be clear about the nature of the fraud I believe occurred.

          I believe the Climategate Scientists believe what they preach. There is no indication anywhere that I have seen in the emails that the scientists do not believe in climageddon, other than the odd complaint about pressure to tell a nice tidy story from the likes of Keith Briffa.

          When they are deceptive with the evidence, it is because they don’t want to give “deniers” any leverage to distract them from their great mission to prevent humanity from destroying the world.

          But this is the problem – their mission comes first. They are activists first, scientists second. And in their zeal to promote their POV, they instantly dismiss evidence which contradicts the narrative they firmly believe, and invent conspiracy theories about big oil funded climate denial machines to explain why their mission to save the world is faltering.

        • contradictory evidence….as published in which journals? Oh, that’s right your lot has to resort ot blog review and industry magazines and dog astrology journals to get all this contradictory evidence published because the real journal editors are all in on the big conspiracy. The fact that NASA has been able to dismiss all the fake moon landing evidence is testament to their conspiratorial expertise. Elvis, has left the building in a spaceship.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Its like shooting fish…

          Climategate Email 1089318616.txt

          http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1089318616.txt

          Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last 2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future ! … I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! Cheers Phil

        • Is that it? The much examined and independently cleared “climategate”? Surely you can do better than that because if “climategate” is all you are basing your assertion that the whole peer review process is corrupt then that is an astounding admission on your part that you are completely myopic.

          What fascinates me though eric is that you accuse scientists of ignoring “evidence” yet you yourself and others like you are guilty of exactly that but on a massive scale. Let’s pretend for a moment that your “evidence” is as valid as the evidence that supports AGW. How much do you actually have? to accept it over the overwhelming evidence for AGW pushes your wilful ignorance to atmospheric proportions. Pun intended. Hypocrisy to the max.

          But let’s get back to the conspiracy. What do climate scientists whom you allege are committing acts of scientific fraud actually have to gain by engaging in a conspiracy?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Phil Jones for starters, in my opinion, is a scientific fraud.

          When James Delingpole accused Phil Jones of scientific fraud, the CRU submitted a press complaint against Delingpole. The Press Complaints Commission found Delingpole had no case to answer.

          http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100083071/uea-the-sweet-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/

          The CRU have not pressed their complaint, and now Delingpole freely accuses the CRU of fraud, and accuses the commissions which investigated Climategate of coverup and whitewash.

          Strangely they have not brought a complaint against Delingpole either. Why? Because Delingpole has compelling evidence to back his accusations.

        • Compelling argument. I’m sure the business ethics council has a good handle on unethical businesses. I’m also confident the insurance council has a good handle on policing insurance companies. Dracula and the blood bank.

          So, let’s get this straight. You will accept the finding of a quasi-independent umpire with limited terms of reference over truly independent investigations that have cleared all involved? Myopic indeed.

          Lots of people have accused me of saying libellous things over the years Eric yet noone has taken me to court yet. So my suggestions that they were idiotic deniers taking money directly from mining companies to spread information they knew to be false for personal gain, means I must be correct? Crikey, I even accused one publicly, of setting up dodgy companies to defraud ignorant investors. No law suit means I am right. What do you think?

          Of course the alternate explanation is that sometimes accusations are so ridiculous they shouldn’t be dignified with a response. Also, it could well be that when Delingpile says something negative about someone, rather than causing people to shun his target ( a prerequisite to establish defamation) it actually has the opposite effect? A bit like reverse psychology, but completely unintentional. An example might be that if Lady Gaga told me that singer X wasn’t any good, I’d take that as a ringing endorsement. If you told me that scientific paper X was garbage, I could safely assume it isn’t.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nice try – but the CRU did feel it important enough to bring a complaint, and the complaint was thrown out.

          We’re all watching Mike Mann’s libel case against the NRO with interest – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/23/breaking-mann-has-filed-suit-against-nro/

          Shows all the signs of being another hideous embarrassment for the alarmist cause. Mann has already managed to lie on his court filing – describing himself (incorrectly) as a Nobel Prize Winner.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The following is also relevant – it is a transcript interview with Richard Muller, lead author of the BEST project, who accuses the CRU of scientific fraud.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/a-fascinating-new-interview-with-prof-richard-muller-quote-on-climategate-what-they-did-was-i-think-shameful-and-it-was-scientific-malpractice/

          He hasn’t been summonsed for libel either.

        • Muller. About as credible as Anthony Watts himself. Who’s next, Pat Michaels? John Christy?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Why isn’t Muller credible? He believes in the carbon fairy, even if he is a bit of a lukewarmer. Practically one of you.

        • When he doesn’t try and pass off information that we already knew 20 years ago as new information.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Shame about the lack of warming.

      Given that you don’t think a 10% increase in CO2 since 97, with no warming, is significant, what would you count as a significant increase in CO2 with no warming?

      20%? 30%? You tell me.

  11. john byatt says:

    Remember this classic from watts and the UHI in Antarctica?

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/wuwt-follies/

  12. john byatt says:

    Anthony watts and hold the presses blog science paper, that had to be the best laugh this year,

    blog review and corrections by morons ,

    and a killer blow by Victor Venema

    http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/blog-review-of-watts-et-al-2012.html

    eric needs another for dummies paper……. homogenization

    • john byatt says:

      No there was a better laugh after all the fuss from the Watts mob they rechecked the stations, found a cooling bias at some stns, needed to be adjusted up.

      love it

  13. john byatt says:

    joyce barnaby throws hissy fit after being referred to as deranged by climate change minister combett

    Other politicians say there is some irony in Senator Joyce taking a stand against personal attacks given his unique use of language, including his description of former prime minister Kevin Rudd as a “psycho chook

    hypocrite more to the point

  14. john byatt says:

    Had to laugh at watts over his 16million for gore versus his 16thousand,

    they are all chanting that anthony won the science,

    was not big on logic nor coherence though (WOWT)

    and eric get over this no warming nonsense

    which year was the warmest eric?

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/509796main_GISS_annual_temperature_anomalies_running.pdf

    .

    • john byatt says:

      And eric the IPCC projections are spot on

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Predictions1976-2011.png

      .

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Sorry, the models said there should have been warming. Silly thermometers.

      • john byatt says:

        They are the models eric, if you are so much in denial that you can ignore both the GISS temp graph and FAR, SAR.TAR and AR4 projections, two of which underestimate the warming then I am afraid that you have no hope of ever understanding. what are you doing here apart from making a complete fool of yourself?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          We’ve discussed this before John. I don’t consider a scatter gun spread bet which covers everything from no change to a catastrophic rise to be “science”.

      • john byatt says:

        What scatter gun are you on about, as I said you are hoplessmost of those projections, the wrong ones are from the denialists those are the scatter gun spread..

        but here is a good laugh anyway.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/17/frontline-responds-to-complaints-about-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/

      • john byatt says:

        You are referring to http://www.realclimate.org/images/model11.jpg

        No you are just displaying your ignorance of ENSO and solar cycles.

        lets say that the temperature was almost at the bottom of the 95% during an el nino year,
        that would be a huge problem for the models, what we are seeing though is the temperature tracking the midrange during enso neutral conditions

        we note the strong el nino 1998 and back to back la ninas towards the end.
        I will bet you right here and now that 2012 temp will be above 2011

        how much do you want on it ?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Given the ongoing massive corruption of the surface station records, and other oddities such as NOAAs embarrassingly large TObs “adjustments”, I’d say 2012 will almost certainly be marginally higher than 2011.

          What it isn’t is 0.4c+ higher than 1997, back when we had 10% less CO2. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

          Which means, unless there is an awful lot of catchup very soon, alarmist climate sensitivity calculations are busted.

      • john byatt says:

        I take then that you do not wish to put your claims to the test, NO bet?
        have another look at the graph even 2011 is higher than 1997
        where did you get this 0.4C higher in 15 years nonsense from ?

        the ipcc projections are spot on, why build a strawman claim, Temps have been ongoing in all data sets

        Do you realise your contradiction in claiming that the warming has stopped at the same time as claiming that the data is corrupt.

        you seem to accept it for the past fifteen years but now you claim it will be corrupted this year

        what embarrassingly large adjustments, ? where is the paper that shows that?

      • john byatt says:

        I doubt that you are the only one using eric as a case study!!

      • john byatt says:

        you are a bit behind eric the USHCN data has been confirmed

        This is the US by the way, not global

        http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/a-surprising-validation-of-ushcn-adjustments/

        it is looking like a huge conspiracy now eric looks like nearly every scientist and government on earth is on it,

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Hilarious – you actually think that nonsense makes sense?

          Given that Watts has discovered at least 50% of NOAA stations have siting problems which are contaminating results with a strong urban heating effect (e.g. stations sited above asphalt parking lots, or next to waste treatment tanks or air conditioner outlets), you think it scientifically appropriate to *add* a half a degree “adjustment” to all the stations? You think you can correct such poor data with statistical break analysis?

          Given the poor quality of the data, how do you know NOAA are not throwing out the good stations, because they don’t agree with the poor station data?

        • When you have a Gaussian-like data series, applying a two factors linear model to correct for breaks is fairly standard Eric. The model is applied after break detection as it provides an appropriate coefficient of a set of heterogenous data through weighted least-squares estimation of the parameters. You use weighted least squares to correct series with missing data. It also allows for weighting of the data in line with their quality, which can be estimated with the correlation between stations. This method is equal to an exact modelling of the relative homogeneity principle. In this sort of situation it allows for unbiased estimations of the breaks affecting data series. Do you have a better method other than Watts’ blog reviewed, never to be published due to so many stats errors…umm…manuscript? It will be enlightening for you to now demonstrate your stats prowess given you feel you have the knowledge base to question methodology.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Yes actually.

          Rather than playing with numbers in a dark room, and applying ridiculous corrective factors based on untested assumptions, they could have quite easily done what Watts did – physically surveyed data collection sites, discarded the sites which were complete junk, and properly calibrated sites which weren’t total junk by sampling the immediate area of the less poorly sited measuring stations.

          They have started doing this – rather belatedly, thanks to Watts’ efforts to expose their incompetence and laziness.

        • “ridiculous corrective factors based on untested assumptions”

          Which factors? Which assumptions? Why are they “ridiculous”? Have you searched the scientific literature to determine that they are in fact “untested”?

          There you go Eric. You made the statement, now back it up. Four questions which should be easy for you to answer since you obviously feel qualified to have an opinion.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The assumptions were clearly untested, because since Watts exposed the sorry state of the NOAA surface station network, they’ve been steadily removing the most embarrassing stations.

          Take your pick Uki:-

          Either NOAA knew how bad some individual stations were, but decided to keep operating them because they couldn’t be stuffed doing a bit of paperwork.

          Or they had no idea how bad the siting of some stations were, and decided to feed a few random numbers into their global warming sausage machine.

          The nasty thing about a physical survey is it removes all sorts of opportunities to apply unjustified fudges.

        • Oh dear. Vague generalisations and nothing statements. I was really hoping for specifics but all you seem to be able to do is repeat Watts’ nonsense which was so embarrassing his coauthors have all backed away from it. Oh well. You are the gift that keeps on giving. I just wish you would man up and admit you are out of your depth.

  15. Eric Worrall says:

    Hilarious – IPCC not invited to UN COP18 Climate Change talks.

    http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=544308&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16

    I don’t know what it is. The executive secretary of the climate change secretariat has to decide. I have attended every COP and the chairman of the IPCC addresses the COP in the opening session,” he explained. (Pachauri)

    • john byatt says:

      UN representatives only attend cop meetings as observers, not as participants.
      They nominate

      Participation in COP 16/CMP 6
      UNFCCC sessions are not open to the public. Participation in COP 16/CMP 6 is limited to duly nominated representatives of Parties, observer States, United Nations organizations, admitted observer organizations and accredited press/media.

      Parties: the governments nominate their respective representatives to participate and negotiate at the sessions of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. This may include ministers, negotiators, and those who the governments consider are necessary to achieve their goals during the sessions. Notification for Parties will be issued in September 2010 and will contain the deadline for submission of nominations and other details for participation.

      United Nations System: the United Nations bodies, specialized agencies and related organizations (such as WMO, UNEP, IPCC, UNDP, the World Bank, GEF, convention secretariats etc.) are allowed to observe the proceedings. Each organization nominates a number of representatives to attend the sessions at their discretion. Notifications for UN organizations will be issued in September 2010 and will contain the deadline for submission of nominations and other details for participation.

      Observer Organizations: the Convention allows duly admitted intergovernmental organizations and civil society organizations to observe the sessions of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. UNFCCC has launched an online registration system for all sessions. Once the notification for a session has been posted, the designated contact point (DCP) of the admitted observer organization will have approximately four weeks in which to nominate names via the online registration system. No nominations will be accepted after the deadline which will be set in the notification. Information about the online registration system can be found at https://onlinereg.unfccc.int/.

      want to buy a bridge eric?

  16. john byatt says:

    Just received , will read now, others may wish to

    energy white paper

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/11/15/ewp2012-hazy-future-vision/

  17. john byatt says:

    , Eric even where I live now gets down to 4C early in the morning in winter, I usually have on a pair of shorts and a jumper at the time, if it was that temp all day it would not be a problem . at below zero I would have worn thermals as i did in Tassy,

    You would go outside in tassy in middle of winter, rugged up and start gardening, within ten minutes you are dumping jumpers,

    You said that we can all adapt, you obviously could not even adapt to chilly UK winters.
    getting warm in a cold winter is a lot easier than trying to cool down in a hot summer

  18. john byatt says:

    Eric is claiming that gas is going up because of renewable elec.

    crap eric its is profit driven
    another newspaper confirms

    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2210407/Millions-families-face-soaring-gas-electricity-bills-winter-energy-giants-prepare-boost-profits.html

    whack up the oil gas and elec and tell the goons that the price is being driven by wind,

  19. john byatt says:

    Fat Al gore climate reality 15 million

    Fat willard Watts 13,500

    Wow that was close

  20. Christine says:

    Reblogged this on 350 or bust and commented:
    Very interesting development from across the pond. It turns out that dirty energy sympathizers from inside the UK government are working to derail movement toward green energy.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Good on them, perhaps we can give them a medal or something. James has done more than anyone else in the UK to bring this nightmare to public attention, people are finally starting to wake up why they are paying so much for energy these days.

      • john byatt says:

        The real reason for UK energy price increases, it is not caused by renewalables as claimed by eric .

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232713/SSE-profits-soar-38-customers-face-winter-prices-hikes.html

        .Company profits, These companies are laughing, whacking up the prices then watching the morons blame wind power for the increases.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          From your article:

          The division recovered from operating losses of £101.4million in the previous year after a jump in average gas consumption of 28 per cent due to lower average temperatures.

          The need to pay for renewables, and legislative uncertainty probably contributed to that loss. Its quite normal for companies to create a buffer of money against the unexpected.

          These price rises could be quashed overnight, by removing obstacles to fracking, and by removing artificial price increasing measures such as enforced renewables credits (they have to purchase some of their power from renewables providers, at any price).

      • Christine says:

        “If you think mitigated climate change is expensive, try unmitigated.”
        Just ask the people of New Jersey and New York.

  21. Known Delingpoodle Eric Worrall is known on Delingpole’s blog as being as blinkered a climate science denier as Delingpole himself. Delingpole is doing everything he can to evade any responsibility for his own actions in this matter.

  22. [...] but I’ve  finally decided to feature Eric Worrall. He’s been hanging out recently at Watching the Deniers and is a great source of entertainment. It doesn’t matter what the topic is, if it has even [...]

  23. rubber taster says:

    Have a look at this – just the facts. Watch the deniers like Eric choke on their lies:

    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/?WT.svl=tv1

  24. john byatt says:

    climaterealityproject

    NEXT HOUR: Australia Pt. 1

    1986066 VIEWS SO FAR

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Summer prices John.

      • john byatt says:

        Stop with the porkies eric

        The total annual rates are based on the average use per household in the UK.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I’m not telling porkies John – I had to live with the bills I was paying.

          Remember your site mentions 18,000KWh gas energy use as being average, and 3300Kwh electricity use. But we didn’t have gas, it wasn’t economical to connect it – so our energy consumption was more expensive electricity.

          17p is a little down on the prices I was paying. The “average” price is also a little dubious, energy prices tend to soar during winter, when energy use also soars. The tariffs are also quite complex, trying to optimise tariffs against your energy use was quite complex – some of them were based on minimum energy use, which could sting you if the winter was mild.

          We felt the pinch, even though I was working in the merchant banking sector. Ordinary people, who have to pay for a high UK cost of living out of a more normal income, were really hurting.

          Why do you think some senior Tories are frantically trying to ditch alternatives, and promote gas fracking? The reason is energy prices are quickly becoming a serious election issue in the UK.

      • zoot says:

        Eric, according to your figures ($500 a month, 20p per kwh) you were using 1600+ kwh per month, which is 19,200 kwh per year. Your house was so inefficient it took 6 times the average power to heat it.

        Pull the other one, it plays Jingle Bells.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          If you have a closer look at the table supplied by John, you will see that the average gas use is 18,000 KWh. Most houses in the UK use gas for heating.

          Since we didn’t have gas, instead of burning 3000KWh of electricity and 18,000 KWh of gas, we had to burn 20+KWh of electricity.

          Gas is not available to people in some rural locations, people who are often not the richest people in Britain (there are some very poor, isolated rural places), and people who were in our situation. Our house was built in what was originally someone’s back yard. Gas was never hooked up. Hooking it up would have cost thousands, money which I didn’t have to spare – and would have required permission from neighbours to dig up their back yards.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Something else to consider as well.

          People in Britain only have the option of using cheap gas, because cheap fossil fuels are available, as an alternative to expensive electricity, some of it sourced from alternative sources such as wind turbines.

          If you guys have your way, the gas to people’s homes will be shut off, and everyone in the UK will have to use expensive alternative electricity to heat their houses.

          Thank goodness noone has attempted to shut down British use of gas – yet.

        • ouch…again. When he constantly lies to himself………

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Care to be more specific uki? Or are you just mumbling incoherently to yourself?

      • john byatt says:

        Eric makes living in england sound like siberia,

        England

        Over England the mean annual temperature at low altitudes varies from about 8.5 °C to 11 °C, with the highest values occurring around or near to the coasts of Cornwall (in the south west).

        Winter temperatures average 4.4 °C (40 °F )

        Summer temperatures average about 15.6 °C (60 °F ()

        Too cheap to buy a bit of thermal gear for his kids, temps can get down eric but huddled under a doona for the winter with these averages is stupid.

        I mean what temps are you talking about eric and for how long?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Noone in their right mind endures “average” temperatures of 4.4c (sometimes a lot colder) and damp conditions, if there is an option to heat their home to something reasonable. You might be happy to see your kids suffer with chesty coughs which last for weeks, or damp and mould growing on everything, but normal people do not choose to endure such conditions of their own free will.

          Remember its not just home heating. In winter, in the UK, most days nothing dries if you put it out on the line, so you have to dry your clothes either by using a clothes dryer, or by hanging them in front of the fire.

      • zoot says:

        Quoth Eric:

        And we didn’t even live in the cold part of the UK – we were living in Southampton, about as warm as the UK gets.

        We also had a big coal / wood burner which helped a little, and double glazing / insulation, but it gets bitterly cold and damp in Britain in the winter.

        But we didn’t have gas, it wasn’t economical to connect it – so our energy consumption was more expensive electricity.

        So how much did the coal cost? Or did you not use the big coal/wood burner because you were worried about AGW?

        • eworrall1 says:

          £70 / 50 kg bag from memory.

          But no one burned coal all the time – way too expensive. Instead we bought wood from people we met through word of mouth, who could obtain it from the New Forest, no questions asked.

          Of course even a large wood pile doesn’t last long, when you’re running a 6kw burner as hard as you can to keep the living room warm. And we still had to burn coal at night – coal burns a lot longer than wood.

      • john byatt says:

        God they saw you coming

        Coal 50kg bag £ 15 per bag £ 20 per bag 9 kWh per kg £ 0.039 per kWh

      • john byatt says:

        Just ordered 4 bags, price includes delivery at your Uk location

        Traditional (Medium) – 50 Kg bag
        OPEN SACK tipped into coal bunker
        (inc. delivery & 5% VAT)

        (£50 minimum total order)
        Price: (1 to 4 bags) £21.30
        Price: (5 to 9 bags) £20.80
        Price: (10 to 19 bags) £20.30
        Price: (20 or more bags) £19.30

        so you quote more than twice that price

  25. john byatt says:

    Lived in Tasmania for couple of years, bought thermal underwear, winter was a breeze and I build my own woodheater which used second hand sleepers, about $10 a week to heat up all winter, huge house

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Living under a duvet to save heating bills is a pretty unpleasant way to live, but its what a lot of people in Britain have to do these days.

      We did it, during 2002, which was a bad year for our business. Without enough heating and ventilation, everything in the house gets horribly damp, to the point where the walls start dripping off the walls, if you don’t keep the house reasonably warm. In winter you only get around 7 hours of sunlight per day – continuous cold, damp and mould can lead to serious health problems.

      • john byatt says:

        You do not need to live under a doona, you buy the best quality thermal underwear,
        http://www.damart.com.au/Product_Category.aspx?ParentCategoryID=44

        Buy a pensioner thermal wear for xmas,
        this is the twenty first century for goodness sake, governments could provide such at much reduced prices if they had the will, stop blaming renewables, for your winter heating bill.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Yes, this is the 21st century. Why the h*ll should I have to suffer damp and cold, health problems, and wear thermal underwear, and shiver when I have a shower, when gas fracking, and cancellation of mandatory renewables credits, could make decent warmth affordable?

          Why should my little girl live on the edge of health problems from cold, damp, and mould, when energy should be affordable.

          In any case, all in the past – we’re living in sunny Queensland now.

  26. john byatt says:

    Have not bothered to watch the WUWT TV marathon, but the verdict is, painfully amateur- ish

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I’ve been watching a bit of it, in between other things.

      They’re doing a pretty good job of presenting their points, but my reception is a bit glitchy, the presentation is interrupted by ads every so often, and there’s been a few production mistakes.

      I guess you have to make do with the technology you can get your hands on, when you’re not funded by big green, or bankrolled by sympathetic politicians. Watts didn’t get half a million dollar bailout from Obama’s stimulus fund, the way alarmists like Mann did. And Watts is not a darling of the Merchant banking / carbon trading set, like Al Gore is.

    • rubber taster says:

      WUWT -TV: amateur denial porn for the feeble minded.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You guys seem quite obsessed about the WUWT broadcast. But your normal response to people who disagree with you getting airtime often seems to be frantic anger – look how crazy things got when Watts got to speak on the PBS special.

  27. Eric Worrall says:

    Energy prices in the UK have become a national scandal, no small thanks to the rush to renewables, and opposition to cheap energy such as gas fracking.

    When we lived there, in winter we were paying up to $500 / month to heat our small 2 br bungalow. And we didn’t even live in the cold part of the UK – we were living in Southampton, about as warm as the UK gets.

    People in the UK are sympathetic to the green cause, thanks to relentless brainwashing from the BBC (28 gate anyone?). But now that many people are driven to choose between heating and eating, fripperies such as concern about the planet are taking a distant second place in many people’s lives.

    • john byatt says:

      So all your heating was electric, what was the Kwh rate?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        About 20p / kwh. We also had a big coal / wood burner which helped a little, and double glazing / insulation, but it gets bitterly cold and damp in Britain in the winter. You have to keep the house warm, or you run serious risks with your health.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 769 other followers

%d bloggers like this: