close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20110108132430/http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/

Germany is such a green and pleasant land

BERJAYAWith apologies to King James for reworking St Mark’s chapter and verse 10:25… It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a coal fired power station to be built the United Kingdom.

There are bountiful supplies of coal in stable countries which could secure our power needs for decades years while new reliable and efficient energy sources are developed. But no. We have to put up with the gurning lhuhnatic ensconced at the Dept of Energy and Climate Change muttering that coal is dirty and nuclear is dangerous and lavishing billions of our tax pounds on unreliable and inefficient wind turbines that produce barely 22% of their installed capacity.

Germany is often cited by the eco lhuhnes as an example of a forward thinking, green nation. But while we are conned into aspiring to Germany’s passion for renewables the reality of Germany’s energy strategy is carefully airbrushed from the script and the windmills trump all. Then suddenly it dawns on some that the things don’t work when they are most needed. As EU Referendum observes:

Gradually, though, the media is getting the point, and as the facts leach out, even the warmists in The Guardian are not going to be able to hold the line. But what is going to sink the warmist ship, one suspects, is the fickleness of our EU colleagues, who might be talking the talk on greenery but, on the other hand, they are investing heavily in coal. The particular culprit here is Germany, and we have recent acquired a list of new coal projects in the pipeline – listed below:

The amount of power the new German plants will generate, shown on EU Referendum, dwarfs the amount of energy the Con-Dem’s windmills will produce while being many times more cost effective.

The folly of the government’s energy policy demonstrates how ill served we are by the braingreenwashed ideologues whose fantasies are condemning us to a future of excessively expensive and unreliable energy. And it is being done on the basis of an illusory climate change ‘crisis’ supposedly driven by a trace gas, CO2, of which barely 5% of the atmospheric volume comes from mankind’s emissions.

ConservativeHome examines major issue of the day

It is nice to know that as the effects of harmful government policies begin dawn on ordinary people the self proclaimed home of the Conservative grassroots is in scrutiny mode and directing some of its laser-like focus on the weighty issues that determine this nation’s present and future.

5 Star Blogging

BERJAYAA daily selection of five blog posts recommended to you for being thought provoking, insightful, covering interesting subjects or comprising quality writing…

1. The Hockey Schtick on Natural Variability, Not CO2, Accounts For Late 20th Century Warming

2. The Moose on Grow Your Own Veg. The NHS Are Paying

3. Witterings From Witney on British Liberties

4. Not A Sheep on How Many Scientists Think Humans Contribute To Global Warming?

5. the Air Vent on Tell Us What You Really Think

Of Course Our Climate Is Changing

You may remember this popular post written by AM reader, Clive Francis, An Open Letter to the Chancellor.  Clive has contributed another excellent piece as a guest post for the blog titled ‘Of Course Our Climate Is Changing‘.

At just over 10 pages long it is too big to upload as a user friendly post, so it has been converted to a PDF and is now available to download.  But please do come back to this page to share your thoughts and comments. Many thanks Clive!

Download: Of_Course_Our_Climate_Is_Changing (PDF 201kb)

Incandescent about the light bulb swindle

BERJAYANews from the United States.

Congressman Joe Barton (Republican – Texas 6th) has introduced a Bill in the House to repeal the 2007 law that effectively bans incandescent bulbs in the US, starting in 2012.

On his website Rep. Barton explains:

This is about more than just energy consumption, it is about personal freedom. Voters sent us a message in November that it is time for politicians and activists in Washington to stop interfering in their lives and manipulating the free market. The light bulb ban is the perfect symbol of that frustration. People don’t want congress dictating what light fixtures they can use.

Traditional incandescent bulbs are cheap and reliable. Alternatives, including the most common replacement Compact Fluorescent Lights or CFL’s, are more expensive and health hazards – so why force them on the American people? From the health insurance you’re allowed to have, to the car you can drive, to the light bulbs you can buy, Washington is making too many decisions that are better left to you and your family.

Take a bow, Congressman. You seem to understand what representative democracy means. But then, America is about the last country that has something resembling a functioning democracy.

If only the UK was sovereign and had politicians like Barton. Just think, we might even have politicians who would listen to the people they serve and tell the self selecting and unaccountable elite of the European Commission to carefully locate their unnecessary, expensive and harmful ban on incandescent light bulbs in their deep, dark anatomical crevices.

(Hat tip: Green Hell)

David Chaytor jailed for 18 months

It is a great pleasure to see that the former Labour MP for Bury, David Chaytor, has been sentenced to 18 months in prison. Justice sometimes works after all.

Chaytor pleaded guilty to three counts of false accounting – in which he stole around £20,000 from the taxpayer. He was prosecuted under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 after making claims for IT consultancy work he was never charged for and for renting two homes which were owned by him and his mother.

BERJAYA

He was one of four parliamentarians – the others being Jim Devine, Elliot Morley and Lord Hanningfield – who fought tooth and nail to avoid prosecution in the Courts by claiming parliamentary privilege. They had hoped to be treated differently to everyone else in society, as if they were above the law, and as a result only get a slap on the wrist from parliamentary authorities for criminal offences.

Now Chaytor has been sent down after pleading guilty, the others must be feeling very worried indeed. We can look forward with relish to seeing what happens to the other defendants who deny wrongdoing but nevertheless treated our money as their own.

Not the sort of Spring and Summer the warmists want

Weather Action’s Piers Corbyn has predicted in his news bulletin that 2011 is to be another year of weather extremes:

Solar-lunar driven major jet stream blocking will continue through January and the whole of 2011 giving more extreme cold and snowy / blizzardy spells in parts of USA, Britain and Europe though January continuing into February and then not the sort of Spring and Summer the warmists want.

We don’t know what the Met Office thinks will happen beyond May. March, April and May are rated as having 40-60% probability of experiencing above average temperatures based on December’s published probability map for Europe (saved for future reference) – in other words a coin toss. Although the MO seems rather confident that the eastern Mediterranean will be warmer than usual during those months.

Far from being the warmest year on record…

Yes, Met Office again… There has been plenty of media coverage of claims that 2010 was the warmest, or close to the warmest year on record.

But while the Met Office has been focusing the attention of the media on the record cold December statistic with its right hand, its left hand has quietly confirmed that in the UK 2010 was the 12th coldest year since the ‘national series’ of weather recording started in 1910.

BERJAYA

So which of these is the bigger story? The one that tells us we have just had our coldest winter month in 100 years? Or the one that, against a backdrop of a so called ‘consensus’ telling us that runaway global warming is transforming the planet, the UK has just experienced its 12th coldest year in the same period? Is this another example of attempts to ‘hide the decline’?

A record breaking month can be dismissed as an anomaly and fit with the global warming narrative. But a year-long record that shows temperatures have been warmer for 88 of the last 100 years calls the whole global warming hypothesis into question. Predictions made in the 1980s and 1990s of what would happen now are crumbling in the face of observation.

But the climate change wealth redistribution vehicle called the ‘money train‘ rolls on with the full support – including copious amounts of our money – of the government. In spite of the growing evidence that there is no crisis, the arrogant ignorance of the political class is telling. This is what David Cameron said in December 2009:

‘A very small number of people take a different view on the science, but the policy is driven by me, and that is the way it is going to be.’

It is not a very small number. No matter, accountability for the scandalous defrauding of the public that is being perpetrated can rest with Cameron too. It is no suprise this 12th coldest year fact has been played down to the extent that hardly anyone knows about it? Just whose interests are being served here? As if we don’t know.

Autonomous Mind 1st anniversary

BERJAYA

Autonomous Mind started one-year ago today and the time has flown by!

Thank you to all the readers and commenters who make writing the blog worthwhile. Thanks also to all those generous bloggers, Tweeters and Facebook users who link to and share my humble posts.

And a special thank you to those who have given me huge support and encouragement. You know who you are. I am incredibly grateful.

5 Star Blogging

BERJAYAA daily selection of five blog posts recommended to you for being thought provoking, insightful, covering interesting subjects or comprising quality writing…

1. HauntingTheLibrary on James Hansen 1986: Within 15 Years Temps Will be Hotter Than Past 100,000 Years

2. Nourishing Obscurity on Energy Sources Not Mentioned By The PTB

3. SPPI Blog on Law Center, Taxpayers Request University Of Virginia Documents Pertaining To Climate Scientist Michael Mann

4. Biased BBC on Box And Cox

5. England Expects on Forget The Scooter Mark, There Is A Juggernaut In The Room

And a bonus post that is heartily recommended…

6. Warning Signs on Destroying The Credibility Of Science

Blogroll

The blogroll here on AM has been updated this evening.

However I’m conscious there may be some blogs that link here, or some good blogs that really should be linked to from here, that might be missing from the roll. If I have missed your blog or you spot any omissions I would be very grateful if you would let me know via the comments or the email address on the right of this page.

Thanks!

When will George Monbiot acquaint with the truth?

BERJAYAReaders may be familiar with The Guardian’s George Monbiot publishing a story two days ago in which he said: ‘Let’s take the housing fight to wealthy owners with empty spare rooms’. Monbiot says there is a ‘hidden truth about our housing crisis is that it is driven by under-occupation’.

By way of a solution Monbiot believes people who live in houses with spare bedrooms should be compelled by legislation to take in complete strangers, or pay more in tax:

‘I would also like to see an expansion of the Homeshare scheme, which could address several growing problems at once. Instead of paying rent, lodgers – who are vetted and checked by the charity that runs the project – help elderly homeowners with shopping, cleaning, cooking, gardening or driving. Typically they agree to spend 10 hours a week helping out, and to sleep in the house for at least six nights out of seven.

‘It needs to be researched, debated, fought over. It needs to turn political. I can understand why neither the government nor the opposition dares to think about it: none of the major parties wants to pick a fight with wealthy householders. So it’s up to us to give them no choice, by turning under-occupation into an issue they can’t avoid. It cannot be left to the market, as the market works for the rich.’

Never mind there are thousands of houses standing empty around the country (look at Salford as an example) he would rather further his class war on the ‘wealthy’, even if their house was inherited or bought for a lot less than it’s worth now. As you would expect the piece was lambasted by many as another example of supporters of big state meddling trying to exert control over the lives of others, such as this small selection here, here and here.  In typical fashion Monbiot, laughably describing himself as thick skinned, has reacted as if his dermis was thinner than a very fine cigarette paper:

Regular readers will know that I have a thick skin. In view of the response I get from the army of trolls and astroturfers who spend much of their time attacking me, I need it. But even by their usual standards of viciousness, the attacks have taken a particularly nasty turn over the past few months. Now a new meme is circulating: that I am a millionaire, living alone in a vast house like a reincarnation of Howard Hughes. I’m painfully aware that if you don’t address such myths, they quickly spread, and become established as facts. So I’m going to take an unusual and risky step, and lay out the extent of my wealth.

It won’t take very long. My only valuable asset is my house, which I bought in 2007 for £278,000. That’s very expensive by the standards of most countries, but not in the UK, where house-prices are ridiculous. In 2010, the average house price in this country was £246,000. Not all of it is mine: the bank owns part of it.

And no, I don’t live there by myself. I have a daughter and two lodgers, who occupy what would otherwise have been the spare rooms. There are no spare bedrooms in my house.

BERJAYA

Amid the wailing and gnashing of teeth, Monbiot’s ‘thick skinned reaction’ about his house (above, courtesy of The Devil) reveals his inability to stop using highly selective details and spin like a top. Setting aside questions about what Monbiot earns in rent and what tax he pays on that income, he just can’t help himself. Monbiot tries to obfuscate the real worth of his house (£278,000) in the area he lives by saying that in 2010, the average house price in this country (the UK) was £246,000.

Monbiot’s pile is located in a country – Wales. In Machynlleth, Powys to be precise. If Monbiot was honest he would have linked to this BBC house price analysis instead of the one in his quote. His house is worth not just £32,000 more than the UK average, but a whopping £94,100 more than the Powys average. Puts a slightly different perspective on it, does it not? It is very expensive by Powys standards.

But there was no way he would put that into its proper context because it would make his argument all the more fatuous. No wonder we cannot trust anything he says, on this or climate change. Monbiot likes to say: ‘Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.’ I can feel his loathing already… It’s like a badge of honour.

From ‘hide the decline’ to hide the truth

BERJAYAMichael Mann worked at the University of Virginia’s (U.Va.) department of environmental sciences when he produced what was hailed at the time as the “smoking gun” affirming the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming – the Hockey Stick – which is one of the most high-profile claims used to advance massive economic-intervention policies in the name of “global warming.”

Mann’s records have remained at U.Va. since his departure from the faculty. They were created by Mann who was using taxpayers money in the shape of research grants. The Washington Examiner picks up what happened when a request was made to see the research data so others could test whether it was sound:

In response to a previous FOIA request, U.Va. denied these records existed. However, during Cuccinelli’s [Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli] pre-investigation under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (“FATA”), a 2007 law passed unanimously by Virginia’s legislature, which clearly covers the work of taxpayer-funded academics, U.Va. stunningly dropped this stance. For this reversal, the taxpayers of Virginia owe Cuccinelli a debt of gratitude.

Still, the school has spent upward of half a million dollars to date fighting Cuccinelli’s pursuit, now before the Virginia Supreme Court. However, Virginia’s transparency statute FOIA gives the school one week to produce the documents, and offers no exemption for claims U.Va. is using to block Cuccinelli’s inquiry.

These e-mails and other documents relate to claims made by Michael Mann to obtain, and claim payment under, certain taxpayer-funded grants. Mann worked at the university’s department of environmental sciences when he produced what was hailed at the time as the “smoking gun” affirming the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming.

First there was the blatant lie that the records did not exist, which was only dropped when the pre-investigation under the state Fraud Against Taxpayers Act began.

Then the supposed justification for withholding the records was given as ‘academic freedom’.  But U.Va. was perfectly happy to release emails and other material to Greenpeace that were compiled by Patrick Michaels, who also formerly worked in the same university department but was sceptical of Mann’s claims and the notion of a climate catastrophe. U.Va. has no legal basis for refusing the FOI, however:

In court in August, U.Va. opted against robustly defending, as a legal argument, its academic-freedom rationale for refusing to produce the records. Yet even this week, it is asking the Virginia Supreme Court to deny Cuccinelli’s request for documents possibly showing whether the dense Hockey Stick smoke indeed indicates fire.

So, just what is contained in Michael Mann’s records that makes the University of Virginia and/or Mann so desperate to withhold them from scrutiny? What is it they have to hide? The truth, perhaps?

Hat tip: Real Science

Met Office continues to hide inconvenient facts

It is amusing in the current rarefied atmosphere (another pun, sorry) that the Met Office has a page dedicated to self praise for its forecast accuracy during ‘The Big Freeze – Nov-Dec 2010′.  A couple of examples of the department telling readers ‘we told you so’ include:

Earlier this month, following the severe snow in Scotland’s central belt, a member of the public writing on The Scotsman’s website said: “The snow WAS forecast on (the Met Office) website yesterday afternoon for midnight 3am 6am etc. They are not always right but they were with this one.”

and

Earlier this week (w/e 24 December) the Daily Telegraph’s leader column said: “The weekend’s heavy snowfall was forecast with something approaching pinpoint accuracy by the Met Office.”

So we have a forecast range of several hours and a couple of days warning of a band of snow already evident near the UK moving in. The Met Office can feel rightly pleased with its short range hit rate. But is that triumphalist page giving a full and honest account of events?

A table on that page still raises questions about whether the Met Office is being selective with the information it shares and whether it has deliberately omitted key milestones from its ‘Met Office big freeze timeline’ which was last updated today. To back up this claim it is necessary for me to refer once again to a post on this blog about the severe weather warning for Northern Ireland published by the BBC on 26th December 2010 (screenshot below).

BERJAYA

The Met Office ‘timeline’ for that date is shown below.

BERJAYA

That BBC article publicising the severe weather warning certainly said nothing about a marked change to milder weather.  There was no sleet, no snow and far from freezing conditions and ice the temperature was 6-7C, with virtually all snow gone by the morning of the 27th.

Curiously this event, which would result in a big red cross rather than a green tick on the table, is missing. The only reason I know about the forecast inaccuracy was because I was in Northern Ireland at the time and, given the conditions at the time, was in a state of disbelief about the warning.

So this begs the question, were there other wildly inaccurate short term forecasts in other areas that have also been conveniently left off the table to make the Met Office’s accuracy appear better than it actually was? The ‘probability’ exceeds the Met Office’s 80% figure for a warmer than average winter…

Update: Examples are appearing in the comments… thank you to those who are writing in!

5 Star Blogging

BERJAYAA daily selection of five blog posts recommended to you for being thought provoking, insightful, covering interesting subjects or comprising quality writing…

1. Climate Change Dispatch on Isn’t This The Car Of The Future?

2. Your Freedom And Ours on Nothing Like A Healthily Growing Backlash

3. Ockham’s Razor on Hague Has A Blinding Glimpse Of The Obvious

4. Subrosa on Are You A Flasher? Be Warned

5. HauntingTheLibrary on IPCC Green Doctor Prescribes End To Democracy To Solve Global Warming

Why issue them in the first place?

A reader, D Sanders, has emailed me with a link to a Met Office article on their website that appears to have been published at the end of October 2010. Mr (Mrs?) Sanders asks whether this backs up the Met Office’s claim that it did not predict above average temperatures for this winter. The article is reproduced below (just click to enlarge):

BERJAYA

The answer to that question is no. There is nothing ‘selective’ about the probability map issued by the Met Office in October that clearly shows the it believed November, December and January had an 80% probability of being warmer than average in Scotland and southern England and a 60-80% probability of being warmer than average in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. There is no other possible manner of interpreting the information.

If the probability maps are not to be taken as a ‘guide to the coming winter’ as it was in October, then what purpose do they serve and why issue them in the first place? You can be sure that if the probability become the reality the Met Office would have used the map as supporting evidence of their predictive accuracy. It cannot simply be discounted because the Met Office’s view of this winter was way off target.

The Met Office is trying to have it both ways and playing a game of semantics. By not having the word ‘forecast’ on the map they believe that gives them immunity from standing by what they believed the winter would be like. It is like writing on a piece of paper that you intend to punch your next door neighbour, but writing below it that this does not constitute a threat.

But the real icing on the cake (pardon the pun) is that the disclaimer article published in case the forecast was as wrong as previous ones even has the file name ‘probability-forecast’. One wonders just how stupid they can get.

Where are Gore’s hurricanes?

A great piece on Watts Up With That? which takes Al Gore’s predictions in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ that global warming and hurricanes are intrinsically connected and that warming results in stronger storms.

The media frequently refers to an increase in hurricane frequency, strength and damage as evidence of global warming, and it is a mantra that people seem to be accepting as a fact. Only there is no proven connection. The WUWT piece includes one section that is particularly worth sharing when confronted with trite assertions that man is warming the planet and causing harmful climate disruption:

‘With Copenhagen, Cancun, and the hottest year ever come and gone, you would think that global climate disruption was spinning up cyclones with reckless abandon.  Remember, after Katrina in 2005,  scientistspublishedalarmingpapers linking increases in hurricane activity worldwide to global warming.  Fast forward 5-years: the inconvenient truth is that aside from the Atlantic basin, global tropical cyclone or hurricane activity during 2010 has tanked to the lowest levels in decades.’

- Ryan Maue

Sadly, Al Gore could not be reached for comment.

Bastardi: Don’t disband the Met Office

BERJAYAA cautionary post on his Accuweather blog from Joe Bastardi may give one or two people pause for thought in the current storm surrounding the Met Office.

While recognising some of the central problems undermining the Met Office, namely the Julia Slingo argument that there is no way they could see the cold accurately without spending tens of millions of pounds on a new supercomputer; and the controversy that the Met Office is saying it saw the cold, though the computer said warm, Bastardi says in his ‘Wednesday Early‘ post:

But I am not in favor of the UKMET or any other government weather agencies globally being disbanded. They do alot of good. I am in favor of them a) making sure agendas are not involved and b) understanding they supply the crucial infrastructure needed to advance the forecast, but that is where they should be.

There are some excellent people at the Met Office who do a good job in challenging circumstances. For me there is no argument about that. But the major problem with the Met Office is that it has been hijacked by people who are beholden to a politicised agenda – man made global warming – and allow this to dictate the forecasting approach of the organisation.

And to compound this, when their agenda driven output is ridiculed for its very visible inaccuracies, they resort to spin and distortion in an attempt to rewrite history and claim they were right all along. The answer is not to disband the Met Office, as some have suggested. It is to either:

i) replace the leadership with people without any agenda or preconceptions about climate change who will just focus on solid meterology and producing accurate forecasts within the public sector

ii) privatise the department and make it wholly reliant providing accurate forecasts in the competitive commercial sector, which will to force it to adopt methods that remove its global warming bias

However, no more public money should be put into the Met Office to make it a more attractive proposition for privatisation. In its current form the Met Office is not fit for purpose, it is failing the public and wasting our money and its leadership is deserving of rigorous scrutiny. That is the purpose of the relentless focus on that department at this time.

No one should confuse that purpose with any supposed effort to close the department down. We just want it to become an honest broker that forecasts weather as effectively as the independent providers.

5 Star Blogging

BERJAYAA daily selection of five blog posts recommended to you for being thought provoking, insightful, covering interesting subjects or comprising quality writing…

1. Delphius’ Debate on Met Office Appear To Be Shitting Bricks

2. EU Referendum on How So Very Convenient

3. Bishop Hill on Bob Carter On Carbon Tax

4. UKK41 on Switzerland: EU Bullying

5. Robin Shepherd on UK Embassy Staff In Jerusalem Charged With Gun-Running For Hamas

A message from UK taxpayers to the Met Office

BERJAYACourtesy of Watts Up With That?

Next Page »


Subscribe to Autonomous Mind.

Email Me

autonomousmindATmailDOTcom
BERJAYA
BERJAYA
BERJAYA

Autonomous Mind Supports

BERJAYA
BERJAYA
BERJAYA
BERJAYA
BERJAYA
BERJAYA
BERJAYA
BERJAYA
BERJAYA

Autonomous Mind Archive

BERJAYA